Democracy doesn’t end on election day
At first I was a bit sceptical of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
It’s not that I wasn’t sympathetic or that I wanted it to fail. I didn’t even really think we’d see a lot of conspiracy and woo in the movement.* I think I just misunderstood the idea of the protest.
I assumed it was going to be a few people outside for a few hours, which would in turn get completely ignored by the media. But after a few days turned into a few weeks, and plans have been made for cities from Vancouver to London, I’m starting to come around.
This movement is especially promising after a spat of elections with falling turnouts and returning lacklustre incumbent governments (a more detailed analysis of this to come, probably after the Saskatchewan election). People are finally appreciating the key point that elections have very little to do with democracy.
This is worth emphasizing. Democracy is about citizens taking control of how they are governed. Elections are the absolute lowest wrung of that involvement.
To simply vote is to barely get your feet wet in the way your government is run.
The most obvious example of how little elections matter is the great disproportionality of our electoral system. Governments are routinely given supreme power in this country with as few as two in five votes, and in some cases the popular vote is completely disregarded in the representative makeup of the government – as was the case in Newfoundland’s recent election where the NDP came second in the popular vote, but were usurped from their place as Official Opposition by the Liberals who focussed their votes in a smaller number of seats.
Beyond our faulty electoral system, few policy provisions are decided on voting day. The media likes to talk about the “ballot question,” which has some merit when parties advocate for different actions on a specific interest, but often there are subtly differences and a voter may like some bits of one platform, but not trust the crooks based on their past deceptions.
This is why the protests give me hope – they represent my peers stepping up to the discussion and demanding change.
But protesting (while respectable and worthwhile) is not the only way to affect change.
One key action that more secular progressives** need to take is to actively get involved in the political process.
A great example is Justin Trottier’s recent run for provincial election under the Green Party of Ontario banner. While I disagree with his chosen party, it’s an important step. Here in BC, I tried (and failed) for a Vancouver School Board with COPE.
Besides running for office, there are many more ways to bring our issues forward.
Every party has local constituency associations and typically allows these groups to bring forward resolutions that can influence party policy. I recently joined the Vancouver Point Grey BC NDP association and put forward my own motion calling for the end of public funding of private schools – secularists in Manitoba should take note given yesterday’s story.
I know there’s some trepidation among many about joining a political party. I think this is entirely unfounded. Few members of any political party agree 100% with the party platform. The goal is not to defeat that diversity, but to use the collective will to advance a common agenda. This is worth an essay of its own though, so I’ll leave it here.
My simple point today is to go out there, protest in the street, join your favoured party, and push for the changes you want to see in the world.
*There’s the oft-repeated claim, but never evidenced, that both the left and the right (or the Democrats and the Republicans) have equal amounts of crazy. The fact is simply not born out by the evidence. For every 9/11 Truther there’s a mega-church full of Armageddon-worshipping Christians, for each anti-vaxxer there’s a corporatist Libertarian squad ready to quote Ayn Rand. The biggest hint is a quick examination of where the power lies. Few woo-pushers have any influence (besides Oprah, but hers is a corporate-influence), while the Evangelicals wield tremendous power.
**That’s twice I’ve used the phrase without defining it.
Students get an A in anti-abortion activism
I was going to post this on Canadian Atheist, but I was beaten to the punch by one of my co-authors. It lives here instead.
Canada’s biggest secular battlefield is over the publicly-funded Catholic school districts in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario, but a number of provinces also fund private religious schools to varying amounts.
In Winnipeg, Manitoba, a private Catholic school receives 50% of the funding compared to a neighbouring public school. The school can then inject as much religious education as they want (typically so long as they meet the basic curriculum requirements).
It’s little wonder then why Christ the King School (yes, it’s that unapologetic) is brewing up controversy, given its latest stunt:
Children at a private Catholic school in Winnipeg who attend anti-abortion vigils outside the city's Health Sciences Centre are receiving community service credits for their participation.
Principal Dave Hood of Christ the King School said Tuesday that joining the vigils is a voluntary and family decision. But he's considering it as an official school activity as early as next year.
And before you ask, this isn’t a high school, or even middle/junior high. It’s an elementary school for 200 students from K-8.
The principal emphasizes that “We’re not there to block anyone,” but did advise parents of the daily anti-abortion vigils outside the hospital.
At least the paper adds a voice of reason to the debate:
Lori Johnson, executive director of the Klinic Community Health Centre and the Sexuality Education Research Centre, calls the vigils a political lobby and argued any school receiving public funding should not be allowed to involve children.
"It would certainly not be allowed in the public sector," said Johnson, a registered nurse and former longtime school trustee with the Winnipeg School Division board. "That is ill-considered by any school, public or private. It should be at the cost of losing their public funding."
So congrats Manitobans, a part of your tax dollars are going to promote a religious agenda through young children.
Of course this is also in the province that recently returned the NDP to a fourth majority government. It is also the province that has had some issues with the Lord’s Prayer being pushed on students in public schools.
While I am glad that Manitobans didn’t opt for the regressive Conservatives, democracy doesn’t end with election day.
Secular progressives (I think I need to write a book detailing this position) in Manitoba need to get involved in the provincial NDP and push for the end of this two-tier education system. I’ll discuss this further in a coming post though.
The end of “parental rights” in Alberta?
More good news out of Alberta, premier-elect Alison Redford is hinting that she may reverse the most controversial bits of Bill 44.
The bill was an overdue amendment to Alberta’s Human Rights Act, which added sexual orientation to the list of protections. However, sensing there might be a social conservative revolt to the idea that gays are people too, the government conceded a section that enshrined a parent’s right to opt their children out of topics including sexuality, sexual orientation, or religion, in schools.
That such rights already existed within the School Act was apparently insufficient for some parents, and some confused comments by then-premier Ed Stelmach had suggested evolution may be considered a religious topic. They quickly recanted that gaffe; however, the damage was easily done and teachers and the media were left scratching their heads as to the need for such legislation.
But the government held the line and pushed through valiant filibuster attempts by the Liberal and NDP opposition.
Redford’s reversal is welcome news to those of us who support comprehensive education, free from dogmatic influences.
She does go farther though and states she would repeal the entire Section 3 from the Human Rights Act. Section 3 is the hate speech section, long decried by conservatives like Ezra Levant and Christian fundamentalists who want the freedom to slander their favourite targets – typically Muslims and gays. Critics of the section argue that the current laws allow innocent columnists to be dragged before Human Rights Tribunals at their own expense by censors. Defenders argue that hate speech is a form of discrimination and needs to be curbed to protect those who may be victimized it.
While I would generally describe myself as a civil libertarian (among many things), I am conflicted on this issue and I think we need to see it as a balance of rights. People have the right not to be persecuted for their identity or beliefs, but they are also allowed to speak without fear of censorship.
It’s not clear to me that those indicted by the Tribunals have been unjustly punished, and given the tendency for those in the majority to use their privilege to demonize minorities, I think some level of laws against hate speech are justified.
Basically, I am not convinced that Alberta’s hate speech laws are broken, so I’m not convinced we should be trying to fix them. I am open to being proven wrong though.
Next week Kelowna celebrates the fetus
I spent Labour Day weekend camping near Vernon, touring wineries, and enjoying the good life. I highly recommend Arrowleaf Cellars.
The trip left me with a longing to live in such a warm, beautiful area, surrounded by delicious food, drinks, and beautiful lakes.
Then I read about things like this and the reality of small town BC comes back to me.
For the forth [sic] year in a row the mayor of Kelowna, British Columbia, Sharon Shepherd, has issued a proclamation recognizing Protect Human Life Week, at the request of the Kelowna Right to Life Society.
“It is the intention of this proclamation to promote respect and protection to all human life, especially the infirm, the aged, the handicapped and the unborn,” the Protect Human Life Week proclamation states.
…
Kelowna Right to Life is urging supporters of Protect Human Life Week to thank Mayor Shepherd personally for proclaiming the pro-life week.
“Aside from year one when she received a considerable amount of backlash from those who believe killing unborn babies is a good thing, she has largely escaped criticism of her show of tolerance toward the pro life community in the Central Okanagan. Supporters are encouraged to drop Mayor a Shepherd a quick note thanking her for respecting our mission,” the pro-life group said.
Four years straight.
This is four years of a mayor putting a creepy religious attachment to their warped morality ahead of the interests of women, seniors, and the terminally ill.
They even plan to show Ben Stein’s horrendous movie Expelled. I’m not sure what that affront to human dignity has to do with respecting life, if anything I want the bit of my life back that I wasted watching it.
Their week officially kicks off next Saturday, the 24th. Perhaps by then we can increase that criticism.
Mayor Shepherd’s email address is conveniently given in the article: mayorandcouncil@kelowna.ca
Let’s send her some backlash.
I’m going to try to craft something on behalf of the BC Humanists and encourage as many people as possible to write their own letters.
And if the mayor refuses to back down, perhaps we can get CFI Okanagan to host their own week. Either something civil like a Separation of Church and State day or perhaps more provocative like abortion and blasphemy rights week. If she goes ahead with this week under the guise of “tolerance” then she’ll have to “tolerate” our viewpoints too.
I’m a “McCarthyite on the War Path”
Tim Bloedow, original founder of website Christian Governance, believes that there is a “secular-humanist assault on Christianity in Canada” and posted a comment here (and carbon-copied on Canadian Atheist),
Canada's secularists - mostly atheists/humanists - are at war with Canada's foundational principles of justice and liberty: equality before the law, the rule of law and division of powers - distinctively Christian principles.
In order to distract Canadians from their scurrilous behavior, they have directed their militant "McCarthyite" rage against Canada's Christian MPs, as this article reveals - as well as a French Le Devoir article published today. The atheists are showing their fangs. Nice to see the key role that Canada's Christian-hating mainstream media are playing in this warfare strategy.
He has even gone so far as to repost (I’m sure that violates both my, and PostMedia’s copyrights) my religion and politics article on his website No Apologies with the paranoid title “ATHEIST MCCARTHYITES ON THE WAR PATH'.”
The Le Devoir article he references is found here, and one of my friends with more French literacy translates and summarizes it:
1. In the first part of the article, they talk about a liberal female MP who went into anaphylactic shock because she was eating at a restaurant earlier in the day that serves seafood (which she's allergic to) and the scent later caused the reaction. Three CPC MPs, instead of administering any kind of aid to her, got down on their knees and did something that looked like they were giving her a religious blessing. The people on the plane did not want to call them out on it, because they were afraid they would be labelled as intolerant.
2. Another CPC MP was talking about adoption and that how he too was "adopted"; he had his biological family and his adopted family, which turns out to be Jesus and company. In the end, he basically says divine adoption takes precedence over real adoption.
3. Faytene Kryskow, a religious militant (their words, not mine), was given a laissez-passer certificate (basically let them go through without question) for the Parliament building from a Conservative MP. Kryskow is apparently the director of 4MyCanada, an organization that wants to return traditional family values to our country.
4. Last but not least, the good Minister Kenney. While at SFU, a group of young women were handing out pamphlets on abortion, but the University said no and so they (the young women) threatened to take it to the courts. The University backed off and adopted a code which said what was tolerated in terms of expression.
Kenney said that the code was stupid and basically went on to say that now anyone could go on campus to spread their message, from the Ku Klux Klan to pedophiles. He then wrote to the Catholic Church asking them to revoke the Catholic status of the University (in summation, he cried like a little bitch).
Some of which is found in Marci McDonald’s The Armageddon Factor, which references Tim Bloedow 6 different times, among them:
- He wrote a 132-page book called “Environmentalism and the Death of Science: Exposing the Lie of Eco-Religion” where he argues that there is no environmental crisis and that we should let Jesus and the free market save us. This received praise from national columnist Lorne Gunter and he worked for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott. (p. 117)
- Vellacott issued an invitation on behalf of Christian nationalist Charles McVety to all MPs to watch Ben Stein’s Expelled. McDonald notes that both McVety and Bloedow attack the environmental movement. (p. 206)
- Backers of Bloedow’s website include a number of wealthy Canadian businessmen - Hamilton’s Al Schutten and Martinrea chair Rob Wildeboer – the latter of whom was appointed by Harper to the “Science, Technology and Innovation Council.” Bloedow was also appointed as chair of the “Equipping Christians for the Public Square (ECP) Centre,” which defended homophobic Christians who got in legal trouble for their words. (p. 276)
- Bloedow sees the Supreme Court as the major obstacle for the “re-Christianization” of Canada and called for dismantling the courts. Bloedow has an odd mix of Libertarian –Christianity where local governments could handle justice issues. He’s failed to explain how this would work in a fair or reasonable way (i.e. not just tribal vendettas and bigotry ruling). (p. 280)
But what strikes me most is the blatant ignorance of throwing out terms like “McCarthyism” without understanding the underlying irony of a Christian levelling such a claim against an atheist. During the Red Scare, Senator Joe McCarthy fear-mongered about the atheist communist threat to America, and subsequently the USA passed many pro-Christian signs of support, including adopting “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The McCarthyism of the day was based on fear and lies. Atheists are not trying to repress Christianity using the state, but instead to recognize that in a multicultural, pluralistic country, we can no longer continue making laws that recognize only one sub-sect of society. All people are equal.
The front page
As with articles that somewhat address religion and secularism, my article on Canada.com’s Your Agenda has taken off:
That’s a screenshot from the frontpage today of Canada.com. No clue who that kid is, but the picture is priceless.
Go ahead and read through the varied comments too. I’ll repost and respond to some them later.
Your Agenda: Religious beliefs affect policy–so the leaders should talk about them
This is a piece I was asked to submit to Canada.com’s new “Your Agenda” election feature.
Religious beliefs affect policy - so the leaders should talk about them
The night Stephen Harper was first elected prime minister in 2006, he shocked the nation by ending his speech with a phrase that sounded almost American: “God bless Canada.” Yet, even after five years in power, the media and politicians have yet to broach the taboo subject of religion in Canadian politics.
Agreements between British Protestants and French Catholics led to the creation of our country. That multicultural spirit continues today in a country that welcomes people of any or no faith. However, this multiculturalism is under increasing strain as continued immigration brings customs that clash with other Canadian values and freedoms.
As more Canadians abandon Christianity or bring other beliefs from around the world, some of our older traditions look increasingly archaic. Some surveys have pegged the number of Canadians who don’t believe in God as high as 1 in 4, yet our anthem and Charter both explicitly favour belief in God.
When last year’s Throne Speech promised updates to the national anthem that would address some of the sexist phrasing, the uproar from conservative believers forced a retreat. Few expected such a progressive change from the current government, and many sought further improvements, but Harper’s backtracking was too fast for any actual discussion on the merits of change to occur.
Much of this uproar came from the Christian right in Canada, which has been growing over the past few years. Journalist Marci McDonald documented this growth in her 2010 book The Armageddon Factor. Organized in response to the gay marriage debates, McDonald credits evangelical Christians with rallying behind the Harper Conservatives, propelling him to victory.
Their success is such that Harper’s Minister of State for Science and Technology made some unclear statements about his beliefs on the subject of evolution while others have stood in the House (http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/02/james-lunney-v-science/) and defended Biblical Creationism. In 2000, similar statements led to Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella openly mocking then Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day on national television.
Yet questions about the personal beliefs of candidates for our highest offices seem to remain off-limits. While there should never be a religious (or atheistic) test for our government, it is greatly mistaken to think that deeply held beliefs will not affect the policy positions once in power. People have a right to know if any of our elected officials think the world will end in our lifetime.
These beliefs lead to actions like the government’s denial of funds to maternal health initiatives that might have provided access to abortions in the Third World, and to social-justice group KAIROS that apparently represents the wrong kind of Christian. Dennis Gruending documents numerous other organizations (http://dennisgruending.ca/pulpitandpolitics/2011/03/25/stephen-harpers-hit-list/), including Pride Toronto and Planned Parenthood, that have fallen victim to these seemingly ideological cuts. While past Prime Ministers have harboured varying levels of commitment to their beliefs, few have let it bleed into their policy. Until recently, most politicians seemed to take Trudeau’s legacy of keeping the government out of the bedroom to heart.
My hope for this and future elections is that we can have an open discussion about the role of religious belief in Canadian politics. We need to shed light on hidden agendas and move toward policy based on reason and evidence.
Ian Bushfield is currently a masters student in physics at Simon Fraser University and lives in Vancouver. He is president of the B.C. Humanist Association and blogs at http://terahertzatheist.ca and http://canadianatheist.com .
Peak: Canada doesn’t need the Queen
My first article of the new school year is out and addresses comments that Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard made during her latest campaign about dropping the monarchy there.
Canada doesn’t need the Queen
By Ian Bushfield
If you’re anything like me, you spent the latter half of your summer engrossed in news about last week’s historic Australian election, finally decided a full fortnight after their election day. It’s a vote that could have implications for their relationship to the British monarchy, and could be instructive for future Canadian policy.
For those not in the loop, Australia’s ruling Labour Party underwent a bloodless coup d’état a few months back when unpopular Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was replaced by up-and-comer Julia Gillard. She became the first female prime minister of Australia, as well as an atheist who lives with her partner out of wedlock. But like our own Kim Campbell, Gillard seemed destined to lose power as quickly as she gained it as her fortunes turned sour in this election.
But Gillard managed to sneak by with a tie in final seat counts with her opposition, and after some deals she managed to get enough independents and the lone Green Party member to support Labour and establish a coalition government.
I could make lots of comparisons here between our country and Australia, from their natural acceptance of coalitions, to their more proportional electoral system for their senate, or the fact that an atheist was elected prime minister and no one really got upset. But instead, I want to discuss one short quote that Gillard made during her campaign that was almost ignored.
She stated that Australia should seek to become a republic once the monarch changes.
Australia, like Canada, is a constitutional monarchy whose head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, the queen of England and the entire Commonwealth. Meanwhile, France and the USA are republics, which means that the people of either country directly or indirectly elect their heads of state.
In 1999, Australia actually held a referendum to determine whether they should drop the monarchy and instead install a president who would be nominated by a two-thirds majority of parliament. The referendum failed, in part because the alternative presented was a somewhat obscure option that didn’t necessarily have the support of all republicans in the country.
Monarchists defend the status quo using one of two main arguments: tradition, and the political advantages of an unelected head of state.
Tradition arguments can be rejected out of hand, as tradition is what brings us racism, sexism, xenophobia, and most other prejudiced systems. Just because something is what has always been done does not make it the right or moral thing to do. Monarchs are a throwback to theocratic days where people could be hung for the victimless crime of blasphemy with nothing more than a show trial. A monarch is the crown of a caste system where one cannot work their way out of despondency. The divine right of kings (and queens) is an affront to our modern free and secular society.
An unelected head of state is also argued to provide stability and rationality to the democratic process by acting as sober oversight to the whims of the public and politicians. Further, it is argued that by removing the monarchy, we risk consolidating even more power in our already bloated prime minister’s office.
However, as demonstrated by recent decisions of our governor general, the prime minister has little difficulty pushing his agenda through. Parliament has been prorogued twice to end debate that threatened the government. An independent and accountable head of state, separate from the PMO and cabinet, could act as a new focus of Canadian pride, and help to rebuild our crumbling democracy.
There’s many ways that we could establish a Canadian republic, and it is time we start the conversation about Canada after the queen.
Launching the Vancouver Secular Party
After some prodding from friends who read my initial post on the possibility of creating a political party for the 2011 Vancouver civic election, I’ve realized that there is a growing demand for a grassroots secular-based political group.
So with that I’ve created a Facebook goup and WordPress blog (for those not on Facebook), to act as gauges of interest in the project.
The responses that I’ve gotten have fallen into two categories.
First, there’s the people already active in politics who are worried that any new political party will split the vote and give united conservative or religious groups the advantage.
Second, there’s people who are entirely disenfranchised with existing options and see this as a project that they could actually get interested and involved in.
While the first group’s concerns are valid, I have a few responses. First, at the Vancouver civic level, we don’t have to worry as much about splitting the progressive vote, since it represents a large majority of voters. Even further, if we run one (or any number less than a full slate of) candidate(s) for council, then we can still have a progressive voice while also bringing our issues into the discussion. In many cases, third (or fourth) parties are created often as single issue parties just to get their voice to the table (see the Nude Garden Party or the Work Less Party). So I believe there is value in creating these parties.
Of course, even if we don’t create a political party, we can always transform this group into a political lobby group that advocates for secular issues at various levels.
Finally, as I’m already the secretary for both CFI Vancouver and the BC Humanists, the VP External for the Freethought Association of Canada, and the treasurer for the SFU Skeptics (on top of being a full-time masters student in physics), I don’t currently have the time to launch this full time, and will be relying on volunteers coming forward who want to see this project get off the ground.
So with that said, join the Facebook group, check out the blog (and offer to write for it), or email me to help out.
Time for the Secular Vancouver Party?
Secularists are fond of complaining about politicians over-endorsing religion and school boards not defending evolution against creationist onslaughts.
So perhaps it’s time to for those who want to preserve church-state separation to go on the offensive.
Actually, Australians have already beat me to it and created the Secular Party of Australia.
However, while national politics involves many pressing issues (including natural health product regulations in Canada), many of the greatest effects are seen at the local level. So perhaps it’s time for a Secular Party of Vancouver.
Vancouver is one of the few cities where municipal politics involves political parties, so it’s prime level for a group of like-minded people to run a slate of candidates for the city council, parks board and school board.
At the council level, Secular councillors can advocate for an end to property tax exemptions for churches which only proselytize. There is already precedent in the BC town of Gibsons for ending such exemptions, and it’s time for Vancouver, with a non-religious population of over 40% to follow suit.
The next civic election in Vancouver is in November 2011, so there’s time to get things organized (provided there’s interest and money). Anyone with me?
Recent Posts
- The Atheist Census–obnoxious and obscure marketing?
- No, I don’t
- CFI Canada skips critical thinking
- State of Albertan Politics
- Successful in Ottawa, Religious Right turns to Edmonton
Recent Comments
- Ian on The Atheist Census–obnoxious and obscure marketing?
- Per Smith on The Atheist Census–obnoxious and obscure marketing?
- Per Smith on The Atheist Census–obnoxious and obscure marketing?
- Ian on The Atheist Census–obnoxious and obscure marketing?
- Per Smith on The Atheist Census–obnoxious and obscure marketing?
Categories
Politics Religion Links Atheism Media NDP Elections Personal Science Conservatives Alberta Secularism Edmonton School Scepticism Canada BC UofA Atheists and Agnostics Creationism Vancouver Liberals Economics Site Parody Fun Video CFI Global Warming Evolution Humanism Bible Capitalism SFU The Peak Free speech Anti-choice Philosophy Gay rights Books Companies Computers Random USA movies
Subscribe to posts