Green with hypocrisy, eh?
Cats: Canada, politics|Elections are supposed to be an exercise in the will of the people.
But in Canada, elections are apparently an exercise in the will of the politicians and Big Media.
In poll after poll, the people of Canada have said that the environment is a top priority, yet the pro-environment Green Party has been refused a place in the televised debates.
If they let the Green Party in, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he’s taking his democratic ball and bat and going home. If you don’t play the game of democracy his way, he’s outta there.
And the national TV networks are bowing to his will. They won’t allow the Green Party into the debates because they are afraid Stephen Harper and other mainstream politicians will go home.
You’d think the Green Party was trying to storm the ramparts of the Canadian system of parliamentary democracy. All the Green Party is proposing is having the opportunity to get their ideas heard in the same televised forum as the other political parties. During an election!
They are being stymied by people who use old rules like muzzles and handcuffs to protect their own interests. And these are the same people who stand there and purport to represent democracy.
Uninspired politicians like Harper are running scared from a problem that is just too big for their back-dated, bitumen-laced brains. And TV networks do their bidding, like sniveling, needy cowards.
Why not let the Green Party into the debates. The media could do its job and point cameras at the empty podiums of politicians who refuse to partake in a democratic exchange of ideas. Let the people see for themselves during this election campaign.
But no. We aren’t doing that here.
That’s some democracy, eh, Canada?
September 9th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Even more shockingly, three of the four parties have stomped their little feet and said they will go home if May is allowed to debate. To her credit, she is using this to the best advantage to bring this to the publics attention, and will continue doing so right up to and beyond debate time.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:50 am
At least we’re not the only country in North America who keeps screwing third parties.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Barbara it speak volumes about the bloated and self-interested political system. And then they wonder why so many people are disengaged from the process
Dr Monkey, we have three and the third is just as bad as the first two in this issue. The Green PArty is the forth, but I take your point. IT’s the political self interest
September 10th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Yeah, the Green Party is off the radar. I guess I need to read more. They seem to be a one platform party, but maybe that’s just what the powers that be want.
I agree that they should be part of the debate. I do tire of green rhetoric from tree huggers / granola eaters.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
The networks follow the money and if the “good ol’ boys” with money whine and say “no green party”, the network follows suit. But if the “good ol’ boys” don’t want them included it is because they are scared that the people might see that the Green Party has something to offer that they don’t.
Always love to read your stuff. Keep it up.
Doc
September 10th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Dick, huh?
I had you pegged as someone who takes the environment seriously.
I’m surprised to hear you characterize the environmental platform as “green rhetoric” and its advocates as “tree huggers and granola eaters” when you have spoken and written here so eloquently about the challenges facing us and the next generation.
Those terms are usually deployed by those who deny the problem and need for change, Redneck conservatives and the like.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Doc, I know. It’s nice that we can use the very democratic medium of blogs to point out their hypocrisy.
And – blushing – thanks
September 10th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Well, I see one of the biggest barriers to the public’s acceptance of the need for action is the green rhetoric that comes from tree huggers and granola eaters.
Comments like, “It’ll never be the same if you clearcut”, “The ecosystem is destroyed if you clear cut”, “We should all be driving hybrids”, “We should grow hemp and eliminate the need for tree fiber”…I could go on. It seems that we have found ourselves in a position where the loudest and busiest proponents for change are the wackos who don’t seem to know what they are talking about. (I can easily contest the ‘claims’ I listed). There are very few rational and balanced groups to carry the torch.
So there are the bunny huggers who say “no clearcutting” and use whatever marketing tricks to flog that message, and then there are the environmentally minded who say “we should be deliberate in our choice of where and when to clearcut to meet our landscape level targets for balanced and sustainable ecosystem representation” (Me).
Here in BC, after over a decade of research, planning, consultations, biota inventories, watershed analysis, and computer modelling it was decided that 10% of the Clayoquot Sound could be commercially harvested while protecting all of the acknowledged values. Well the wackos say “NO LOGGING, NO COMPROMISE!” Why? Because they are wackos.
We have learned to ignore that irritating noise. Unfortunately there is an important noise with a very similar frequency that often gets ignored too. That is the voice of reason.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Green is in now! I’m looking forward to this debate.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Dick, The front end of any revolutionary movement is always hard, sharp and shrill.
It has to be. Its job is to cut through the vested interests and complacency so that more reasonable voices can follow.
No politician is going to take down a entire economic system based on consultant’s reports.
There has to be activism which which gets the attention and bulldozes the way for more reasonable discussion.
Greenpeace has been successful at this. They may be wackos but they’ve opened the door to awareness and change.. And now we have a Green Party which is made up of largely middle class people who organize at the constituency level, pay dues and provide finger sandwiches because they want to do something productive.
If it weren’t for the Wackos kicking the door in, there would be no one in the room to have teh discussion about what to do.
You can ignore them but you can’t deny that they have an important role to play in creating change.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Allison, yes I heard that she embarrassed Harper into allowing her into the debate.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
“The squeeky wheel gets the grease…or it just falls off.”
Me
OR
“When they kick in your front door, how’r you gonna come? With your hands on your head or the trigger of your gun?”
The Clash
OR
“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”
Sir Walter Scott
Activism isn’t my concern, and i agree with you. My problem is when the activism generates comments like “no clearcutting”. It draws the attention away from the real issues like eco-system based management; which isn’t happening; which sees clearcutting as an important tool in the box. Activism that is based on ignorance, or personal agendas is damaging.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Glad to know that politicians are full of shit in other countries too.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Dick, I hear ya. I think we’re on the same page on this one.
BeckEye, you mean politicians in the US are full of shit too? Gasp! Who knew?