A Perfectly Cromulent Politics Blog
When procrastinating from law school, I write about politics, tech, or whatever else I'm interested in. Feel free to tweet me up (@devinjohnston).
When procrastinating from law school, I write about politics, tech, or whatever else I'm interested in. Feel free to tweet me up (@devinjohnston).
Posted by Devin Johnston on October 30th, 2009
Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May will be giving a talk at my law school today entitled "Greening Democracy in the Courts, and at the Ballot Box". Provided that the University of Manitoba wireless internet gods smile upon me, I will be liveblogging her speech, which begins in about 4 minutes.
While we wait for Elizabeth May to take the stage, I should point out that I may need to sneak out early, as I have a class (Aboriginal Peoples and the Law) at 1 PM.
May is in the room. There is a fairly good turnout for this event, though the first few rows are sparsely populated. Law students, in their usual style, have a phobia about sitting too close to the front of the class. This is perhaps the first time ever in my law school career that I am in one of the first few rows.
I should also point out that the James Beddome, leader of the Green Party of Manitoba and a fellow student at Robson Hall, is also in the crowd.
Prof. Mary Shariff introduces our guest speaker, summarizing highlights of May's career as an activist environmental lawyer.
And we're off to the races. May begins her speech by professing her love of the practice of law and hatred of politics. She believes that our current political culture is toxic and that there is a need for substantial change. Her speech today will focus on the need for citizen empowerment and engagement in politics.
May attacks consumerism as a threat to democracy. Despite the illusion of greater choice (the ability to change the channel), it is fundamentally disempowering. May links this idea up with decreases in voter turnout. The idea is that citizens are expressing their dissatisfaction with political culture by simply changing the channel and focusing their attention elsewhere.
May makes the curious claim that climate change is the only issue that Parliament should be debating. While I agree that climate issues don't get enough attention, that statement seemed to run counter to even the Green Party's own mantra that they are not just an environmental party.
May gives a "shout out" to Anita Neville, the Winnipeg MP who voted against her party to support the NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act. While she acknowledges that the bill was introduced by the NDP, there was no specific shout out to our party's many Winnipeg MP's.
May is now discussing the constitutional crisis that occurred around this time last year. She is correct to point out that it showed a lack of understanding in the general public about how the House of Commons works, particularly in relation to the nature of political parties. May makes the excellent point that Canadians do not directly elect a Prime Minister; we elect local MP. Whichever MP can command the confidence of the House gets to be Prime Minister.
Now May is talking about "security of the person" under s. 7 of the Charter. She argues that this freedom does or should include freedom from harm caused by environmental harm, pollution &c. I think it's an interesting point, although finding a right under the Charter would only provide protections against government actions, not against the actions of private actors such as corporations.
May calls for "moral courage" in the fight for social and environmental justice. Hear hear!
Question time.
Question re: whether there should be a legal obligation. May says it would be better than the status quo, but not as good as electoral reform, which would encourage more people to vote voluntarily.
Question re: police interference in the 2006 election. May discusses the Zaccardelli press release regarding taxation of income trusts. She argues that it changed the outcome of that election. While it certainly played a roll, there were a lot of other factors at play (an inept Liberal campaign, the sponsorship scandal, and an effective Conservative campaign.) I think she's over-emphasizing the role that Zaccardelli played in that election.
Question re: a report from the Pembina Institute & David Suzuki Foundation. May: we endorsed the report. (Both question and answer were much longer, but I'm getting ready to ask a question of my own and therefore not paying full attention.)
May makes a point to a question from a woman student. Kudos to May. The question concerns the state of public debate (her MP, Steven Fletcher did not participate in any all-candidates' meetings. May urges the public to demand that their MP's participate in debates during election campaigns.
I didn't get to ask my question. Another time, perhaps. I need to get to Aboriginal Peoples and the Law anyway.
Spread the word and fan the winds of change:
This page is at least a month old. Feel free to read it, but you might also want to check out something a little fresher:
Mandatory Voting
Posted by Corey S (not verified) on October 30th, 2009.
While her answer to my question on mandatory voting was articulate, I'd point out that both Wales and Scotland used an Alternative Vote+ system (a MMP type system) and voter turnout in Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament elections are no higher than the Westminster elections which still use FPTP.
Though yes, more women are elected and the coalitions which are inevitably formed are relatively stable.
I'm curious - what was your
Posted by Mark Greenan (not verified) on October 30th, 2009.
I'm curious - what was your question?
Mark, There was a lot of
Posted by Devin Johnston on October 30th, 2009.
Mark,
There was a lot of discussion about the RCMP in relation to politically-sensitive investigations (particularly the Zaccardelli income trusts issue). I was going to bring up the RCMP's handling of the Cadman Affair and the NDP's allegations against the Conservatives of wire-tapping. I was going to ask what, if any, oversight mechanisms May thinks should be put in place in relation to the RCMP's handling of politically-sensitive matters.
Post new comment