The Proletariat Congress

With many ways of ‘improving’ the lives of Ontarians, the provincial Liberals have decided to pass a legislation that would appease the Tories and NDP, who want a law that protects children. A law that bans the smoking of cigarettes in vehicles where children passengers are under the tender age of 16. A meaningful and symbolic move, nothing more.

This legislation should it go on the books would be entirely unenforceable, especially in an era where the windows of vehicles are now tinted and people no longer dispose of cigarette butts in the cars’ ashtray, yet another thing of a not too distant past. And how so easy it is to dispose of the incriminating evidence. Smell alone means nothing. Cigarette smoke is notorious for clinging to fabric, the odour hanging in the air for long periods. Proving that the smoke is fresh is futile, as the driver or other of-age adult passengers could have been smoking before the young passenger got into the vehicle.

And the fine, if someone is actually caught, though it is unlikely, is a mere $200, and that is Canadian. If this is a crime, why is the amount so low? It’s more of a cash grab than a crime. It’s the government merely pretending it gives a damn, because at the end of the day the only thing politicians truly give a damn about is votes and as long as appearances are maintained, nothing else matters.

What’s more, if the police start pulling over people at random, there will be an incredible amount of public outrage at the blatant invasion of privacy by the nanny state in the pursuit of the elusive few who flout the law. After all, if someone isn’t speeding and they are following the basic laws of the street, there is no legal justification for pulling them over.

Even if a programme similar to RIDE is implemented, it’s easy to dispose of the incriminating evidence. Unlike alcohol, cigarettes do not intoxicate the user and hence, it’s legal to drive while smoking. Even if there are spot checks, smell alone is not grounds for charging someone because there is no way of proving when the smell got into the fabric of the car’s upholstery or into the person’s clothing.

And how will age be determined? A sight test will fail no doubt and not all people upon turning 16 years old immediately go out and get a license. There are no mandatory ID cards and not all people look their age at this point. Some people will look older, and some will look younger, much younger than they actually are.

What of court appeals? How will it go down? Will the officer take names of all the people in the car? There are too many problems with a piece of legislation like this. It provides too many ways for a person to get caught up on a law design to placate a few without thinking of the overall repercussions that will be incurred from the existence of a law such as this.

Ontario to ban smoking in cars with kids

From the second clause of the charter:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

This clause is an important element to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. It guarantees each Canadian the right to make their own choices about what archaic, draconian religion they wish to blindly devote themselves to, while they are mocked by those of us who enjoy the freedom that comes with not being bound to meaningless rules spelled out by some invisible cloud faerie.

If people want to acquiesce themselves before some egotistical, childish megalomaniac self-centred deity who hasn’t an iota of confidence then that’s their problem. Don’t waste my tax dollars to pay the politicians who want to pray at the start of the parliamentary session. The legislature does not need to be blessed nor do these people need to pray to some invisible sky faerie on my dollar.

In the Ontario provincial legislature, it’s common practice to recite the Lord’s Prayer despite that there are many different beliefs. The Lord’s Prayer based on Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4 is strictly Christian, though the most common prayer and shared by all the different sects of Christianity.

The topic was breached by Ontario Premier, Dalton McGuinty, the leader of the Ontario Liberals, who felt that it was time to “update” the Lord’s Prayer for the 21st century, as the last update in Ontario for this had occurred in 1969.

“The members of the Ontario Legislature reflect the diversity of Ontario – be it Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or agnostic. It is time for our practices to do the same. That is the Ontario way,” McGuinty wrote.

So, we still need prayer despite the existence of this diversity? Last I checked, Agnostics didn’t pray, and what of Atheists, Deist et al who don’t buy into this horse manure?

Wikipedia defines prayer as:

Prayer is the act of attempting to communicate, commonly with a sequence of words, with a deity or spirit for the purpose of worshipping, requesting guidance, requesting assistance, confessing sins or to express one’s thoughts and emotions. The words of the prayer may take the form of a hymn, incantation or a spontaneous utterance in the person’s praying words.

So, if our politicians need to seek assistance from a higher power, maybe they shouldn’t be holding office then. Maybe we should have people in office who don’t need to turn to some invisible cloud faerie for ‘assistance’ and ‘guidance’.

After all, the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland Labrador (the only existing ones) don’t engage in such frivolities, and they appear to be able to govern their respected jurisdictions sans the whole God shtick. Why should others do it?

Lord’s Prayer review ordered

The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. ~ Stalin

Different political and democratic movements have been symbolised by different colours; different parties representing different ideologies fly under their own banners. The most recent and most notable is the Orange Revolution in Ukraine that swept Viktor Yushchenko into power.

Back in the year of 2003, the US led an invasion of Iraq, claiming that it would be welcomed and that the people longed for democracy, having languished under a brutal dictatorial regime for too long. The nation of Iraq was never ready for an American style democracy, and the government they elected is not entirely democratic either.

Meanwhile in another part of the world, a massive pro-democracy movement has gained momentum despite years of opposition from the ruling party. The pro-democracy movement of Burma (Myanmar) has been gaining since the largest crackdown on protesters happened in 1988. The ruling Junta (Spanish for “committee”) during the student protests of ‘88 killed many, estimated in the thousands.

In Myanmar, there is an electricity to the air. The people have a yearning for democracy and the nation who could have brought it to its doorstep ignored the nation and went where it was ill-advised. They have taken to the streets in droves to protest the price inflation on fuel and other goods.

They have been joined by the highest spiritual authority in Myanmar, the monks. The monks serve the people and everyday make rounds; some bring their bowls with them to beg for alms. If the offering is rejected, the monk will turn his bowl upside down, meaning the person is ultimately spiritually damned.

The monks have very little and rely on the people for support who in turn look to the monks for their ultimate guidance. Even the Junta, who may be the ruling party, have a certain amount of respect for the monks and to ensure social order remains. The Junta grants the monks amenities, for which they hope will ensure the monks’ good graces.

But all that changed when the Junta realised that the monks held an incredible amount of real power over the people. That the monks could easily influence the people and help fuel the biggest democratic movement since 1988 when students and pro-democracy activists led protests against the Junta, demanding democratic freedoms.

The monks have led protests, with their numbers recorded at the peak as 100,000 before the Junta took action against the protestors by locking down the capital and driving the monks back into the temples; locking them in. With the monks barred in their temples, the Junta could clear the streets.

The protests got their life from the monks but without the monks protests have died down.

Fear keeps democracy from coming out of the ashes of ruins.

The people have grown silent as the monks are locked up and some have been killed.

Yet the people want democracy. It’s being denied to them by a violent Junta.

Meanwhile there is no room for democracy to grow and flourish unfettered in Iraq. Secretariat violence rules that country while it grows divided along religious and ethnic lines.

Democracy was brought in by people who didn’t know what the population wanted.

The population of Myanmar longs for that democracy; the democracy brought to Iraq at the tip of the gun’s barrel. They want the democracy that the Iraqis are failing to implement. They want the democracy that the American government says should be spread around the world but instead they are ignored. They offer nothing for those who can bring them democracy.

Tragically they are still waiting while their monks are tortured and killed. The monks who showed the people the way; the ones who lit the path to democracy.

Those who yearn for democracy see nothing but bloodshed and the internal gut of a dark unforgiving cell of political oppression and those who have democracy thrust upon them show no gratitude for the freedoms granted under such a system

Limited democracy seems to the only brand of democracy on the shelf at the political store these days. Despite the expectation that all participants should have equal air time, only the big names in politics are getting the much vetted air time they need in order to reach out to the apathetic voting public, most who are disenfranchised from media reports singing reiterating of the shallow corruption plaguing every pore and crevice of the dankest corners of our legislative assemblies.

As the largest names in Ontario prepare to take to the dusty campaign trail, which is a long one with thousands of handshakes, photo ops and debates, one party is being shut out of the first debate for reasons unknown. The party being shut out has thousands of supporters and is no less legitimate than the Liberals, Conservatives or NDP.

The Green Party of Ontario wants to make a difference but they are being sidelined.

According to Frank de Jong, the leader of the Greens, the choice of the broadcasters to shut the Green Party out of the September 20th debate, while giving airtime to the Liberals, Tories and NDP is effectively telling the public that those three parties are the only true options for the voting public.

For our electoral system to be truly democratic, the Green Party needs equal airtime along with the other parties who are vying for public approval. The Green Party needs a fair shot at the ballot; they should be given the time to tell the public what it stands for before the public casts its deciding ballot on October 10^th.

If you ask anyone on the street they will tell you: `Yes, the Earth is in trouble and humans are the cause of it.’ The problem is the electoral system needs to modernize and we need to make sure the Green party is part of the leaders’ debate and is given equal coverage to other parties if we’re going to save this planet. ~ de Jong

Even if the Green Party was to gain no seats in the election but if they were given equal airtime at least then they would have been given a fair run. That’s democracy. You rise and fall on equal terms as your opponents.

What are the others afraid of? Are the big boys afraid that another small underdog party would unseat the old boy’s club?

Why aren’t the Greens taken more seriously?