The Proletariat Congress

We’re more than a few years into the 21st century, a time that once was predicted to be rampant with flying cars, robots that would do everything that humans used to, and space would be massively colonized. But, instead, we’re no really further ahead than we were many years ago. There have been numerous technological innovations since the industrial revolution that freed humanity from the shackles of mundane tasks, allowing us more free time.

This precious free time allowed for many nations in both the eastern and western hemispheres to push forward with new governments, abolishing feudal systems and antiquated monarchies whose powers have been reduced to mere symbolism. The old conditions sowed the seeds for revolution, allowing people to seize power and change their world.

The earliest revolutions occurred before the industrial revolution, sending shock waves through the British Empire and the French Empire.

Colonial America took up arms against its British overlord and allocated power to the people in the form of legislative and judicial power with the Declaration of Independence and the Emancipation Proclamation.

The embattled French peasantry rose up against Louis XVI in a event that would become known as the French Revolution, ending the legacy of the French monarchy, and establishing the first republic of France, heavily inspired by the American Revolution.

These events were the trademark symbols of the 18th century.

The 19th century, an era of conservative thinking, commonly called the Victorian era because of the immense influence that Queen Victoria of England wielded over the numerous English colonies, including and not limited to Upper and Lower Canada, later known as Eastern and Western Canada. The era brought in conservative thinking and ‘mannerisms’ that reflected the desires of the Queen.

The grip on power held by the British inflamed passions in the areas known as Upper and Lower Canada, sparking the rebellions of Upper and Lower Canada, eventually leading to the formation of the Dominion of Canada, under the British North Americas Act.

The common feature of all these revolutions was the desire for change. The desire for change, no matter what year doesn’t change. People have desires and they long for answers when things don’t appear right.

Fast forward to the 20th century, the hundred years in which the world change the most. A time when the world was turned upside down and all current ways of thinking were challenged.

1917 Russia, the proletarian grew irritated with the lack of action by the Romanovs, the last of the Russian Tsars. Under the guidance of Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky, the efforts to bring Marx’s communist theory to life gained momentum, and thus ended the reign of one of the most powerful monarchies in Europe. With the fall of Tsar brought in years of brutal dictatorial regimes, first under Stalin who created the notorious gulags, through to Khrushchev and Gorbachev; the fall of the Berlin Wall ending the Soviet reign of terror and sphere of influence.

Other notable revolutions that ended previous regimes that were either monarchies or oligarchies that landed in the hands of those who became corrupted with power were the Cuban Revolution and the Iranian Revolution (Islamic Revolution).

Another eerily common component of all the revolutions was that the changes were because the people wanted it and not because the external political interests wanted it to happen.

International political pressure has no say in the way something goes down because the people themselves have to want the change. Those who merely have a political interest have yet to realise that the seeds of revolution can only be planted when the desire exists. The seeds need fertile conditions in which to grow. Ousting unfavoured leaders doesn’t achieve the revolution desired. Nor does the potential death of a strong, charismatic leader ensure such changes either. The changes can only come when the heart changes.

Forcing democratic changes doesn’t happen because George Bush decides for it to happen. Putting a national leader on trial in a kangaroo court doesn’t sooth hard feelings and end vendettas. Executing a national leader due to political interests doesn’t instantly end secretariat violence, nor does sending in more troops accomplish anything more than souring over hard feelings.

Just because George Bush decides that Hussein isn’t the type of leader that Iraq needs doesn’t mean he knows what’s best for a country he knows squat about, other than what his generals tell him. Nor does he know what’s good for Cuba just because Castro is on the fritz.

Democracy arrives when the people are ready, not when George Bush decides that it’s time to bring democracy to the people. He can’t bring democracy overseas until he brings democracy to America, and America has never seen democracy before because it’s a republic, and a republic is not a democratic institution.

Has democracy arrived in Iraq? Does an election mean that the Iraqis have the prized western ‘democracy’ at their finger tips? Not really, as dictatorships have elections as well, even if these elections are simply for show, just like the 2000 Presidential Election.

Does Cuba have elections? Sure, but does that make them a democracy?

Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern nations have elections, but does that make them democracies? No.

Despite that, Bush still insists that voting is a key element of democracy, when elections and voting can happen in the absence of democracy, as America has proven time and time again in their elections.

Democracy means nothing when the people lack basic services like health and education as well as civil infrastructure.

The people of Iraq live in fear of the terrorists who were never a concern before the Americans came in, bragging how they would be welcomed as liberators. The Iraqis used to have healthcare and education, but now have ‘democracy’, daily terrorist attacks and military checkpoints governed by trigger-happy Americans with frayed nerves, ready to shoot anything that moves.

Cuba has one of the most revered healthcare systems in the world and a high-ranked education system.� Venezuela thrives off a socialist style system where the poorest are given what they need.

The beacons of ‘democracy’ have shown no effort in giving the people what they need.

When was the last time American politicians listened to the people?

It has been proven in the US through its overcrowded, bloated prison system that a “tough” stance on crime and a three strike system just simply does not work. None of their prisoners have been given a chance to show that they have reformed. The system just keeps putting people in, but, how many come out? There are alternative means of sentencing offenders, especially if the offender has committed a petty crime, or his/her offence, even if repeated has little or no impact on society.

It is never an answer to be ‘tougher’ on crime. Most reports show that such tactics will and always will fail.

Instead of calling for tougher sentences and laws, the NDP have repeatedly called on the federal Tories to invest in social programs aimed at reducing crime and reaching out to the young people who are considered most at risk. They have also called for more police to have a ‘beat’. They believe that people will trust the police more and will help stop crimes if the people can trust police officers more.

The same group also believes that progressive social policies that target at-risk groups and give them programs to help them rise out of the cycle of poverty, considered one of the root causes of crime. If the same people have access to better education, as well as their parents, as well as to services to help them, crime wouldn’t be an alternative for these people.

If soft drugs, such as Marijuana were decriminalised for small amounts, there would be no need to charge people on charge of possession of illegal narcotics. Or, even yet, legalised it. It would reduce the amount of illegal activity surrounding the most popular of all the illegal narcotics. Use may rise, but the drug would be out of the hands of the Mafia and the black market and in the hands of law-abiding Canadians.

But, none of this matters to the federal Tories who want to appear tough on crime, even though a clear whooping majority of Canadians don’t want a bunch of neo-cons who appear tough on crime, they want politicians who listen and not employ failed policies.

So, what did the Harper administration want to include in its ‘tough on crime’ bill?

They wanted to have mandatory minimum sentencing. But, Correctional Services Canada objects to this for a number of reasons, including it would significantly inflate the prison population, putting criminals who committed petty crimes in with those who have done worse.

On mandatory minimum prison sentences, legislation which the Conservatives have introduced for gun- and gang-related crime, and promised for serious drug offences, and for crimes committed while on parole or for repeat offenders: “Research shows mandatory minimums do not have a deterrent or educative effect.” It notes the United States is moving away from mandatory minimum sentences, and embarking on reforms to improve parole to ease crowding and reduce incarceration rates. It says “increased incarceration reduces funds available for social programs that prevent crime.”

It would reduce funds for social programs that would prevent crime? It seems that the Liberals and NDP aren’t the only wants marching to that drum beat.

Correctional Services Canada also favours early release for offenders who have shown improved and good behaviour. They believe that when an offender has demonstrated that (s)he has reformed that it’s in the favour of the system to offer them statutory early release, and ease the burden on the prison system, keeping the population from becoming bloated.

On Harper’s promise to repeal statutory release, the legal right to early release for prisoners who serve two-thirds of their sentences, upon good behaviour: Such a proposal would have a huge impact on prison populations. The document says two-thirds of all federal offenders released in 2004-05 were statutory releases, with generally few problems. In the last five years, it said, only 3 per cent of offenders out on statutory release saw their freedom revoked “for a violent offence.”

…

Impact on aboriginal offenders is flagged. Without statutory release, it says, they would “be further delayed in their return to the community, preventing them from benefiting from more culturally appropriate interventions.”

That’s one group fewer left outstanding in the system, especially if they can benefit from not being in the prison system, and gain benefits from being back with their peers who can help them fully reform.

Correctional Services Canada works closely with these offenders so, it’s clear who knows what’s the better way of doing this.

Especially when it comes to how effective multiple, or rather, consecutive sentences (not concurrent sentences) really are. If sentencing an offender, namely for violent and/or sexual offences, for a long time is truly effective or not…

On promised consecutive sentences for multiple violent or sexual offences: “Credible research shows that longer sentences do not contribute to public safety and may actually increase the risk of recidivism (repeat offences) for some offenders.”

And it’s always recidivism that puts people back in jail when they are released because they have been isolated from the public for so long that they forget how to behave outside of prison, where they are part of a greater service that treats offenders like children. They are watched 24/7, and they don’t make any of their own choices. When they are in for a long time, they become reliant on this system because they are faced with the inevitability that this will be the only system of life they know, until they are release, at which point they become lost.

And those who are still with the system? The Tories would love nothing more than for these to have no voice.

On Harper’s suggestions that a Tory government would take away voting rights from federal prisoners: The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld prisoner-voting rights as “unfettered.”

But, that darn pesky Superior Court of Canada has interfered and declared that prisoners still have voting rights, just like they declared that those sexual deviants; those blasphemous homosexuals, have rights too. It seems that everyone has rights these days, thanks to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which are entrenched.

So, are we going to try and use that ‘Not Withstanding‘ clause, Prime Minister, or do you not wish to risk political suicide?

Of course, you’ve already chosen to commit political suicide by borrowing the much-failed three-strike policy that the American government has tried to use, but has seen the adverse effects, which include and not limited to a massive increase in prison population.

On a proposal to automatically designate as a “dangerous offender” anyone convicted of a third violent or sexual offence (sometimes called the “three-strikes” bill): The bureaucrats’ analysis says because aboriginal offenders have a higher rate of conviction for assault and related offences, the proposal could have a “disproportionately higher impact” on natives.

Given the wide available definitions of ‘violent’ and ‘sexual’, there is a great chance that the three offences can be very small, or the offences can occur at varying degrees…we won’t go into this, we believe this is self-explanatory.

And while we’re filling the prison population with repeat offenders, let’s also reduce the rate at which we can use suspended and conditional sentences, despite that Correctional Services Canada doesn’t support the idea.

On restricting access to conditional sentences (also known as “house arrest”): Conditional sentences are imposed in fewer than 5 per cent of all cases, have reduced admissions to provincial jails by 13 per cent with no negative impact on crime rates, and “generally worked well and garnered praise from sentencing experts around the world,” said the bureaucrats.

So, despite that it has been shown to work well, the Tories want to put strong restrictions on it? And spend yet more tax payer money on keeping people in prison rather than focusing on the other needs of society.

At least the other three major federal political parties don’t feel the need to govern with their collective hands buried in the sand.

As it turned out, the combined Liberal, Bloc Québécois and New Democratic opposition succeeded in substantially amending this bill, and a watered-down version passed the Commons and Senate. A source told the Star yesterday that without the amendments, the law would have had a huge impact on provincial jail populations.

Too bad they didn’t band together to decriminalise marijuana…

Jailers fear PM’s justice overhaul

If it’s one thing the federal Tories have little or no respect for, it’s the way the election laws are enforced.

They don’t like it when they are forced to play fair, and when the law doesn’t work in their favour, they are at odds with Elections Canada and its quirky laws calling to reclassify its delegate fees for its 2005 convention as political donations, and to revise its 2005 financial records.

If the move is tied to Kingsley’s tough stance on requiring the Conservative party to reclassify the delegate fees for its 2005 convention as political donations, and to revise its 2005 financial records, neither Kingsley nor Prime Minister Stephen Harper is saying.

The individual involved, Kingsley has resigned his position. There are no comments as to whether or not it’s due to the tension between Elections Canada and the Conservatives, but, there are strong hints that can be derived from these circumstances that indicate otherwise.

Such as this gem…

Harper, as leader of the National Citizens Coalition before returning to politics in 2003, challenged Parliament to question “whether this guy has the approach to elections administration that a 21st-century democracy requires.” He also called Elections Canada officials “jackasses.”

Of course, no paraphrased quote is worth anything without the actual quote itself.

This is taken from before he rejoined politics and was an active lobbyist, a group of people he threatened “action” against should he be elected. We have yet to see that come to light, given his terrible track record on bring in his accountability recommendations. Only 30 of the 51 were legislated, and when the remainder were proposed during Q&A in parliament by the Liberals all of the were rejected…

“The jackasses at Elections Canada are out of control,” Harper wrote in a 2001 letter to raise funds for Paul Bryan of B.C. who was fined for posting election results on the Internet.

“This is not the first attack on freedom by Elections Canada. Its heavy-handed chief, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, has been an advocate of the most minute controls and regulations …

“Simply put, Kingsley is a dangerous man. It is appropriate that journalists have dubbed him Canada’s `Chief Electoral Ideologue,’ and `Chief Electoral Nanny.’ “

So, this is the Prime Minister of Canada? It’s so comforting to know that he is the one in charge. This is one more reason why I don’t sleep well at night. We have this amoral ‘do as I say, not as I do’ preaching at the helm. The same individual who had in the last election campaign promised a change in political culture, saying it was time for accountability and transparency in politics. Of course, only if the Liberals were in power… but, if the Tories are, we don’t need those pesky accountability laws hindering our brand of entitlement and corruption.

Some individuals don’t conceal their true feelings within the Conservative party…

Gerry Nicholls, who was Harper’s vice-president at the NCC, told the Star yesterday that they viewed Kingsley as a “bully.”

“Kingsley has been an enemy of ours for many years. We’ve had a number of run-ins with this guy,” said Nicholls, adding he was “gleeful” that Kingsley will soon be gone.

In other words, they want someone who will turn a blind eye to Conservative corruption and focus on the non-existent corruption with in the Liberals who are under new leadership.

Is it any wonder why this blog supports the NDP as the only viable option, since the Bloc Quebec doesn’t run in Ontario.

Harper long opposed election official’s views

Bears shit in the woods, the grass is green and the sky is blue.

Ontario MPPs have decided to give themselves a 25% raise.

Oh, the poor provincial politicians are starving because they cannot afford that new luxury trip now that the lobbyists are being forced to curb their briberies in light of the Federal Accountability Act, which only embraced 31 of the 52 recommendations originally proposed by the federal Tories in the last federal election. The other 21 recommendations were ditched because the Conservatives wanted loopholes so they could continue to govern with their heads shoved twenty leagues up their collective tight ass.

The humanity of it all! The provincial politicians are only earning 60% of their federal cousins, while the civil infrastructure crumbles around us, the TTC goes to hell and schools are forced to cut programs and not run deficits in order to give students a fighting chance.

McGuinty says it’s not fair that Ontario politicians make only 60 per cent of what their federal cousins, so he’s bumping that up to 75 per cent.

It’s just so unfair that the MPPs are earning about ~$88,000 per annum… that must be real hard on the families not being able to afford more than one vacation per year, what with inflation and all.

This is the same government, dominated by Conservatives under John Tory and Liberals under Dalton McQuinty that have refused to raise minimum wage to $10/h, instead of leaving it at the mere paltry, laughable sum of $8.15/h, which for a full time job doesn’t even put a person past the official line of poverty for Canada.

Of course, not all Ontario MPPs are self-serving bottom-scum suckers…

New Democrat Peter Kormos vows to donate his $22,000 raise to charity to remind voters what the Liberals and Tories gave themselves for Christmas 2006.

Raises ‘right thing to do,’ premier says

EDIT: Since I wrote this entry this morning, there is now a follow up, in which the Premier Dalton McQuintyof Ontario flaunts his disregard for the voters by saying he won’t apologise for the 25% pay raise that the Ontario MPPs gave themselves, and doesn’t appear to care that it looks like a Christmas present that the MPPs have given themselves.

McGuinty said it didn’t matter that the move looks like a Christmas present from politicians to themselves.

“There is never a right time to do this. That’s why we have this 40 per cent gap (with MPs).”

McGuinty delivered an impromptu five-minute defence of his latest about-face today, pointing to much higher salaries for MPs, like his brother David McGuinty, who represents the same Ottawa riding as the premier.

“My brother, God bless his soul, as a backbencher in Opposition, he’s making more than my cabinet ministers,” McGuinty said. “That difference is not sustainable.”

What’s the matter?� Suffering from irreversible small penis syndrome any?

Want further proof that Liberals are worthy of being labelled amoral bottom suckers?

“Right now as a cabinet minister, I’m making less than the mayor of Windsor,” said Energy Minister Dwight Duncan.

Or how about….

Democratic Renewal Minister Marie Bountrogianni also made no apologies.

“There are many that believe our work is more important on a day-to-day basis than our federal counterparts,” she said.

Well, what about all the people earning minimum wage?� How are you going to explain your pay raise to them?� Why do the politicians have the authority to give themselves such a pay raise, while creating mounds of bureaucratic paper work and red tape for those looking for a day’s fair pay.

The only financially moral party is the provincial NDP under Howard Hampton (at least for the province of Ontario).

The Conservatives support the 25 per cent pay hike, but the New Democrats were fuming today about a move they called repugnant and unjustifiable, and at least two members vowed to donate their $22,000 raise to charity.

McGuinty: No apologies for 25% raise