Lest We Foreget and the Balance in Patriotism

If, in any way, my sentiments below are perceived as insensitive or misplaced, I apologize in advance and assure I have no such intention.

Today is a day to remember the tremendous sacrifices of our veterans, a day to be proud of our contributions to peace, democracy and freedom, and a day to pay respect to fallen soldiers.

I am always in a deep thought on Remembrance Day or Armistice Day as they call it here. I am in somewhat of a somber trance while contemplating about how immense a sacrifice – physical and mental – so many men and women, just like me and you, took to ensure that you and I don’t have to. I believe, it may actually be beyond comprehension what that sacrifice means. It’s a wrestle to equate it in our minds, and that in and ofitself is a blessing.

Yet – and I recognize that this may be controversial – I have thought for some years now about the ‘balance of patriotism’ in Remembrance Day.

Canada fought World Wars and other conflicts with other nations. In fact, one often overlooked aspect of the world wars was how nations came together to promote freedom and democracy. Men and women of different colour, religion, ethnicity, socio-economic background, language, country etc. came together under the banner of peace. I am not oblivious to the fact that racial and other tensions existed (and continue to today), but the ability of peoples to come together remains remarkable.

Consider too that many Canadians don’t have Canadians, or even British, veterans in their family lineage. I don’t. My ‘origins’ are Polish. I celebrate Canadian veterans and am fervently proud of Canada’s contribution to the resolution of twentieth century conflicts. I consider myself a disciple of Pearsonianism and could tell you in detail about the contribution of Canada to every international conflict it has entered since the Boar War to its peacekeeping missions in the Balkans and Haiti.

But when Remembrance Day comes around, I also want to remember my grandfather who fought in the Warsaw Uprising, my great uncle who was executed in the Katyn forests, my great grandfather who was a professional soldier for the Russian army before Poland came into existance, as well as the rest of my family that suffered but pushed forward to ensure peace in Europe.

I also find myself thinking that it’s not only Allied or Western forces that sacrificed. Men and women, boys and girls of these nations in conflict were led astray by the politics of their day and died in battles that should never have stripped them from their families and left them in trenches, jungles or deserts, to fight enemies they often didn’t understand for reasons they often couldn’t comprehend. War isn’t and never has been a pretty thing for either side.

If you have read Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front, you can appreciate that we must never forget that soldiers are soldiers and those soldiers are men and women with mothers and fathers and sons and daughters. They fought because they were told. They were on one side because that’s where they were born.

In this vein I appreciate and admire many European Remembrance Day commemorations. Last year in Verdun French President Nicholas Sarkozy was accompanied by Prince Charles, the Governor General of Australia and the president of the Upper House of the German Parliament. Today Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel spent time commemorating the event together. That a German leader and a French leader would come together for such an event was perhaps unthinkable and certainly controversial just decades ago. Year in and year out, high ranking German officials and others are invited to these celebrations. I find that consideration a symbol of maturity and dignity, one worthy of admiration.

Like many other Remembrance Days in years past standing in the cold by the War Memorial, this year I spent a lot of time thinking about these issues, and how they fit into the importance of pride of nation, of patriotism. It seems to be more and more evident as each November 11th passes that they are not mutually exclusive. It is, as ever, important to remember our past holistically and with compassion and a balanced patriotism.

Yes, the International Criminal Court is Important, Impressive and Increasingly Effective

Map of ICC member states

There’s a lot of negativity in international relations over various institutions: “the UN is a corrupt institution that has no claim to legitimacy”; “the World Bank is evil”; “the ICC is a hollow body that doesn’t really do anything and has no power.”

Of course, all of these assertions are ridiculous. In this post I’d like to say a little something about the ICC in particular.

The ICC, not yet a decade old, is currently conducting investigations in four different crisis situations – Darfur, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic and Northern Uganda. While most of the legal responsibilities lie with the member states, the ICC has itself indicted fourteen people and has a number of ongoing trials and investigations. It has 110 full member states with some 40 other nations that have signed the Rome Statute that created the ICC but have yet to ratify it.

There are barriers to its increasing legitimacy and effectiveness, there is no doubt. Seven of the indicted individuals remain free, including the President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, who was the first sitting head of state to be indicted by the ICC. Major global powers including the United States, China, Russia, and India, are critical of the ICC. The United States actually signed the Rome Statute and then, in an unprecedented decision, ‘unsigned’ in 2002.

Yet keep in mind that despite not being a member, the Obama administration has shown much a much more positive approach to the ICC. Earlier this year the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, said that the ICC “looks to become an important and credible instrument for trying to hold accountable the senior leadership responsible for atrocities committed in the Congo, Uganda, and Darfur.” In the case of Darfur, it was the Security Council – with China, Russia and the US – who agreed to refer the crisis to the ICC. The Council also didn’t prevent the ICC from indicting al-Bashir, something it was under intense pressure to do.

Last May, Munyaneza was convicted in Canada for crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes committed in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide

There has also been significant domestic legal changes and investigations as a result of the ICC. Consider the announcement that the RCMP in Canada has charged Jacques Mungwarere with genocide under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Mungwarere is now the second individual in Canada to be tried under that law. Last May, Désiré Munyaneza was convicted of two counts of genocide, two counts of crimes against humanity, and three counts of war crimes for his role in the Rwandan genocide in 1994.

What’s the link to the ICC? The CAHWCA was legislated in 2000 as a responsibility Canada accepted when it signed the Rome Statute in 1998 creating the ICC. It thus has the responsibility to bring to justice anyone accused of crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes.

It is not inconsequential that this has occurred twice already in Canada alone. After WWII many perpetrators of the worst of the Nazi’s crimes escaped, particularly to South America. Criminals of the vilest faculties like Adolf Eichmann, who has been referred to as the ‘architect of the Holocaust’, Josef Mengele, the literally evil scientist whose expirement on concentration camp inmates led to his nickname, ‘the Angel of Death’, and Klaus Barbie, the ‘Butcher of Lyon’, all escaped Germany and spent decades in South America. Mengele was never brought to justice and died in Brazil.

A successful ICC can prevent the criminals of human conscience from escaping justice, and the Canadian cases are proving just that. Next time you think to say “the ICC doesn’t matter”, think twice. Next time you hear someone say “it’s just a hollow body without any power”, let them know how silly that is.

Updated: Young Greens Slogan: “Your Parents F*cked Up the Planet” – An Unnecessary Conversation Ender

The new logo is great but the slogan misses the mark (Logo: http://youth.greenparty.ca/en/)

The Young Greens of Canada have a new website. It’s snazzy, fashionable and engaging. It’s a fresh face for a political website, something that reflects the creativity and zeal of Young Greens. However, that being said, the choice of “Your Parents F*cked Up the Planet” as a slogan was a poor judgement call. While it has been debated that the Young Greens should be “edgier” and more “in your face” in order to get attention, is saying that the parents of young Canadians ruined the world really the right way to go?

It may be a conservative view, but I think that this creativity was misplaced and the message unnecessary for the following reasons:

1. It’s abrasive (hence the shock value), but not in any way positive. The message is inherently negative and confrontational by its nature of apportioning blame on “your” parents, seemingly implying that there exists some group of “our” parents that are better or at least more innocent. This leads to my second point.

2. The message drives a wedge between generations rather than espousing that the constructed divisions of “us” and “them” between generations need to be less divisive and broken down. We must understand that what is good for one generation must be good for the next generations to come. This is the holistic and sustainable view of generations and responsibility to the future.

3. My parents did not ruin anything on this planet and it is offensive to insinuate that they did. Coming from a communist nation, my parents had little choice in the matter of resource usage or unsustainable practices. Governments arguably did, particularly those in the industrialized West. I know I’m not the only one in this position, particularly with so many Canadians with backgrounds in developing nations.

A deeper point here is the inappropriate application of today’s values on individuals before us. This is one of the most critical things not to do when treating history and time. Otherwise we would all have to accept that our origins were, for example, racist, segregationist, sexist and generally discriminatory.

4. It is the “parents” who we need to trust in helping to find solutions in the coming months and years to deal with climate change. Indeed, it’s parents like Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, Hu Jintao etc. who we are relying on to find ways to mitigate the current climate change crisis, particularly at the upcoming conference in Copenhagen. Youth need to engage and lobby their leaders, not drive a wedge between generations.

What do you think: is it a worthwhile message or misplaced creativity? If you have arguments in support of the slogan, please do share. It would be great to better understand the rationale behind it. But most importantly, could a positive message to do with legacy and living up to the next generation’s needs not be just as effective?

A big thanks to Chris Rapson, who took the time and effort to systematically look at and address each point above to argue the “other side of the coin”. His responses are posted in the blog here so as not to have them overlooked in the comments:

1.  Yes, it’s intended to get attention based partly on shock value.  Whether positive or negative, the fact is that the slogan rings true for a huge number of young Canadians.  The generations that have held power over the last few centuries have knowingly or unknowingly fucked up the planet.  Our generation has lived only in a world full of messages about how bad things are and how much worse they will get.  There is, however, a positive element to the slogan that comes in the second part (which you have conveniently ignored in your blog): “it’s time to do something about it.”

2.  Although I may concede that there is a divisive element to the message, the point is to give young Canadians something to rally around. And the generations before us have left us a planet in peril.  We (those not yet in power) have a right to feel less than grateful and less than happy to receive the plethora of problems they (those who have been in power) have failed to address.  There is nothing sustainable about holding hands while the future of humanity goes to hell.

3.  I don’t know them, but I’m sure your parents are lovely people.  So are mine.  That doesn’t mean that all our parents haven’t contributed in small or large ways to the many problems that we are now forced to face because their generation didn’t.  Governments, producers, marketers and consumers can all share the blame.  And yes, I’m speaking mostly with respect to the industrialized West, but also to those developing nations that are choosing the same problematic path instead of finding a better way forward.  Even if I give you that we shouldn’t judge the past by today’s standards, the problems we face today have been well understood (at least well enough to do something about them) since, at the very latest, the release of Silent Spring in 1962.  The Hippies knew enough, but the marketing, advertising and PR agencies and their clients shut them up.  Anyway, I see no justification for letting the boomers off the hook.

4.  You’re right that we do need leadership from those “parents” in charge, but we also need leadership from “regular” parents who are still producing, marketing and consuming us right to the end of our species’ time on this planet, not to mention all the other intermediary messes they’re perpetuating for us all.  While I agree that youth need to engage and lobby their leaders, we also need, perhaps even more importantly, to BE leaders in our communities.  There is a difference between holding our parents’ generation accountable for the choices they have made and “driving a wedge”.  There exists already, in many families and many communities, a huge gap between the generations.  And facts are facts.  We’re in a real mess on this planet and it’s time to do something about it.  Supporting and voting for the Green Party is one important way, among many others, to do so.

Can History Help Us Respond to Terrorism?

Richard English, author of Terrorism: How to Respond (Photo: Queens University Belfast)

Can history help us respond to terrorism?

I attended a fascinating and vindicating public lecture tonight at the LSE. The speaker was Richard English, a renowned and widely trusted source on issues, policies and strategies surrounding terrorism, who has just published a book, Terrorism: How to Respond. Amongst innumerable accolades, English also works at Queens University Belfast as the director of research and chair of Irish Studies, from which much of his work on terrorism derives.

To begin, my point about vindication: English holds as a central tenet that in order to deal with current crises effectively, states and actors must appreciate and learn from history. I have often written and spoken of this issue. It was a primary reason that I studied history as my undergraduate degree while knowing that I would not pursue it as a career. It felt good to hear someone so trusted and knowledgeable forcefully concur.

Many times we hear people state the old adage that “history repeats itself”. It would be nice if history could fit into anything so nicely as a three word cliché, but it doesn’t. Yet, there is an element of truth in the statement: today’s challenges are reflected in the challenges of the past. More importantly, is that the lessons of history can be applied to the present day. While empowering, this principle is often ignored, and unfortunately often at the worst of times.

Post-9/11, English states we live with a fundamental paradox: despite the monstrously costly war on terror, the incidence of terror has actually increased. Some statistics indicate that acts of terrorism have increased some four-fold since 2001, while other predictions that include stats from Iraq and Afghanistan are even more grim. How could this be and why is this so?

The macro reason is quite simple for English: what has happened since 9/11 has happened throughout history. In times of crisis, states respond with amnesia. They don’t learn from or apply the lessons of the past. Indeed it seems that they barely know they could learn from them. Whether or not this is a direct reaction to difficult situations on the part of individuals or a coping mechanism, English didn’t say, but on the basis of it, many of us can remember the numbness of that morning and the days that following the attacks in New York and Pennsylvania.

To many observers of the post 9/11 world, this thus appears to be a valid thesis. But as easy as it is to explain the problem, it takes much more to predicate a solution. English doesn’t shy away from doing just that, giving a seven point remedy to how to effectively and appropriate respond to terrorism.

Map of Terrorist Incidents in 2009: The number of terrorist incidents has increased while the amount spent on preventing has skyrocketed (Photo: Wikipedia)

1. Learn to live with it: Starting on a rather abrupt note, terrorism, English maintains, is always going to be here. It always has, it always will. The objective of the ‘War on Terror’, to obliterate every terrorist organization everywhere, is not a realizable objective. It is not within the power of the United States, nor any coalition of states, to ensure that terrorism is relegated to artifact-status in history. Interestingly, English also declares that terrorism “points to the durability more so than the destruction of the states that are under attack from terrorism.” This perspective puts more onus on how to deal with cases of terrorism and promulgate non-violence means that perhaps more traditional focuses on coercive methods to combat terrorism.

2. Where possible, address underlying root causes and problems: whether it’s crime, or disease or terrorism, the most effective way to deal with issues is to address their root causes. It’s also often a tactic that is simply ignored. Picture the garden weed that emerges from the ground and is chopped by a knife leaving its roots, and thus its ability to grow, in tact. The chopping appears to work but is eventually futile. With regards to terrorism, English claims that states must engage with the causes, not treat terrorism as “beyond the pale, beyond discourse”; they must demonstrate that violence is not the appropriate mechanism for the objectives of terrorist groups. In so doing they will move terrorism towards legitimate mediums of negotiation.

3. Avoid the over-militarization of the response: the biggest issue with the over-militarization over counter-terrorist activities is that it decreases the legitimacy of those activities. Rather than simply using military coercion to combat terrorism, other methods should be explored where they can be.

4. Intelligence is the most vital element in successful counter-terrorism: according to English, agents and informers are keys cogs in understanding terrorists and terrorism. It is they who can decipher who and what the terrorists are, what they are planning to do, their strengths and weaknesses, and, critically, what conditions are needed to consider compromise. He notes that there is evidence that America is increasingly understanding this, but it remains evident that post-9/11 there were massive intelligence failures. For example, prior to the attacks in 2001 there was almost no intelligence activity in Afghanistan.

Guantanamo Bay: an example of losing credibilty in fighting terrorism by bending legal frameworks

5. Respect orthodox legal frameworks and adhere to the democratically established rule of law: not respecting the legal framework of international law and democracy can lead to the loss of credibility and legitimacy of action. One immediately thinks of Abu Ghraib and the Guantanamo Bay detention as apt examples of this. Once legitimacy is lost, the choice for people becomes one between two illegitimate options. This, English argues, has been learned by Washington but he fears that “if there was a bomb in Chicago, it would be forgotten again” and goes on to note the unfortunate political realities of needing to be elected on the basis of being tough on terrorism rather than necessarily acting legitimately and legally.

6. Co-ordinate security-related financial, and technological preventative measures resources of the state: a tremendous lack of co-ordination often occurs when combating terrorism. Various actors, pursuing the same goals, can undertake the same actions with the same goals, without knowing the other is already doing so. This is a loss of efficiency and ultimately effectiveness. Simply put, co-ordinating efforts between fields, ministries etc. is critical to effective responses and policies.

7. Maintain strong credibility in counter-terrorist public argument: English notes that a proper, credible definition of ‘terrorism’ is needed to establish legitimacy responding to it to the public. This credibility, he maintains, is necessary for both the population that is sympathetic with the state under attack and that which is potentially sympathetic with the terrorist’s causes. Both are critical to effective counter-terrorism. Where this seems to be most vital is with regards to being able to negotiate compromise and through conflict-resolution, when greater shared understanding is paramount.

Those are English’s seven points to responding effectively to terrorism. They are borne from the lessons of history, from the cumulative experience of the world. In a sense, that is a blessing: the solutions we need aren’t unattainable; they are in lessons we have at our disposal. In another, it is a massive frustration, for too often we ignore those lessons or simply wish for a world where, to use another cliché, ignorance is bliss.

Good Days from and in London!

A view from Butlers Wharf (Matt From London)

So this is London!

I’m not sure where to begin, so I’ll start chronologically.

First of all, when I boarded the plane at Macdonald-Cartier airport in Ottawa, I wanted to do nothing else but to shrink away into my seat and pillow, perhaps watch a movie, and mentally prepare for this next big step in my life. It wasn’t to be, but for all the right reasons. I sat beside a lovely woman from Nova Scotia named Kathleen. Turns out she wrote the Liberal Party “Pink Books” regarding women’s policies! We had a lovely conversation discussing the ins-and-outs of the Green Party and Liberal Party and the need to re-invigorate the Canadian political world with proportional representation and other modes of engagement.

In some odd ways, Kathleen put me at ease. She took me away from my worries and pains of leaving the country I love so much for a foreign land. If you’re out there Kathleen – thank you!

From the onset it was clear that London was simply massive. Not just massive in terms of its geographical size, but dense unlike any city I’ve been in. Walk for two hours in any direction and you remain in the eclectic urban jungle. It’s quite remarkable just to see where you end up. If it hadn’t been for a throng of people outside I would have totally missed Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre on my walk home the other day!

I live in Butlers wharf which is nestled into the Southern bank of the Thames river, right beside Tower Bridge. It is a neighbourhood comprised of converted shipping warehouses. The fact that I am living in the economic heart of the British Empire has not been lost on me. I often find myself walking the alleys and streets fascinated the world of footsteps in which I now follow.

London is extremely cosmopolitan, not unlike New York City for those that have been. While it’s architecture is quite eclectic it is also powerfully imperial. As for the people, the sheer phenotypic and social diversity is remarkable. This year alone the students in graduate programs at the London School of Economics come from 140 different countries!

I have only met one professor thus far. I told him that a number of Canadians who went through the LSE had gone on to become Prime Ministers (Pierre Trudeau, Kim Campbell). He looked at me, shook my hand and asked me name, “so that he could say he met the future PM of Canada.” It was quite surreal, although I’m not sure he noticed it had an affect on me.

A block down from my flat, yes flat. (Photo: micamica)

On a creepier note, London is always watching. There are cameras everywhere. It’s fear-inspiring ,no doubt. Citizens aren’t able to discern when and where they are being watched, and from all of the social and community theory I have read, I don’t think that is a good thing. Alas, I don’t plan on getting into any sort of trouble on the street!

The London School of Economics is breathtaking. The campus is chameleoned into the London cityscape and its students, the ones I have had the privilege of meeting so far at least, are among the most intellectually and socially engaging I have ever met. With students coming from all over the world, socializing and settling down has been the top priority during “Orientation Festival” or frosh week back home. I have met students from all over Europe, Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and South America. Canadians are also excellently represented here!

I have already gone to some lectures and I will be sharing my thoughts on them on my blog in the coming weeks. Last night I attended a lecture on development and militarization within a gender-based context. The most notable quote to share was that “Africa does not need military security. It needs social security.” While, Africa does need security from physical threats and war, the quote nicely sums up the need to rebalance development efforts from very militaristic ideas to concentrating on social variables such as education, health etc.

That’s all for now. I am heading to a lecture on Statecraft at the campus and will post if there is anything interesting of note to share here.

Ciao for now!

“It’s Time” – The GPC Listening to its Critics!

It's Time! (Photo: betta design)

Good day from sunny (yes sunny!) London!

I received some exciting news recently: The GPC’s slogan for the next election will be “It’s Time”. It may also include “Vote Green”, as in “It’s Time. Vote Green.”

It’s a great slogan. It’s effective in both connotations – that it is time (to vote Green), and that it is about time. But that’s not the sole reason I was so excited to hear about this campaign decision.

I don’t mean to blow my own horn and I don’t purport to have invented the phrase “It’s Time” nor that it is impossible that others have independently suggested it (I hear the GPO once used it). But occasions of such influence rarely come up. I was thus excited to learn that they are adopting “It’s Time” because I proposed it months ago and have been suggesting it as a slogan to any Greens who would listen. I’ve spoken with staff members, federal councilors, shadow cabinet critics and members in both federal and provincial parties saying that they should use the slogan. Some agreed, others didn’t, but that’s to be expected and it was generally well received. Quite well it appears!

In January I first proposed “Because It’s Time” or “It’s About Time”. On a rather popular blog, Messaging and Design: Thoughts and Suggestions for the GPC, this past January, I wrote:

…one slogan that I have bandied about in my spare time is “Because it’s time” or “It’s about time”. Now, I’m not saying that that’s what our message or slogan should be – I fully believe we should invest in getting data from professionals before decisions like this are made. But in this example, we would be offering socially progressive policies – Because it’s time. We would be environmentally conscious – Because it’s time etc.

Over the months I had become increasingly convinced that without the commitment to seek professional contributions in creating the slogan or create external focus groups, that a slogan with the message “It’s Time” would suit the needs of the party the best. It is easily understood and encapsulates the importance of electing Greens in Canada. This summer I had been pushing hard to get the Green Party of Ontario to consider the slogan “Because It’s Time” for its 2011 election, and while doing so, the slogan changed to simply “It’s Time”.

This bodes well – it means the GPC is listening to good and widely supported ideas, even when they come from critical sources. It’s also a wonderful compliment!

A Life Change: London Calling!

Almost, but not quite, what I'm going to study... (Photo: Mark Kersten)

As many readers of Kersten’s Kolumn already know, I am moving overseas to do my masters in London. For the next year I will be attending the London School of Economics, studying International Relations. It was something I have been planning to do for the last two years, having deferred my initial acceptance to LSE in order to work for the GPC in a general election.

Since I’m leaving, the essence of my posts will shift quite substantially in the coming weeks and months. While this site began as a current international and domestic events page, in recent months it has moved towards focussing on Green politics in Canada. Now it will return to its original incarnation. Of course, that does not mean I won’t comment on Green Party issues when they arise, but it will be much less frequently.

When I first started this blog back in late January of this year, my goal was to reach 10,000 hits before I left. It’s now inching its way to 12,000. Thank you all so much for reading and for contributing! The support and interest has been overwhelming and truly humbling.

While not everyone agrees with what I write here, I must reiterate that it has never been the purpose of my work to dictate or preach to a choir of consensus. It has been to spark debate, discuss issues and views that are too often ignored, and to do so through research and trustworthy sources rather than through personal language or private viewpoints.

My basic mantra was often to investigate issues because very little is as it first seems. Further, agreement cannot be met on blogs, mine or anyone else’s, and reaching it has never been my intention with Kersten’s Kolumn. Agreement is to be met when difficult decisions are made. I hope that in some ways, by providing a forum for positive dialogue and a diversity of perspectives, better considered decisions can be made in the future.

Time and again I have come back to this issue: we must never forget that criticism does not equal dissent. Doing so has terribly negative and unproductive consequences. With such a wide range of views and philosophies in our umbrella party, this is easy, but inexcusable, to forget. The point is to work hard to remember that we cannot equate the two.

This next year will be a particularly interesting, and challenging, year for Greens. There will almost certainly be a general election and at in less than a year the GPC will hold a leadership contest, something many Greens have been talking and preparing for for months. At every turn, remember: criticism does not equal dissent. Let us also demand transparency, accountability, and integrity. If we do this, we will no doubt make the right decisions and build a stronger consensus within our party and for Canadians. We are in this together, whether we agree on specific policies and decisions or not. Our default must be respect, our approach positive.

This next year promises to be very exciting. I hope to get deeply entrenched in upcoming events, including the 20th anniversary of the fall of communism in Europe, the Copenhagen climate change conference in December and the Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty next month. I may also be working as an intern in the British Parliament. I promise to share my experiences and thoughts on these journeys.

I hope that some readers will continue to check in at Kersten’s Kolumn, even when it doesn’t relate directly to Green Party affairs or Canadian politics. It has been a tremendous pleasure to write these posts and to hear your feedback.

Thank you, good luck and ciao for now!

Mark

A change of scenery: For the next year I will be living two blocks south of the Tower Bridge in London (Photo: DAVID ILIFF)

Green Party Digest: SGI, Hertzog Complaint, a Deputy Leader and the Missed Election

Deputy Leader Claude Genest will not be running in the next election (Photo: www.claudegenest.com)

Sorry for my absence over the last few days. I am preparing for a big change in my life, but more on that tomorrow.

Here are some thoughts for discussion on recent events around the GPC.

On SGI

Congratulations to Elizabeth May and her team on winning the nomination in Saanich – Gulf Islands. All indications suggest they did the ground work needed to ensure she won, as the official rhetoric described it, “by a landslide.” It will be a fascinating race to watch in the coming election. The nomination win appears to have been solid, although there was a distinct lack of  class in the reaction to winning. The official victory announcement was seeped in the language of “me, me, me” rather than thanking the members of SGI and her opponent, Stuart Hertzog, for creating an exciting and interesting race. The importance of knowing when to shine the light on yourself and when to shine it on others is essential to having class in politics. May’s team will find that shining it on others in such cases is not only the appropriate thing to do but is effective in serving their interests as well.

Also, congratulations to Stuart Hertzog. A lot of Greens said some pretty nasty things about him and his decision to run against May for the party’s nomination in SGI. Congratulations to Hertzog because he stood up against something much larger and more powerful than him and stood resolute through adversity. Beyond the politics, he deserves respect for his resolve. Heck, given her history and what she is up against, May and her supporters should know exactly why that is important!

It was a shame to see insulting and negative posts by May supporters and commenters towards Hertzog. Camille Labchuk, a close confidante of May’s, sniped that his contesting of the nomination was something between bizarre and amusing and unnecessarily added that it was a competition for second place between Hertzog and None of the Above (NOTA). Dave Bagler, who often has solid insights into Green affairs, set up a Facebook campaign to put pressure on Hertzog to step down and wrote: “Stuart its time to go away. I think you may be confused, you think you’re helping but your not.”

Like many others, I couldn’t support Hertzog in his reasoning for running. But in the GPC, individuals who represent the diversity of opinion in the Green movement deserve respect, even – if not especially – when we don’t agree. In the GPC, the default must be respect and approach must be positive.

On the Elections Canada Complaint

Stuart Hertzog deserves respect for standing up for what he believed in despite having the odds overwhelmingly stacked against him (Photo:greenpolitics.ca)

There has been a lot said about Hertzog and his filing of complaints to Elections Canada as a result of what he perceives to be an unfair nomination contest. While it’s natural that observers want to stick their fingers into the muck of this situation, the better avenue is to wait and see what Elections Canada’s verdict is. That’s what they are there for.

Not to defend his actions, but with so many individuals judging his complaints as baseless, a general point that has been missed on this subject is that the open transfer of $50,000 to the SGI EDA, earmarked for May’s federal campaign or not, slants the nomination competition in her favour irrespective of whether or not those funds are used for the explicit purpose of a nomination contest. Put simply, who would you vote for: the candidate with massive financial backing or the individual who has barely any? In May’s defense, it appears that the money was transferred long before Hertzog became a candidate in the nomination contest and there is no electoral law against such transfers. While this latent influence on the contest has been missed in observers’ discussion, once again, the decision will be up to Elections Canada – Canada’s defenders of electoral law – to investigate and determine what, if any, action is required.

On Deputy Leader Claude Genest

GPC Deputy Leader, Claude Genest will no longer run as a GPC candidate because his campaign team failed to fulfill the requirement of filing financial reports with Elections Canada. The party will miss an effective communicator like Genest who was widely viewed as having infectious flare and the “common touch”, a rare but valuable commodity in politics. It was widely agreed that in the last election Genest had the most effective campaign commercials.

It should be noted that under Elections Canada law it is possible for Genest to run again if it was not directly his fault for not filing the return. He may initiate a legal process that could lead him to being reinstated as a candidate.

But the more important question is why this has been simply ignored by the GPC for so long. Given that Genest was the candidate in the 2008 by-elections and general election this has been evident for quite some time. Yet, if there had been an election called last week, the GPC would have entered it with a Deputy Leader barred from running for office, certainly an embarrassing development. Hopefully this will be cleared up in the near future and a new deputy leader who can run in the next election will be chosen soon!

On the Missed Election

Lastly, the fact that no election was called last week should come as not only a relief to the GPC but should be recognized as an opportunity. Over the past few weeks, the party went into hyper-election mode and moved towards a more respectable position for going into the next election, something that it was nowhere near to just weeks ago. However, now that the rush is off, the momentum must be sustained towards the next election. Once again, every day is a campaign day.

Let Elizabeth Speak

If you haven’t already, please sign up here and get your friends to do so as well. It’s beyond explanation at this point: We need her Green voice in the next debates and Canadians deserve to hear and see her.

Part 2: So how ’bout that carbon tax?

Where has the carbon tax gone from the GPC political lexicon? (photo: carbontax.org)

Back in March I wrote a piece called “So how about that carbon tax eh?” It noted that while the GPC was spreading its policy seeds into every issue-realm it could, rarely, if ever, did its leadership mention the carbon tax. A simple gander over press releases since the last election makes this point clear.

In March the topic of the disappearing carbon tax was one of relatively shallow interest. Given that the Dion Liberals put it into political purgatory and Michael Ignatieff abandoned any possibility it would be a policy plank again, how to frame a carbon tax going forward was a policy issue and a messaging issue. With a potential election looming this fall, now it’s a campaign question.

The carbon tax isn’t just any other policy to the GPC. It’s not an experiment like it was for the Liberals. It separated the Greens from all other parties until Dion agreed to take it on, and since his political Hindenburg, it again separates the Greens from the rest. The carbon tax embodied the GPC’s exhaustive efforts to holistically link the economy to the environment. It had widespread support across Canada and it was a creative way to tackle the most critical problem of our day – climate change.

In early 2008 a larger percentage of Canadians supported a carbon tax. But there was a catch: they didn’t want it to be revenue neutral. Canadians don’t understand how it could be, or that it ever would be, revenue neutral. As NDP candidate Tom King said to a roaring reaction during the 2008 Guelph by-election, “how can you expect to feed a horse’s mouth and expect the same thing out the other end.”

Canadians wanted the revenue generated by a carbon tax to “punish” polluters or “reward” environmental consciousness. While it was what Canadians wanted, neither the Greens nor the Liberals gave them that option at the polls. Both wanted to sell citizens on the idea that despite government with the bureaucracy of Canada’s, if they formed government they would take a dollar on one end of the equation and give it back at the other. Of course, that was and remains absurd. As the cliché goes, “nothing in life is free.” Certain groups, most prominently rural Canadians, would had to have special clauses in carbon tax policies to make sure their tractors, trucks and farmhouses weren’t too punishing. Take a quick look at the GPC’s 2008 election “fully-costed platform” and there isn’t a single number in that uber-confusing budget that could possibly indicate “revenue neutrality”.

Canadians viewed a carbon tax as favourable but wanted it to punish polluters (photo: luchegorsk.ru)

While it may be too late for the Green decision-makers to listen and consider messaging strategies, they would be wise to do so. What the GPC needed after last election was not to do its own part in castigating the carbon tax to irrelevancy. Instead, the party should have reshaped what it meant to implement a carbon tax. When it boils down to it, the carbon tax is a great green policy and a horrible messaging tool. The repercussion of not rethinking the messaging on the carbon tax is that the GPC, and its candidates, will be stuck in dud rhetoric or silence regarding a critical policy.

Of course, it does not have to be this way. This kolumn has argued that “carbon” is too neutral and poorly understood of a term, and given political history, “tax” is one of the least saleable terms to use in a campaign. The proposal was to rename the non-revenue neutral policy a “Pollution Fund”.

But there are others. Take Thomas Friedman, who in a recent New York Times article, wrote a fictional speech as President Obama:

“Right now we’re paying a huge price — a tax — for everyone trying to achieve more in an unsustainable way…My proposal is that today we fix a durable price on carbon-based fossil fuels, but set it to begin only in 2011, after we’re out of this recession…Yes, the cost of gasoline or kilowatt hours will rise in the short term. But in the long term, your actual bills and expenses will go down because your car, appliances and factory will become steadily more productive and give you more power for less energy…I call it the ‘Carbon Tax Cut.’ You won’t receive the dividend in the first week or month, but you will get it soon, and it will be a permanent tax cut, a gift that will keep on giving.”

So why not get creative with messaging the carbon tax? Why not give Canadians what they have already said they want in a policy? Even just by adding the word “cut” to the end of “carbon tax” better embodies it’s purpose – to be a long-term tax cut for those who are environmentally conscious.

Yet, whether it’s a result of rigid convictions or disdain for disagreement, calls to reshape the messaging around the carbon tax in the GPC have simply been ignored. Indeed, as a main policy plank, the carbon tax has been mostly ignored, to the detriment of both the party whose members are stringent believers in the policy and to Canadians who view it favourably.

Saanich it is – Officially

Can Elizabeth May turn Saanich-Gulf Islands Green from Blue?

There isn’t much to add to this story that hasn’t already been said. This is one of the most anticlimactic political announcements in recent memory. We have known about this decision and debated its merits since the early summertime when the decision was initially made. You can click on any of these words for past analysis and discussions.

Not one major news service headlined May’s decision. Below are a few highlights from articles and pieces discussing the announcement. While not necessarily negative, the reaction from the mainstream media – the point of building anticipation for the announcement all summer – has been lukewarm at best.

The CBC used the first sentence of their piece on May’s declaration to call it “One of the worst-kept secrets in Canadian politics has been confirmed,” and added that “the riding, which includes several island communities, is also considered to have strong support for Green candidates.”

Bill Curry of The Globe and Mail wrote that “Ms. May’s announcement comes in spite of her public vows that she would only run in federal campaigns in the Nova Scotia riding of Central Nova.” He added that May’s parachute candidacy is mirrored by parachute citizens who move to SGI. He quoted May as saying “There’s such a strong base here of people who have moved, as I just have, from across the country.” May was also quoted as saying that “I was persuaded by the Greens across the country and by members of the public – complete strangers – have come up to me since last October to say ‘We really wanted you in the House of Commons. Don’t run where you ran last time…I don’t think anyone can hold it against me that I’m capable of listening and changing my mind.” Curry also spoke with Conservative MP and Cabinet Minister Gary Lunn, who appeared undaunted by the prospects of running against the Green leader.

CTV buried coverage of the announcement on their site. They wrote that before running as the candidate “May must first defeat local Green party member Stuart Hertzog, who has already announced he will seek the nomination and oppose May’s plans to parachute into the region.” The article also maintains that May has justified running in SGI since “B.C. is the party’s historic seat because the first North American arm of the Green party was formed in the province.”

There has not been much on Green blogs as of yet. However, Mark Taylor has provided some critical analysis of the announcement. Mark makes four points about the May’s official declaration of running in SGI. The importance of Andrew Lewis, the previous Green candidate in SGI and former GPC Deputy Leader, supporting May’s decision cannot be understated. Many thought that bad blood from the last election would have prevented him from supporting May. However, Lewis exclaimed his full support for “Elizabeth’s decision to run for the nomination in Saanich Gulf Islands and am looking forward to supporting her in the next election.”

Please feel free to share any other media pieces and analyses you find that are of interest.

Lastly, good luck to all Greens that are committing to getting Elizabeth elected in SGI!