Liberals and Conservatives Part 2 (Imaginary Dialogue with Joe Scarborough)

Exhorting both liberals and conservatives to fully "see" their colleagues opposite is much easier to write than to execute such an encounter.
There are so many obstacles to a full encounter, and let's remember it was Martin Buber, the giant Jewish scholar and theologian who, in "I and Thou" posited the notion that in the intersect where "you and I" meet fully, vulnerable, exposed, risking all, yet nevertheless fully participating in the encounter, that at that moment and in that space, G-- is present. And while relatively profound encounters can and often do occur between like-minded, and friendly colleagues, it takes considerably more courage, stamina, risk and spiritual strength to meet those with whom we do not agree or with whom we do not see "eye to eye".
Such moments are usually never forgotten, able to recalled in their intimate detail months if not years later, as some kind of epiphany. When a father witnesses the birth of his son or daughter, amid the pain and distress of the mother, there is an encounter of several "I's and Thou's" with life-changing potential.
At the moment when life leaves our body, mind and spirit, for those accompanying the person, there is a moment of full encounter with the great mystery, just as in birth.
Potentially, any phone call, or good-bye could turn out to be life-changing in its transformative energy, especially if it turns out to be a final one between two people.
There are encounters which float through our individual memories, when, with someone significant we said something we would love to retract, or they said something they wish they could withdraw, or, conversely, one person, or perhaps even both, said something that made such a huge difference, its ripples continue to dance across the pond of our life.
However, such encounters, if we are to begin the process of even considering "seeing" another person with a very different and, in our view, quite suspect world view, are too large, too momentous and therefore too risky to contemplate for our purposes.
I want to say to people like Joe Scarborough, former Republican Congressman from Florida in the 1990's, current co-host of Morning Joe on MSNBC, avowed and committed fiscal conservative, "But Joe, this struggle in the U.S. government and economy is not primarily about dollars, but about people. And people are not defined by their dollars, their access to dollars, their stash of dollars, nor their pursuit of those dollars. And the tax rate, as a part of that scorecard, is less important than what those people believe, what those people feel, yes feel, about the current state of their neighbourhood, their town or city, their state and their country. And those feelings are not exclusively, nor even primarily generated by the number of dollars they have, or have to pay to Uncle Sam. What matters to those people is whether they are part of something in which they have trust, confidence and hope. And those qualities, in their perception too are not defined nor determined by the scale of dollars in their savings, investment, chequing or off-shore accounts. They want to know that they are being told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and they want to know that, if they tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, they will get a fair hearing.
And, from at least the last decade of war, "truth has been the first and most lasting and final casualty".
And I can hear Joe Scarborough pushing back, "Yes, but our country is nearly bankrupt, and there seems to be no political will to rein in spending on the part of the White House, even if the Speaker caves on tax increases for the very wealthy.
And we are past blaming any single party for the debt and deficit, but it will take an epic effort from both parties, and their leadership, 'to right this ship'."
To which I want to respond, "Joe, did you hear my premise! The people are not defined by their incomes, nor is the country defined by its balance sheet. We have commodified our lives, our country's life, our corporations, our churches, our universities and even our motives for supporting primary and secondary education. We believe, wrongly, that we are all living to serve the GNP, the Dow, the NASDAQ, the Standard and Poors Bond Ratings, just as we believe that the professional sports leagues and their owners and players worship at the altar of winning, and of ticket sales based on ratings, as is the case in the television industry. Do you think I watch/listen to your show to jack up the ratings so you will get a bigger pay cheque? Do you think I believe that whatever you say to your audience is dedicated to growing ratings? Do you think that each adolescent boy tries out for the football and basketball team just because he wants to play in the NFL or the NBA? No, Joe, he tries out because he wants to prove himself, to challenge himself, to find another piece of his life-puzzle and path, and to provide some energy, and life and excitement to what could otherwise be a somewhat dull and dreary decade-plus of classroom time. Let's for a few moments, agree that human beings are not either the product of, nor the generators of money!
They need some money for their basic necessities, and for some R and R and for some saving and investment. Nevertheless, the pursuit of and the acquisition of money is not, never has been, and never will be the purpose of a human life.
And the sooner we can agree on that premise, the sooner we will more likely agree that our choices need to have a different framing, when we negotiate the debt and deficit cutting measures.

Liberals and conservatives need to "see" into the gift of the other

Listening to the endless chatter of the political class in the United States, mostly on MSNBC, but also on CNN, CBC and CTV, I am struck by the lines being drawn around the current definitions of conservatives and liberals.
Of course, there are the obvious:
conservatives support:

• big corporations,
• low taxes,
• small government,
• large military and security operations,
• the right to bear arms
• prayer in schools

while conservatives oppose:    

• government action against climate change and global warming     
• abortion
• gun control
• government hand-outs like food stamps,welfare
• government regulations especially of business
• unions in both the public and private sector

                                                    
On the other hand, liberals support:

• the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively
• a woman's right to choose
• government action to regulate the financial service sector and the market
• gun control legislation
• government programs for the most needy
• access to a full education for all
• government initiatives to limit global warming and climate change

And liberals oppose:

• the widening income gap
• the demise of the middle class
• the emasculation of the labour movement
• The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United

No doubt there are other both significant and subtle differences.
What strikes me is that these views are based on different assumptions.
In the case of the conservatives, the individual is paramount, and should be free to rise or fall depending on his/her own merits, decisions, aptitudes, intelligence, connections, wealth, courage, discipline, ambition, and "values", of course based on a cloning of those values from others of like mind.
The liberals, on the other hand, consider the society, the collective, the community and the nation, the gestalt, or the zeitgeist first, and how that supports or blocks the development of the individual. They believe that a 'rising tide raises all boats,' and their job is to enhance the tide with that rise always in view.
In another time, when there were few, if any, government programs, individuals had to 'make it on their own' and there are legions of stories about pioneers who fought the elements, wild animals, and poor land to scratch enough harvest to feed their families. As pioneers, most of them believed in some God, worshipped that God in some formal manner, usually with others from the adjacent farms. And as 'believers' they undoubtedly heard homilies dedicated to the various 'sacred' dates on the calendar, to the principle of helping those less fortunate when in need, and to the principle of hard work and family loyalty. They also probably read, or heard about laws from such documents as the decalogue, common known as the Ten Commandments, about not taking another's life, or another's wife, or about honouring fathers and mothers, and not coveting another's goods, wealth or circumstances. And, many may even have believed the world was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth, or that, through their own hard work and discipline, they would be rewarded, after death, with a life in some form of heaven.
There is a certain assuredness, a certainty in this world about what is right and what is wrong, about how to live and how to die. It is that certainty, that confidence that still appeals to many, especially in a very much more complicated world. People who want and need to know what the rules are, where they stand in relation to those rules, how they relate to authority, how they are measured by that authority, and how they 'compete' with their neighbours on whatever scale of competition is considered appropriate and relevant are generally going to fall to the side of the conservative mind-set. Such a mind-set adores and seeks order, it needs and establishes the rules of the game, often relying on a kind of certain scholarship that has been held the longest, as part of the foundation for that mind-set. In order to support their belief, they are also confident that God is on their side, without much, if any, doubt in their mind.
These people are often interested in keeping score, keeping accounts, keeping records, keeping boundaries, keeping traditions, keeping routines and disciplines that have served them and their forebearers for generations. History, for many of them, verges on the sacred. The future, by comparison, is less certain, more tenuous and much more frightening. For these people, they find success in learning and following a disciplined profession, a calling, a skill-based exercise, some of them more complicated than others. They have a perception of coherence to their world view, that keeps their life thoughts, actions, perceptions and beliefs focussed. And while they explore both new thoughts, places, practices and ideas, they do so with scepticism, hesitation, doubt and even, in some cases, fear. The rely heavily on 'authority' figures that have their respect because they have, through their demonstrated expertise, earned respect. So they find expert advice in books, in learned periodicals, in scholarly journals, and in movies and entertainment crafted by the best writers, actors, directors and producers.
They also, in many cases, prefer the best brands, as part of their hold on "value" as part of their identity. And if this value can be demonstrated, and secure them new rungs on the ladder of social esteem, so much the better.
Back to the original land-owners, the pioneers. Among them, were those who rebelled against the routines, against the authorities whether they were parents, or school teachers, or sheriffs, or rich people, or priests or pastors. They preferred to explore, to question, to find excitement in uncertainty, to find challenge in new experiments, in new ideas, in new people, in new groups, dances, music, drama, poetry, and in a stance that could be termed, "unknowing" and thereby continuously searching. Since they were not sure, they could and usually did say, "I don't know" and "I want to discover." God was their exploration leader, who never gave them a map, and who never offered a clear and non-negotiable position to anything, including the most troubling questions like, "Why am I here?" or "Why did the pharmacist take his own life in the basement of his own store?" or "Why did the baby die before he was born?" or "Why did the robber pick our house to plunder?" or "Why does God permit so much pain and slaughter, if He is a God of love and forgiveness?"
While these members of the pioneering community attended school, they held the experience, the teacher, the principal and even the principles up for scrutiny...before they surrendered any part of their belief system to conform with any of it. They held out on the rules, subverted them most often if they could or even if they risked, and they drew pictures, or sang songs, or wrote songs about what they saw going on around them. These were the people who considered the big questions first, without fear of not knowing the answers, because not knowing the answers was at the heart of their world view. They picked up pieces of answers along the way, some from their own deduction or induction, some from their own excessive curiosity and play, some from their many questions to anyone who would stop long enough to listen, some from the occasional book they might read, if they found it lying around, and occasionally, they found that when they most needed answers, they just could not and did not find any that really satisfied.
As an experiment, a journey of discovery, a pilgrimmage into the unknown, for these people, all that stuff about "getting it right" was only ok when they were actually doing something like milking the cow, and even after they had learned the skill from a human, they still had to learn the unique peculiarities of each animal if they were going to be really successful. However, for them complexity and uncertainty were part of every experience, every person, every book and every encounter and they wanted that perception and "value" normalized so that they might consider themselves 'normal' knowing that they would not and could not and did not find comfort with those who had the answers.
Now the question is, can the first group and the second group see, really see into the lives, beliefs, perceptions, attitudes and experiences of the other group and see that, while there may be more than two groups, (there always are!) the gap between these two groups, while these generalizations are not complete nor completely accurate, seem to have hardened into a kind of ideological conflict that does not permit the perception of the fullness or the full value of the other...and if we cannot or will not agree to see the other, for what and who he is, then we will not solve the 'fiscal cliff' or the 'two state solution for Palestine and Israel,' or the climate change/global warming conundrum, or the....because we cannot look fully into the eyes/heart/mind/spirit of the other...blinded by our own
grasp of our own insecurity.
It is the community, stupid!...not the specifics of any file, but how we open and resolve the disputes between us...and that starts with fully embracing the totality of the other's differences as gift, and not as threat.

Olive: Harper's Foreign Ownership Policy "clear as goo"

Harper's foreign ownership policy is incomprehensible: Olive
By David Olive, Toronto Star, December 11, 2012
Once again I’m dumbfounded that Stephen Harper’s university major was economics. His new policy on foreign ownership, unveiled with fanfare late last week, is as clear as the goo extracted from the dinosaur remains at Fort McMurray.

Harper last Friday rebuked the majority Canadian public opposition to a proposed Chinese government takeover of Calgary oil producer Nexen Inc. with his approval of that $15.1-billion deal, and of a $5.2-billion Malaysian government state grab for Alberta oil and gas assets. In doing so, the PM unveiled a ballyhooed “get tough” stance on future foreign state designs on the Alberta tar sands.
This embarrassment of a policy (the more fawning typists in the financial press have labelled it the “Harper Doctrine”) is rent with loopholes, is incomprehensible, and lacks the clarity to be applied consistently. Harper has conceded as much in allowing that foreign government takeovers in the oilpatch will henceforth be blocked, other than those arising from “exceptional circumstances.”
Gosh sakes, every takeover is “exceptional.” Acquisitions are a blend of price haggling, political stability, interest rates, strategic fit, industrial cycles, CEO egos, and countless arcane factors. Which makes meaningless Harper’s vow to protect Athabasca heavy oil from foreign government takeovers. Beijing’s appetite even for, say, Suncor Energy Inc., the biggest remaining Canadian-owned player in the Alberta tar sands, might well fit whatever set of exceptional circumstances by which Harper and his cabinet colleagues are swayed, as they were in letting the mid-sized Nexen slip down the Communist Chinese gullet.
If only Harper had led off his doctrine with his proposed giant loophole allowing foreign governments to continue buying minority stakes in iconic Canadian assets. Then we could have turned away and resumed our holiday shopping chores.
Since time immemorial, tycoons have controlled vast enterprises with minority stakes. (See Frank Stronach, the late Ted Rogers, Warren Buffett, the Ford family, the Wal-Mart clan, etc. etc.) Conrad Black manipulated dozens of companies in which he and his “associates” held stakes as low as 14 per cent. Heaven help us that Canada’s CEO appears not to get this.
Who should and does own Canada would make for an engaging and overdue public discussion. It’s our stuff, after all.
Instead, the PM secretly tapped Calgary oil moguls for their views, and recruited a star chamber of like-minded experts including think-tanker Fen Hampson and Tom d’Aquino to personally counsel him on threats from ideologically incorrect state enterprises in the developing world. John Ibbitson of a credulous Globe and Mail gave us this gem from the not disinterested Hampson: “Clearly, Mr. Harper believes that government does have a role in preventing corporate Canada from being hollowed out by big foreign companies, whether state owned or privately held.”
That under-informed Carleton University academic should be kept away from impressionable students. Harper has sat idly by as our entire steel and mining industries were hollowed out. Thus, Dofasco, Inco, Stelco, Alcan, Falconbridge and so on joined our largely foreign owned chemical, retailing, plastics, electronics, computers, processed food, cosmetics, booze and other sectors in which the big decisions are made in Cincinnati, Munich and Seoul.
Just to confuse potential foreign investors and home viewers alike, the PM has allowed his inner “economic nationalist” to assert itself. But only when his caucus objected vociferously to a planned British private-sector purchase of Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. And to a private-sector Yankee bid for the space division of B.C.’s MacDonald Dettwiler Inc. Ottawa blocked both deals – quixotic firsts in our otherwise accommodating foreign-investment tradition.(highlighting our's) 
The PMO fulsomely leaked the “concessions” it extracted from China National Offshore Oil Corp. (Cnooc) in approving its purchase of Nexen, and from the Malaysian state energy giant Petronas for its purchase of Calgary-based Progress Energy Resources Corp. But Ottawa has given us no hint of what those promises are. They’re more enforceable, one hopes, than those made by U.S. Steel Corp. when it bought Stelco Inc. and abruptly closed its legendary Hilton Works.
And so, our trust in the “net benefit” to Canada of these deals lies with our faith in the PM, who’s still in the dark about how companies are controlled. And is only now having doubts about a $40-billion fighter-jet contract whose price Harper emphatically insisted only last year was a “mere” $15 billion – a magnitude of error, or duplicity, that would earn most of us a pink slip.
Our last hard look at our economic sovereignty was Foreign Direct Investment in Canada (a.k.a. the Grey Report). It appeared 40 years ago, when Westerners called the Chinese capital Peking, the state-owned firms that now account for half of the world’s top 20 oil and gas producers didn’t have a total market capitalization of $1.2 trillion with which to raid the Calgary oilpatch, and Anne Murray was basking in her new stardom from Snowbird.
Memo to Tom Mulcair: In the honourable tradition of David Lewis and Ed Broadbent, we need your voice loud and clear, not just about the fine print of how parliament and Harper operate, but also on the larger issues like foreign ownership of our natural resources...there is a full election campaign that could be waged on Harper's handling of this file alone, not to mention F-35's, and a decade-long campaign advertising the merits of Action Canada, using the public purse to maintain the ever-present Conservative campaign mode. Maybe, a little less time in the House and a little more time on the hustings would get some public attention...only a small niche of perhaps 1% are watching Question Period.

Opposing the "right" starts early

At twenty-six, I got a quick and unpleasant wake-up call from the right wing in my town. I engaged with a couple of grade eleven male students, after class, in discussion about the provincial election results from the previous night in which the conservatiives won another majority government, including the local conservative candidate. As incumbent, he had served as a member of the board of the Ontario Northland Railway, and in my innocence, I did not perceive how that could be considered parallel to, if not equal to, a cabinet post. I thought he was "getting two pay cheques" and  I had worked for the Liberal candidate thereby opposing the return of the incumbent.
When I was asked for my reaction to the vote, by one of the young men, I replied, "I think that the conservative candidate is a shyster for taking what amounts to two pay-cheques, one as an MLA, the other as a Board Member of the ONR."
The next day a registered letter arrived at the school addressed to me.
In it, the father of the inquisitive young man, the President of the (then) Progressive Conservative Party Riding Association, demanded an apology from me, or failing that, he would begin court action against me, for having made inappropriate remarks as a public school teacher.
Clearly one of the young men had had a family conversation about our conversation, prompting the letter, which he claimed he tried to block.
I paid a formal visit to the principal, informing him of the letter, and told him I was going to the office of the letter writer to apologize. I certainly did not want, and would do much to avoid, a law suit over informal remarks, outside of class, conveyed by an innocent to a "primed" political father, also the town's top criminal defence lawyer. I paid a recalcitrant visit, apologized and put the incident in the back pocket of my memory.
That was in 1967.
Forty-five years later, I can still feel the sweat of anxiety on my palms as I write this. My stomach is tight, and I still feel resentful and angry about the letter.
My anger is not directed to the young man, who apparently showed more maturity than the lawyer-father, in trying to head off the letter. My anger, resentment and bitterness is directed exclusively to the letter-writer, and indirectly, to all the conservatives whose paths my life has crossed, and with whom I have almost never agreed, to my own peril.
Within a year of that incident, I was invited to speak on a panel as part of the local ministry group's Lenten Study program, to address the question, "Is the Christian faith still relevant?" My father was then on the Session of the Presbyterian church whose clergy insisted he be the "spiritual teacher" to follow the panel. I had left the church, except for the formality of my wedding, when I was sixteen when the same clergy had preached words like these:

If you are a Roman Catholic, you are going to hell;

If you drink alcohol, you are going to hell;

If you go to dances, movies, you are going to hell;

If you use make-up, you are going to hell.

In my portion of the panel presentation, I basically said the Christian faith was relevant, but the methods used to practice it, including unilateral sermons filled with exclusive judgements, and threats of "hell" were better replaced with seminars, readings, discussions and a more informal searching and discovery of the meanings of the words of scripture. Of course, the clergy was furious, and played a significant role in convincing people in power that I should be moved on to another town.

I was effectively declared "persona non grata" in my home town, having secured the wrath of both the clergy and the riding president of the conservative party.

Moving to a new town, I tried to begin anew, with the help of people like the principal who hired me, for whose support I will forever be grateful.

In a few years, I was invited to play a role in local television as a reporter/interview covering city council. In the course of a decade and a half, I was honoured to participate with political neophytes, apprentices, journeymen and women, and a few political pro's. They came from all political camps, right, left, centre and some who swayed from side to side, depending on the mood of the electorate.

A path down the middle, as objective as I could be, promised and delivered many opportunities to explain the nuts-and-bolts of several municipal issues from arena construction, to water and sewer replacement, to lane closings and zoning applications, and even the inevitable conflict between the forces seeking to secure permission for a peripheral mall and those seeking approval, both political and legal, for a downtown retail development anchored by one of the major department stores. I favoured the downtown development, took to the airwaves to argue that case, and after a few months, was invited to 'take a walk' around the building housing the radio station for which I was then writing and airing radio editorials in support of the downtown project.

The developer of the peripheral mall is reported to have told the radio station manager, "If Atkins is not taken off the air, I will withdraw all the advertising dollars that would come from the peripheral project!" (That probably meant several dozens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars.)

Money talks very loudly, especially in the media...I went silent, at the direction of the station manager, to my own disappointment and also that of the supporters of the downtown project. The peripheral mall was built and the downtown atrophied dramatically. Euphemistically, some would say it "transitioned" from retail to professional offices and locally owned boutiques.

Inside the church, I found more of the abuse of power so reminiscent of the lawyer-father with the letter threatening legal action. Those on the right wing do not stop at mere gossip to destroy the character of one whose liberal "theology"they find heretical. They take action to remove such people, as me, in order to preserve the purity of "their" institution, much as the Pope did to Matthew Fox, with he excommunicated him for publishing Original Blessing the kind of refreshing look at "original sin" which has, for centuries, bound the church and its members in a kind of tyranny of both thought and belief, directed, dictated and imposed by the church hierarchy.

A similar tight-assed theology constricts much of the christian church community's perception of God, God's wishes for his disciples, God's perception of how to live a healthy spiritual life, through condemning those whose lives to not comply or conform to the kind of standard they believe, speaking for God, they must.

I have, and will continue to oppose, to confront and to push back on the right wing in both politics and in religion, and the whole thing started very early in my life, when, as an innocent, I rejected the way power was used by those who had some, however limited, status and power in their respective arenas.

Incidentally, although I had not heard the phrase until only a couple of decades ago, I apparently was born and grew up in what many in this province call "the most conservative town in Ontario".

Unfortunately for those who went before me in that town, their indoctrination did not "take" in my case, unless total and complete rebellion was what they sought in their young men and women.

When Rex Murphy writes in  the National Post that he finds it difficult to understand why so many Canadians vilify Prime Minister Stephen Harper, I would merely reply to Murphy, "Some of us, including me, simply do not trust him!"

I learned how to distrust conservative use of power and authority very early and very deeply.

Human Rights activist urges respect for human rights on internet

Protecting fundamental freedoms, online and offline
By Mary Robinson, The Elders, from GPS website, December 10, 2012
Editor’s Note: Mary Robinson was the female president of Ireland and is a former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. She is also a member of the independent group of leaders The Elders. This article was also published by the Skoll World Forum. The views expressed are the author’s own.
Human rights belong to each of us as individuals. But they also serve a collective purpose, and are never enjoyed in isolation. The theme of this year’s International Human Rights Day is “inclusion and the right to participate in public life.” It is an important reminder that freedom of expression, freedom of association and the ability to participate in the processes by which we are governed are universal human rights that we all share.
More and more, we have access to tools that can help us realize these fundamental rights. The internet, mobile phones and social media give ordinary citizens the power to inform ourselves, voice our opinions and coordinate action, with sometimes dramatic results. In the face of efforts to exercise greater control over internet access and activity, it is vital that we protect these rights – both online and offline – that form the bedrock of inclusive, open societies.
Having been U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, I am all too familiar with the argument that human rights is a “Western” concept. The uprisings that began to shake the Arab world almost two years ago, and the developments that have followed, are one great example of the fundamental flaw in this argument. In Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere we saw an unprecedented expression of the universal desire – long-repressed – for dignity and freedom.
Since then, the transformation in Egypt has been stunning. The Elders were in Cairo in late 2010, just before the start of what would eventually become known as the “Arab Awakening.” I remember the authorities at the time making it very difficult for us to meet Egyptian students – and when we did finally get permission to sit down with young Egyptians, I had the strong sense that they were afraid: afraid to criticize the government and its policies, afraid of who might be listening.
I noted a remarkable difference when I returned to Egypt in October this year with my fellow Elders. Everyone we met – union leaders, journalists, human rights experts, economists and religious leaders – are engaged in vigorous debate about the future direction of their country. There was little fear about criticizing the new government, which I found very encouraging.
Most inspiring were the young people we met, who had no reservations about telling us – live on Egyptian television – the changes that they want to see in their country. In a debate on Egypt’s democratic transition, we heard from 21-year-old Moaz that Egyptian youth are now being politically sidelined even though it was they who led the uprising in January 2011. Hadia, 22, told us that there are still limitations on the right to free speech under President Morsi’s leadership (yet ironically, the fact that she was able to say so marks some small measure of progress!). Many in the 200-strong audience were clamoring to have their say, and I was particularly encouraged to see that there was no hesitation to speak up among the young women, in what remains a very conservative, patriarchal society.
This kind of energetic debate is a sign of an increasingly open civil sphere. A plurality of opinions should always be welcomed – after all, democracy is a process of resolving differences through debate. Decisions must be negotiated and monitored constantly.
It has been inspiring to see how new communications technologies have allowed us to expand the space for public debate in recent years. The internet has enabled an explosion of information and expression worldwide, and while I am skeptical about claims that Twitter and Facebook “caused” events like the Arab Awakening, it is evident that social media was an indispensable tool in the dissemination of uncensored information and the coordination of public protests in the region.
This raises questions concerning the role of companies and highlights a critical gap – many business leaders are taking major decisions on their own, often without a firm understanding of their impacts on human rights. To help mainstream respect for human rights in corporate decision-making, the European Commission has embarked on a project to develop guidance for three critical industry sectors, including information and communication technologies, which are so important in today’s world. My colleagues at the Institute for Human Rights and Business and Shift are working with the Commission to develop this guidance in order to give practical meaning to the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which were adopted in 2011.
As these tools become more accessible to people around the world – by 2020 there will be an estimated 5 billion people with access to the internet – civil society becomes better-equipped to engage in public life. Citizens have used mobile phones and internet platforms to record human rights abuses, pressure leaders to become more accountable, and connect and work together across borders. As one young Egyptian told us, “the only borders now are on maps.”
At the same time, our expectations are getting higher – and this is a good thing. When we are used to finding information freely available online, we expect to have the right to access that information without restriction. When we see various world leaders on Twitter, we expect to be able to contact our own leaders directly through such platforms. The more we grow accustomed to voicing our opinions online, the more we resist being silenced.
I believe this is part of a broader global trend towards greater participation. There is such a strong desire now to be consulted – really consulted, not just in a tokenistic way – and to be involved in government as opposed to just being objects of someone else’s policy decisions. We must embrace this trend; by supporting greater inclusivity and participation in governance, we will strengthen the development of democracy worldwide.
Unfortunately, the same tools and platforms that have helped these freedoms to flourish can be manipulated to restrict access to information, monitor dissident activity and exercise greater control over citizens. They offer perhaps as many challenges to these freedoms as they do opportunities. Just two weeks ago we saw Syria’s government cutting off internet and mobile access to the entire country, just as Egypt’s government did in January 2011. Others are using international fora to lobby for greater powers for governments seeking to restrict citizens’ internet freedoms in the name of “security.”
The internet has given rise to a new space and new tools for human activity, but it does not require a new set of rules. The internationally agreed rights to freedom of opinion and expression, to peaceful assembly and association, and to take part in government are enshrined in the very document that we have celebrated on this day for the past 64 years. These covenants should be applied to the online world in exactly the same way that they apply to the ‘offline’ world.
In July this year, the U.N. Human Rights Council adopted a resolution affirming that these rights should be protected on the internet, which was a welcome step in the right direction. As I write, government representatives from around the world are meeting for the World Conference on International Telecommunications. Whatever is agreed at this forum could have profound consequences for internet freedom; it is vital that any decisions reached uphold the fundamental rights set down in the Universal Declaration in 1948.
The slogan for this year’s Human Rights Day is “My Voice Counts.” In Egypt, we saw just how fervently people believe this to be true – each of us, whether we live under democracy or dictatorship, yearns to have some say in the decisions that affect our lives. The internet has provided us with new tools that strengthen citizen movements and promote greater democratization and accountability; it has also proved a powerful tool for censorship and surveillance.
Only by protecting the internet as a space where respect for fundamental human rights prevails can we hope to see more Springs, more Awakenings and ever greater freedoms in years to come.

CAW and NHLPA spokesmen address "lockouts"

From the NHL to Caterpillar, aggressive employers more willing to use lockouts
By Ken Lewenza and Don Fehr, Toronto Star, December 10, 2012
Ken Lewenza is president of the Canadian Auto Workers union. Don Fehr is executive director of the National Hockey League Players’ Association.
You might think that a typical Canadian worker (who makes, on average, about $22 an hour) would have little in common with a professional hockey player whose annual income is measured in six or seven figures — other than that they both love Canada’s national sport.
However, there are more similarities between workers and hockey players than you’d think. Both find themselves dealing these days with employers who are more aggressive than they’ve ever been. More specifically, hockey players are the latest victims of an increasingly common, aggressive management strategy: locking out workers when they won’t accept management demands for deep concessions.
It used to be that unions were the more likely party to precipitate a work stoppage, in their quest to lift wages and labour standards over time. Nowadays, in contrast, it is employers who feel they hold the upper hand. They are willing to shut down operations altogether, imposing substantial economic losses on their workers, on their own firms, and on the broader economy, until they get what they want. And they want a lot: historic concessions in wages, benefit packages, and security for the working people who ultimately produce the wealth.
We’ve seen this aggressive strategy invoked by Caterpillar in London, Ont. — which earlier this year locked out its workers, then fired them altogether. Rio Tinto locked out workers for months in Alma, Que., as did U.S. Steel in Hamilton. Each of these companies was profitable. Yet all felt empowered to squeeze even more from their workers, extorting historic rollbacks in wages and benefits.
Worried by this trend, many labour relations experts have proposed legislative measures to limit the power of companies to starve out their workers through long lockouts. In Manitoba, for example, long disputes can be referred (by either party) for binding arbitration; this makes employers think twice before launching such aggressive attacks on their own workers. For now, however, the power of employers to lock the doors is largely unfettered.
This winter the NHL owners are the latest to invoke the same aggressive tactic. The league has enjoyed seven straight years of record revenues (ever since the last lockout back in 2004-05). Last year revenues reached $3.3 billion, an all-time high. The industry is profitable, and the franchises worth more than ever (the value of Toronto’s franchise alone is now estimated at more than $1 billion). Yet the owners have precipitated a long lockout, trying to starve out the players and fundamentally rewrite the economics of the game.
It’s not the first time lockouts have been used in professional sports. The NHL locked out the players before in 1994-94 and 2004-05 — so this is becoming a regular habit for the owners. More recently, the NFL locked out its referees, hoping to squeeze a few more drops of profit from the operations. We all know how that ended: in embarrassment and lasting damage to the sport’s credibility.
This time around, the owners’ demands are especially eye-popping: reducing players’ share of revenues, restricting the length of player contracts, weakening free agency, and ending salary arbitrations. This would dramatically redivide the NHL’s economic pie, fattening owners’ profit margins at the direct expense of the players who make it all happen. The burden of the lockout also falls on the fans who just want to see hockey, and on the tens of thousands of workers and small businesses who depend directly or indirectly on hockey for their livelihood.
Remember, hockey players may earn high incomes for the few years they are playing. But for most, their earnings capacity after retirement from the league is limited — and average playing careers are short, due to injuries and other factors. Like other workers, hockey players have little control over the direction of the business. They deserve security, respect and a fair share of the wealth they produce with their sweat and effort.
The aggressive position of the NHL owners is more than just an affront to players and fans of the game. It is a sign of the very worrying times we live in. Employers — no matter how wealthy or profitable they already are — feel entitled to wring even more from the pockets of their employees, regardless of the collateral damage to families, communities and the whole economy.
If the owners get away with doing this to professional hockey players, despite their unique skills and talents, it is little wonder that so many employers feel emboldened to do the same to any of us.
Add to this story the plight of Ontario elementary and secondary teachers, both of whom are currently engaged in work reductions and stoppages, to protest the loss of their bargaining rights.
The Michigan legislature today will vote to approve bills that would emasculate unions in both the public and private sector, depriving them of the access to union dues that keep the movement afloat and alive. (See acorncentreblog.com,
"Michigan's 'right-to-work' bill will gut unions, December 11, 2012)
The Canadian federal government has ordered union workers back to work, in some cases, with wages and benefits that were less than they had already negotiated with their employer, prior to taking strike action.
Wisconsin's governor Scott Walker, also financed by the Koch brothers, as is the Michigan initiative, removed the hard-won rights of labour in the public sector, and stirred considerable public protest for his "public service".
There are now several (I believe it is 24!) states that have already passed legislation similar to that going through the Michigan government today...
Labour is, without doubt, under fire...and needs all the voices it can muster to wage the kind of class warfare that people like the Koch brothers have initiated.

Book desecration by urine in Leamington library...disgusting!

400 urine-stained library books destroyed in Leamington
By Kamila Hinkson, Toronto Star, December 11, 2012

The pages of books often yellow with age, but almost 400 volumes at a southwestern Ontario library have yellowed before their time.
For the past three weeks, staff at an Essex County Library branch in Leamington have been discovering urine-doused books on their shelves. The latest incident was Monday, and each discovery reveals about 30 to 90 damaged books.
The perpetrator, who has yet to be caught, has caused about $5,000 in damage.
“As soon as they’ve been touched with a biohazard . . . we would not circulate them to the public. They’re destroyed. We can’t take the chance that you’d be . . . you know, you can’t recover books,” said Janet Woodbridge, chief librarian and CEO of the Essex County Libraries.
Woodbridge noted the perpetrator doesn’t seem to be targeting a specific genre or author.
Instead, the focus is on not getting caught — the books being soiled are in areas not easily visible to library staff.
The library, which houses approximately 35,000 items, features high stacks of books that lend themselves to decreased sight lines in the building.
The first discovery occurred when a librarian went to set aside a book for a customer and noticed there was urine on the book. An inspection of the area showed three other shelves of books had urine on them as well.
That’s when they notified the Ontario Provincial Police, which is currently investigating the case.
The OPP has been interviewing people at the library as part of the probe, but at this point there is no theory as to how many people are involved and what their motive may be.
“They are certainly exploring all avenues to catch this person,” said Const. Stephanie Moniz with the Essex County OPP.
Moniz noted it seems most likely that the culprit is urinating on the books, as opposed to dousing the books with urine, but all possibilities are being considered.
Woodbridge emphasized that instances of vandalism in the county libraries are few and far between.
The library is also well-attended, she said, which adds to the mystery.
The staff patrol the library every 10 to 15 minutes and the building will be getting cameras in the coming week.
Library staff and patrons are being provided with gloves to peruse the stacks.
“We’re doing all we can to try to alleviate (the chances of it) . . . continuing to happen,” Woodbridge said.
We know that there are those among us who find reading, writing and the books used for those purposes, repellant. There are novels dedicated to book-burning (Fahrenheit 451, for example) and there are, infrequently to be sure, occasions when books have undergone considered public "stress" sometimes because those inflicting the stress consider specific books to be "filth" or too dangerous in their viewpoint, or merely sacreligious. Some political parties in some countries have desecrated books as part of their propaganda warfare.
In this case, which can only be characterized as disgusting, infantile and criminal, whether or not anyone is ever found, charged and convicted with any crime, 'the cat-and-mouse' chase may be another of the too many vulgar incidents that stain contemporary culture. Last week we watched a different kind of prank perpetrated by a couple of Aussie radio show hosts resulting in the suicide of a kind, compassionate and tragically gullible nurse who took their prank call inquiring about the medical condition of the Duchess of Cambridge.
This week, some 400 books have been destroyed through a disgusting act of contamination with some human or animal urine, in Leamington, Ontario, a neighbour to Windsor and Detroit Michigan.
While this likely constitutes some form of vandalism, from a legal perspective, from a literary perspective it represents the worst fears of the literary community. Books have contained, revealed, disclosed, augmented, disseminated and provoked ideas, narratives, discussion, insight, human connection, community and political, economic, historic, scientific, literary, religious, philosophic, poetic and comedic thought and discourse among young and old
on every continent, culture and period in history since the beginning of type and time as we know it.
For an individual, or worse still, a group of indivduals to take the kind of actions reported by the Toronto Star, in the story above makes this scribe quite literally, and metaphorically "sick" in heart, in stomach, in mind and in spirit.
When our books and our libraries are "treated" in this manner, we have all failed, not merely the parents of these perpetrators, not merely the town in which they live, nor the school they attend, nor the region and province of their residence.
And it will take a concerted effort from each of us, individually and collectively, in whatever paths we travel and with whomever we meet, to curtail this kind of behavior and the attitudes and beliefs and perceptions that provoked it.