A Better Strategic Vote

For much of my adult life, I have been a reluctant "strategic voter." Indeed, I was voting strategically before I ever heard the term used in the popular media. You see, I live in a neighbourhood where the progressive choice in federal elections has usually been the Liberal candidate, while the progressive choice in provincial elections has been the New Democratic Party candidate. So while my natural political affinity has been for the NDP, and while I have almost always voted NDP provincially, I have cast several Liberal ballots in federal elections, especially when John Harvard was the member of parliament for the western part of Winnipeg.

That changed when John Harvard retired from parliament upon his appointment as Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba. In the ensuing three elections, the Liberal party decided to run parachute candidates who had little or nothing to do with this part of Winnipeg before they decided to seek to represent it in parliament. First there was Glen Murray, whom I had supported as mayor of Winnipeg but who proved to be less progressive in office than I had hoped and who seemed ambivalent towards the suburbs, where I happen to live. Then there was John Loewen, who resigned as a Conservative member of the provincial legislature to seek the federal seat as a Liberal. I thought to myself, "If we really want a Conservative MP, why wouldn't people just vote for the Conservative candidate?" This election, the Liberals nominated Bob Friesen, who has found this urban constituency a more promising field as a Liberal than the rural riding from which he comes. So, for three elections now, I have voted for the NDP candidate in a constituency where the Liberals were once contenders.

The Liberals could have seduced a vote from me, though, since I cannot fathom the thought of another Conservative government under Stephen Harper. Nor do I relish the thought of once again being represented in Ottawa by the reactionary Steven Fletcher. Now, I'll confess that I belonged briefly to the Progressive Conservative party when I was a teenager, in the days when the party was led federally by Robert Stanfield and provincially by Sidney Spivak, two of the most decent persons ever to serve as leaders of any party. In those days, the Progressive Conservatives were so genuinely progressive, it seems, that Stephen Harper belonged to his high school's Young Liberals Club! (Hmmm, maybe we could appear together on Trading Places!) I gave up on the Progressive Conservative party during my first year at university, when it became clear that the Red Tory tradition had been displaced by American-style neoconservative economics and a reactionary social agenda.

I'm so anxious to replace the Harper government that I might have loaned my vote to the Liberal candidate this time if Stéphane Dion and his party hadn't sent me so many signals that they weren't interested in having it. Dion has stuck doggedly to the platform he and his party crafted before the current global financial crisis, blissfully indifferent to rapidly changing conditions and stubbornly resistent to modifying their plans in response. Then there was Dion's embarrassing CTV interview, which he has tried to spin as a simple misunderstanding of the question, although it seems more likely that it was a very public illustration of his own impatience, anxiety and stubbornness. But the one thing that has made me glad, in hindsight, that I didn't cast a Liberal vote was Dion's insistance that he would not enter into a coalition with the NDP in the event that a progressive coalition could replace the Conservative government. In other words, Stéphane Dion effectively declared that, short of a Liberal majority, a vote for the Liberals would serve to maintain the Conservatives in office. The Liberal caucus has already voted with the Conservative government too often and I don't care to encourage them to continue the pattern.

So I voted strategically in the advance poll, but my strategy has changed! This year, I committed myself to a longer-term strategy, which stands to produce positive results in future years, if not necessarily in 2008. I cast my vote entusiastically for the local NDP candidate, Fiona Shiells, a personable, intelligent and articulate young women who would make a wonderful member of parliament. I am confident that Fiona has a long and promising political career before her. As significantly, though, I've decided that the only feasible strategy for the future is to contribute to the NDP's national strength, so that the day will come when New Democrats replace the Liberals as the official opposition and, from that base, go on to form the government. The time has come for a fundamental political realignment in Canada, since the Liberals have seemingly abdicated governing to their Conservative rivals.

Retire Stephen Harper Now!

In recent weeks, I have watched the value of my retirement savings plan decline by 22% and I know that many of you find yourselves in a similar position. In a society where the self-indulgent have been driven by conspicuous consumption, many of us have saved for our future well-being while investing with confidence in the health of the Canadian economy. We are the real "conservatives," in a sense, irrespective of the different political parties we may support. I'm not complaining, nor do I despair, since I know I'm in good company -- we are all in this together.

But I was incensed to read about a flip comment that was recently uttered by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who is asking us to let him keep the job at which he has been failing for nearly three years. According to a Bloomberg news report by Greg Quinn, "Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said a recent decline in stock prices may present good buying opportunities. "I expect some good buying opportunities may be opening up," Harper said today in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., prompting interviewer Peter Mansbridge to ask if he really meant to have made such a comment. Harper also said he hasn't looked closely at his retirement savings account since he was elected."

Of course the prime minister hasn't looked closely at his retirement account since he'll be the beneficiary of a generous parliamentary pension -- a benefit I don't begrudge to those MPs who work diligently for the greater good of the country, something that cannot be said about the current prime minister and his cavalier colleagues. Unlike most of the rest of us, Harper doesn't need to worry too much about his retirement, between this undeserved pension and the corporate directorships he'll likely receive from his big business friends! The rest of us can work an extra decade, take a second job, or perhaps beg from our children in retirement, but Prime Minister Harper seems to think he'll do fine when the time comes. So I say let's retire him and his self-serving partisans now!

I've had it with this prime minister's smug indifference to the needs of everyday people, his patronizing and condescending attitude towards those with whom he differs, and his evident fetish for controlling his cabinet and caucus. The Conservatives failed to release their platform until the last week of the campaign, so there would be little time for public scrutiny or critique. With the Canadian economy teetering on the brink, Harper and his colleagues ask us to trust their ideologically-driven economic policy while making light of the losses that Canadian investors have suffered. They just don't care! If Canadians have any collective self-respect, they will vote to retire Stephen Harper from office along with the gaggle of right-wing extremists he leads in parliament.

Sinking My Teeth into the Election

Earlier this evening, I was invited to participate in a public opinion survey related to the federal election on October 14. After half a dozen questions which had nothing at all to do with the election, I stopped the interview and decided to write to the president of the polling company instead. This experience only serves to confirm my suspicion that most public opinion surveys today are meant to mould public opinion rather than reveal it. In this, polling companies have become propaganda machines rather than reliable sources of information. Here's my message ...

Bruce Anderson, President

Harris/Decima Research

Dear Mr. Anderson,

I just finished hanging up on one of your company's representatives, who professed to be conducting a survey on the current Canadian general election but whose initial questions all seemed to be about dentistry. The questions were surprisingly invasive in nature, especially since your firm and I hardly know one another well enough to be on such a mouth-to-mouth basis. This leads me to wonder who was paying for the survey, why the survey was really being conducted, and what possible connection there could be between my dental hygiene and the federal election, unless it's somehow related to the stupid grin the prime minister has been wearing lately.

More significantly, though, the construction of this particular survey leads me to have grave doubts about the statistical integrity and reliability of surveys conducted by your firm. I cannot help but think that the skewed nature of your survey questions will produce skewed results, so that when I see Harris/Decima's name attached to a public opinion poll, I should likely dismiss it out of hand. After all, it can only represent the opinions of those lacking in personal dignity and healthy boundaries, which would have led an emotionally healthy person to hang up on your representative. Frankly, I don't care what such people might think about politics or dentistry.

In the future, when I see competing public opinion surveys reporting wildly different results, I will think of Harris/Decima and its tooth fetish. Obviously, either your firm's management or one of your clients believes there must be a correlation between dental hygiene and voting preferences but I cannot imagine what that might be, unless it's somehow related to the damage that candidates do to their teeth by so often putting their feet in their mouths.

Hmmm ... maybe I should have stayed on the line.

Sincerely,

Rev. Stefan M. Jonasson

Forgiveness

Summer's only a little more than half over and already I've failed to keep two appointments that I had made. This is as many appointments as I had forgotten in the previous decade -- maybe longer.

The first missed appointment was early in July, when I showed up late for a christening service after having been away at a funeral in Saskatchewan. I was tired after the long drive home and when I got up the next morning, I was so focused on driving up to my cottage, where my family was waiting, that I didn't remember that I had promised to conduct a christening service at one of the churches near my summer home. It was Saturday, which made it easier to forget, since christenings usually occur within the Sunday morning service. The proud parents tracked me down, so the service went ahead -- three hours late. They accommodated the change by having their picnic celebration before, rather than after the ceremony, no doubt fussing to keep the children's clothes free of condiments! They were understanding and accommodating but I felt embarrassed, not to mention sorry for the inconvenience I had caused. They were freely forgiving without having said as much out loud.

Then yesterday, I failed to show up to greet a gaggle of Icelandic tourists who were visiting Winnipeg in the aftermath of Íslendingadagurinn, the annual Icelandic Festival of Manitoba. The plan had been that I would walk with them from the Manitoba Museum to The Forks, showing them the site of the first Íslendingadagurinn, held in 1890, and then proceeding to the site where Shanty Town once stood, the first neighbourhood occupied by Icelandic immigrants in the city. Along the way, I was to regale them with tales from the religious life of the immigrants. But I didn't appear at the appointed time, so, after waiting a while, they went on without me. This time I had awakened feeling under the weather after a late night before. (I was writing until the wee hours of the morning, not drinking as your overactive imagination might have guessed! My life is mostly pretty dull by today's standards.) Anyway, I didn't feel too well when I got up, so I went back to bed without checking my calendar and slept the day away. It didn't help that I had been scheduled to be on vacation this week, so my appointment book was far from reach ... and even farther from my mind. The tour leader tried rousing me on my cell phone but the ringer was off! This time, I discovered my oversight too late to correct matters. I dashed off a quick email before breakfast this morning and later called the tour organizer, apologizing profusely because I felt genuinely terrible about the whole matter. She understood the situation and said, "We forgive you."

"We forgive you?" I hadn't even asked but it was nice to know. We live in a pretty unforgiving culture, so her words were especially comforting and reassuring when I was feeling so badly. It's not that it hadn't mattered, it's just that I didn't need to keep flogging myself about it. And when she asked me if I would meet next year's tour group for the same reason, I knew she really meant it. I had been forgiven! And I will be there next time.

Now I just need to work on forgiving myself. Forgiveness of oneself was described by A. Powell Davies as "the forgiveness that comes hardest." I know what he means: it requires genuine humility and an acknowledgment of my limitations and shortcomings. I've been humbled twice this summer and I've been twice forgiven. I'm grateful ... and still a little embarrassed!

Wal-Mart: A Personal Confession

I saw a young woman I know walking out of Wal-Mart this evening. I saw her because I was walking into the store, so I hope she didn't notice me. For years now, I've been encouraging everyone who will listen to refrain from contributing to Wal-Mart's bottom line, since I believe that it is a toxic corporation. Just about any way you slice it, Wal-Mart is bad news: their business practices are bad for communities, bad for competition, bad for workers, bad for the people of the Third World, and bad for the soul!

So why was I shopping at a store I find so loathsome? Well, having broken the extension cord for my car's block heater, I needed a replacement tonight -- it's damn cold in Winnipeg today -- and Wal-Mart was still open after the nearby mall had closed, so I sucked it up and went there. And in the interests of full disclosure, I also bought some hi-liters from the stationery department, since I discovered that the store carried my preferred brand, which I've been unable to find elsewhere for several months now.

While I choose to minimize my shopping at Wal-Mart -- I spent a total of $67 there last year, including sales taxes! -- I long ago decided I wouldn't punish myself in order to avoid the store. So here are my personal ground rules for shopping at the store that Sam built: (1) I will never enter a Wal-Mart store for the sole purpose of saving money, no matter how much I may have to pay for the same product elsewhere. (2) I will go there to purchase something I cannot reasonably acquire from another store, provided I've convinced myself I really need that specific item. (3) I will shop there to get something I need with some urgency, when time is of the essence and other stores are closed. And (4) should I happen to be passing a Wal-Mart store knowing that I need to make a minor purchase, I may stop in if I can convince myself that driving somewhere else would unnecessarily increase my carbon footprint. Frankly, these four personal rules don't leave much room for lavish spending!

So what about my young friend, who I saw leaving the store? Do I judge her negatively for shopping there? Not at all. She's a single mother who needs to make her money stretch as far as possible, so Wal-Mart may well offer her choices she might not otherwise enjoy. While I think that a careful economic analysis would show that this company saves no one a dime in the long run, in the shorter term some people like my young friend may benefit. But I can easily afford to shop elsewhere, so I do. Nor do I look down on the good people who work for Wal-Mart, since they work hard and should not be held responsible for the policies and practices of their employer.

On the other hand, I am troubled by people with privileged incomes who make a habit of shopping at Wal-Mart. I sometimes think union cards should include magnetic chips that set off the store's electronic security devices when a union member walks through the front door. And I will continue to be embarrassed on those very rare occasions, never more than once or twice in a year, when necessity leads me to enter a Wal-Mart store. Simply put, it matters where we shop because, in the end, we make our values real through our economic choices. And values should always trump value, at least when it comes to consumer goods.

Will the Real Bill Clinton Please Sit Down?

Are any other political progressives as weary of the Clintons' campaign tactics as I'm becoming?

In recent weeks, we've been treated to former President Clinton condescendingly dismissing Barack Obama as a "kid" and describing the Illinois senator's campaign as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." Then, in Nevada, Clinton accused the Obama campaign of voter supression. His strident tone has been eerily reminiscent of his more noteworthy hyperbole while president, which hardly inspires confidence in the trustworthiness of his patronizing assertions during the present campaign season. I'm surprised that the former president hasn't accused Barack Obama of "a vast left-wing conspiracy" against him and his wife!

It sometimes seems as though the Clintons only appear gracious when they're winning. When they're behind, or even think they're behind, they seem to become paranoid and vindictive. And this attitude betrays a disturbing sense of entitlement on the part of the Clintons: to dominate the Democratic party, as if the divine right of kings had morphed into a party principle, and occupy the White House, as if the presidential mansion were somehow their family home.

Since Barack Obama's strong showing in Iowa, the Clinton campaign has alternated between meanness and condescension, generating a tone that might better be saved for the part of the campaign when the Democratic nominee is actually facing his or her Republican opponent. (And even then, the tone would be questionable.) Indeed, the Clinton campaign seems all-too-willing to adopt a tone and employ tactics we usually associate with the hysterical right-wing of the Republican party. While it is often overzealous campaign workers who indulge in such childishness, sadly, the former president has waded into such antics in a manner that's unseemly for an elder statesperson. If we are learning anything from the current presidential campaign in the United States, it is that the real Bill Clinton no longer seems to be the affable, sensitive leader we remember from the 1990s. Someone needs to tell him that this campaign isn't about him or his tenure as president.

If it were, then present-day liberals would have reason for pause. Bill Clinton may well have been the most conservative Democratic president since Harry Truman, or perhaps even Woodrow Wilson. Indeed, as Paul Krugman observes in his magnificent new book, The Conscience of a Liberal, "On economic issues from welfare to taxes, Bill Clinton arguably governed not just to the right of Jimmy Carter, but to the right of Richard Nixon" (p. 5). And in the senate, Hillary Clinton has hardly been the uncompromising left-wing radical that some feared -- or that some of us hoped for! Only on healthcare does Senator Clinton seem more progressive that Senator Obama, although her credibility on this issue is tainted by her and her husband's failed attempt to reform healthcare in the 1990s.

Although Hillary Clinton would not be my first choice for the Democratic presidential nomination, I sincerely hope she continues to do well. But she will only do well if she and her campaign call off the dogs, take the high road, and return to a focus on the issues and her own record as an elected official. This leads me to ask, "Will the real Bill Clinton please sit down?" His recent performance as a sort of Democratic "Karl Rove" is not helping Senator Clinton and can only undermine the credibility of the Democratic party's presidential nominee, whomever it is.

Creativity and Profits

It's been more than two weeks since the members of the Writers Guild of America went on strike and, as far as I can see, the quality of television programming hasn't declined in the least. Then again, it hasn't gotten any better! Still, I can't help but support the writers' union in its struggle with producers and the gigantic corporations that control the American media.

Just yesterday, I happened to speak with someone who was soliciting permission to publish on the web a map and historical commentary that was created by my late brother, Eric, some 25 years ago. The organization that wishes to add this material to its website is a worthy one and the person who was inquiring on its behalf is a public-spirited individual who comes from a family which is noted for its devotion to encouraging good things in the community. But I don't own the copyright to my late brother's work, so I directed the inquirer to the current copyright holder, his rightful heir, while offering a few words of caution and advice. An interesting conversation ensued.

The inquirer said in passing that her organization was only soliciting permission to post the commentary, since the map was already in public domain. I responded that she was mistaken: both the map and commentary are proprietary materials and my late brother's heir owns the copyright to both. Eric was a professional cartographer and he had created the artwork for this particular map himself. I remember him doing so and the final product shows the painstaking detail and care that he always put into his maps, not to mention the characteristic style that would allow me to recognize one of his maps even if his name wasn't attached to it! Any similarity to earlier maps which may now be in the public domain results from the fact that the creator of each was drawing the same territory, but similarity (especially superficial similarity) is not sameness and images are protected by copyright as surely as is the written word.

After stating her mistaken belief that the map was in public domain, but before I had explained the circumstances behind its creation, this inquirer expressed her confidence that her understanding would be upheld if tested in a court of law. (While I did not interpret this unfortunate turn of phrase as either a threat or a portent, it did strike me as a poor choice of words. When one is asking for a favour, it is wise to avoid expressions, however commonplace or clever, that may be seen as litigious or even just argumentative.) Needless to say, I disagreed, which is why I took the time to explain how the map itself came to be created. Not only would the copyright be upheld by the courts but any ethical lawyer would caution anyone challenging the copyright against wasting their money by testing it!

Fortunately for my brother, he was both the creator and publisher of his own work, so there's no ambiguity about who holds the copyright. In the case of this historical map and commentary, the product was entirely his own (even though I helped him with research) and, when he died, its ownership was handed on with the rest of his assets. When it was created, though, there was no worldwide web, so that, if he had chosen to sell his work to someone else, he never could have conceived that it might be circulated elecronically. Like other creative people, such an awareness might have motivated him to either ask for a higher price or else limit the distribution rights of anyone acquiring his creation.

Most writers, though, don't publish their own work. They sell publication rights to magazines and book publishers, movie producers and broadcasters. Others write in-house for a variety of organziations in both the commercial and nonprofit sectors. Still others offer their materials to small publishers or nonprofit pulishers for next to nothing ... or even less. (My goodness, I've even encountered a church board or two that tried to claim copyright over a minister's sermons ... after the congregation had fired the minister!) In an era of unprecedented technological change, it is necessary to introduce unprecedented protection for writers, beginning with improved compensation.

So back to the writers' strike. It seems to me that neither writers' compensation nor the legal protection for their creative work have kept pace with technological change. The time has come for the media giants to pony up and compensate their writers more fairly for their work. Why should the hosts of late night television continue to earn ridiculous incomes and the companies they front for reap equally ridiculous profits, while the writers behind their admittedly banal programs are treated like factory workers? The same is true for Hollywood writers and even political speachwriters. Does anyone really believe that most of the words attributed to political leaders in the various books of quotations, at least since Abraham Lincoln, actually tumbled forth from their own minds? And does anyone think it fair that a Shakespearian actor should earn more than the bard himself, if he were still alive and writing today? So producers and corporations should settle this strike, and settle it on generous terms, while legislators should embark on rewriting the laws of copyright to protect and promote the creative genius which lies at the heart of all true culture.

Bursting with Pride

I was bursting with pride today while attending the 128th annual convocation of the University of Manitoba, where my older daughter Brandis received her bachelor of fine arts degree. Few satisfactions can be sweeter than watching one's child achieve something that has required skill, courage and hard work. Surrounded by other parents and grandparents, sisters and brothers, neighbours and friends, who had gathered to celebrate the academic accomplishments of their own loved ones, I was struck by the spirit of community that filled the convocation hall as each of us waited for a particular name to be called out, while sharing in the common joy of all who had gathered. The first tear came to my eye during the processional and I scarcely made it through "O Canada" without my voice cracking. The emotion did not subside until the last of the new graduates had left the hall at the end of the ceremony.

At a time when our society increasingly neglects its rites of passage, I was heartened by the graduates who honoured their families and themselves, while celebrating the value of higher education, by simply showing up. The traditional rituals of the university remind us of the worth of critical thinking and the examined life, the benefits of an educated citizenry and the importance of learning communities, while calling us to apply our talents in ways that advance human knowledge and wisdom. The process theologian Bernard Meland suggested that a society which neglects its passages would succumb to "the blight of mediocrity." There was no mediocrity there today, only the celebration of scholars -- mostly young but many older -- who had reached an important milestone in life.

I have been teasing Brandis about receiving a degree for "doodling," while playfully lamenting that I will probably have to support her as a starving artist until I die. But the truth of the matter is that I envy her artistic ability and I stand in awe of her creativity. More than anything else, I admire her for following her passion, which involves risks that few people have the courage to take and promises rewards that come to those who love their vocation. In September, she will begin the next phase of her studies at the faculty of education, so that she may one day communicate her love of art and learning to young minds who will be as inspired by her example as I have been. For now, I can proudly say that my daughter is an artist. Soon I will be able to add that she is a teacher. These are two of the finest vocations known to humankind -- either one is worth devoting one's life to, so how much grander it is to pursue both!

The most inspiring message during the convocation came from the chancellor of the university, Bill Norrie, who was mayor of Winnipeg from 1979 until 1992. With the quiet dignity and devotion exemplified throughout his public life, Norrie exhorted the graduates to devote their varied gifts to serving the common good in whatever vocations or avocations they pursue. The chancellor closed with a prayer attributed to Sir Francis Drake:

Disturb us, Lord, when
We are too well pleased with ourselves,
When our dreams have come true
Because we have dreamed too little,
When we arrived safely
Because we sailed too close to the shore.

Disturb us, Lord, when
With the abundance of things we possess
We have lost our thirst
For the waters of life;
Having fallen in love with life,
We have ceased to dream of eternity
And in our efforts to build a new earth,
We have allowed our vision
Of the new Heaven to dim.

Disturb us, Lord, to dare more boldly,
To venture on wider seas
Where storms will show your mastery;
Where losing sight of land,
We shall find the stars.
We ask You to push back
The horizons of our hopes;
And to push into the future
In strength, courage, hope, and love.

In this spirit, I hope that my daughter and the other graduates this year are inspired to dream great dreams, sail the open seas rather than clinging to life's harbours, thirst for adventure and, in the process of quenching that thirst, fall in love with life.

Census Day!

Census Day in Canada is May 16th and, as the slogan says, it's important to "count yourself in!" Many of our country's social programs rely on census data and the distribution of seats in parliament is determined, in large measure, by the same information. Businesses and nonprofit agencies use census figures to determine how best to invest their resources. I can hardly wait until midnight, when I will log on to the Statistics Canada website and let the head-counters know that I'm still alive and happy to live in this marvellous country of ours.

Of course, I couldn't help but prepare for this exercise by filling in the paper census return first. This year, I was fortunate to receive two forms -- one for my home and the other for the cottage -- although I was a little disappointed that both returns were the "short" forms. (I know, most of those who get the long form complain about it almost endlessly! Not me; I'd love to fill in a long form for posterity's sake. Maybe next time!)

While completing my census form I was surprised -- no, disturbed! -- to discover that it's now possible for a person to restrict access to their census information in perpetuity. Unless you check the box agreeing to make your census information available for public release in 2098, it will never be publicly available! Privacy is one thing but who really needs to have their privacy protected long after they are dead? Surely, the right to privacy has limitations.

As an amateur genealogist, I have used the information from previous censuses to fill in the gaps of my family tree. I have acquired copies of the birth registrations for relatives who were born more than a century ago, marriage registrations for those who tied the knot at least eighty years ago and death registrations for those died at least seventy years ago. Recently, I applied to receive the citizenship files for two of my grandfathers and two great-grandfathers, who were naturalized as Canadian citizens more than eight decades ago. For those in search of their roots, the availability of such information is essential. Who's privacy is harmed by this access?

I will be checking the box to allow my census information to be shared in 2098 and I would encourage all Canadians to do the same. Then, after we've filed our census returns, let's contact our members of parliament to urge them to change the law. The right to privacy is for the living. Beyond the grave, we can let it go ... for our descendents' sake, if nothing else.

Singapore's Cruel "Justice"

The ancient Code of Hammurabi and the biblical book of Exodus—both of which advocated the legal principle of “an eye for an eye”—seem almost enlightened and compassionate when laid next to the laws of some modern nations. This morning, news came from Singapore that 25-year-old Nguyen Tuong Van had been hanged for trafficking in heroin. This Australian citizen had been convicted of drug trafficking after being caught with two packages of heroin, which he was reportedly carrying as a “mule” for a drug syndicate to which his twin brother was hopelessly indebted. While I cannot condone Nguyen’s actions, neither can I accept that his was a capital offence. Indeed, the compassion that Nguyen showed for his brother’s plight stands in sharp contrast to the complete absence of mercy shown by Singapore’s prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, and his indifferent cabinet.

I believe that state-sanctioned murder is never justified. Violence begets violence. But even most supporters of capital punishment would surely concede that, in this case, the punishment was utterly disproportionate to the crime. Even among those with a more rigid view of law and order, a compassionate person might yet have been moved to show mercy in this case.

In recent weeks, pleas for clemency had flowed in from around the world. Too often I have remained silent on the eve of an execution but this time I found myself moved by the plight of Nguyen. Like countless others, I wrote to the prime minister of Singapore and other senior government leaders to ask that Nguyen’s death sentence be commuted. The response to that plea was received this morning.

Singapore is governed by a calculating and heartless oligarchy masquerading as a modern city state. Proportionate to its size, Singapore executes more people than any other country on the face of the earth! And most of those executed have been convicted of drug offences, not the kind of violent crimes that most advocates of the death penalty have in mind when they try to make their specious case for medieval forms of punishment.

While Prime Minister John Howard of Australia hosted a cricket match and German chancellor Angela Merkel entertained the prime minister of Singapore in Berlin, the trap door swung open ending young Nguyen’s life. I can somehow picture these three leaders sipping on Singapore Slings, callously indifferent to the grotesque miscarriage of justice at Changi prison. Like too many leaders of the world’s democratic nations, Howard and Merkel seem more concerned about business than human rights—and Lee Hsien Loong is no doubt happy to know that an execution or two won’t adversely affect Singapore’s ability to do business. While making his own pleas on Nguyen’s behalf, Prime Minister Howard was quick to suggest that the matter wouldn’t be allowed to impact trade, investment and military relations between Australia and Singapore. Talk about a mixed message!

People need to understand that when they purchase products originating in Singapore, travel there on vacation, or even fly on its national airline, they are supporting the very regime that perpetuates this brutality. There is no real difference between “Singapore, Inc.” and the Republic of Singapore. Those of us who every day enjoy the privilege of living in free nations, where the laws are mostly just, even if they are at times imperfect, have no business sustaining the economies of tyrannical states around the globe. If the leaders of the world’s democratic nations will not link trade agreements with human rights, then the world’s consumers must take matters into their own hands by boycotting goods and services emanating from the those rogue states. Singapore Inc. would be a good place to start.

But the response of civilized people cannot end there. Showing that he really doesn’t understand how the actions of his own government contributed to the execution of Nguyen, the prime minister of Australia turned the whole affair into a trite morality play when he intoned, “I hope the strongest message that comes out of this ... is a message to the young of Australia—don't have anything to do with drugs, don't use them, don't touch them, don't carry them, don't traffic in them.” While I share the prime minister’s sentiments about drug use, he completely missed the point. The real message that comes out of this sordid affair is that it’s time for the leaders of the world’s democracies to start putting human rights ahead of trade agreements.

Is a Stable Parliament Possible?

Many Canadians seem to hold a sentimental attachment to the notion of minority government as a good thing. Perhaps they believe that minority governments, by their very nature, are compelled to be more sensitive to the wishes of voters or at least less arrogant in their exercise of power. When surveyed in recent times, however, Canadians have expressed a desire not only for a minority government but for a particular kind of minority—a Liberal government with the New Democrats holding the balance of the power. There seems to be a marked preference for Liberal management tempered by a social democratic conscience, which is a little surprising given the recent evidence of Liberal mismanagement. Could it be that Canadians would really prefer an NDP government but they’re a little afraid of so dramatic a change? Or maybe they just believe that electing an NDP government would be almost impossible to accomplish, so they’ll settle for a Liberal government as long as the NDP holds enough seats to keep it honest and progressive.

The problem with minority governments, beyond their inherent instability, is that the parliaments that produce them happen as if by accident. The voters cannot know ahead of time just which party will find itself on the government benches, nor can they know just which party will end up holding the balance of power. For all the talk about “strategic voting,” it is simply impossible for the voters to intentionally elect a parliament where no party holds a majority, yet which produces the government and balance of power that the majority of voters would prefer. There are simply too many variables involved.

In Canada, where parliament consists of three federalist parties with differing ideologies, along with a separatist party committed primarily to parliamentary mischief, it is increasingly difficult to elect a workable government, whether majority or minority. Indeed, when the separatists can count on holding 15-20% of the seats in parliament, a government needs what amounts to a super-majority of the remaining seats (i.e., 59-63%) in order to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. When there is fundamental agreement about the constitution and value of our confederation, then minority parliaments favour compromise between competing approaches to public policy; but when parliament includes a sizeable number of members who reject federal institutions (like Québec separatists), or who would weaken them (like Western regionalists), then minority parliaments favour the interests of regionalism and division while threatening the well-being of the country.

So, what conditions might lead voters to return a more stable parliament in 2006? Well, Canadians might recognize that Paul Martin is fiscally the most conservative prime minister since Louis St. Laurent. If this were to happen, then fiscal conservatives might be motivated to shift their votes to the Liberals, leaving the official opposition with only their socially conservative base while returning the Liberals as a majority government. Alternately, those who share the government’s fiscal conservatism and pro-business agenda might decide to vote for the real thing instead, or might rebel against hints of Liberal corruption, shifting their support to the Conservatives in numbers large enough to put the Tories within striking distance of a majority.

Yet another possibility might see progressive Liberals recognize, at last, that they’ve lost their hold on the Liberal Party and shift their votes to the NDP, either returning enough New Democrats to firmly hold the balance of power or, if the fates are with them, perhaps even elect a government. Some of us think that Canada is overdue for such a fundamental political realignment.

Or how about a real longshot? Is it too much to hope that Québec voters might weary of elected representatives who are content to sit on the opposition benches? If Québeckers sent a parliamentary contingent of Liberals and Conservatives and New Democrats to Ottawa, based on their proposed programs for governing, rather than Bloquistes with their tiresome agenda of mere opposition and opting out, everyone would be better off. All three of the federalist parties would be enriched by strong parliamentary contingents bringing the values and vision of the people of Québec. And without the need for a super-majority of seats, or the real concern that Québec might find itself excluded from the government benches, then a stable, productive government might still be within reach.

An Even More Unstable Parliament?

If early polls are any indication, the next Canadian parliament may be even more unstable than the one just dissolved! As the election campaign begins, an Environics Research poll suggests that the Liberals are down nearly two percentage points from 2004, the Conservatives are up by a hair, the New Democrats have jumped more than four points and the Bloc Québecois is up by a point and a half. While these changes hardly seem monumental, they are significant in terms of the likely distribution of seats, potentially changing the outcome in anywhere from 30 to 40 seats.

With the Environics poll in mind, I quickly scanned the 2004 results and discovered that, if these numbers were to hold until election day, the new House of Commons would likely include 108 Liberals, 103 Conservatives, 60 Bloquistes and 37 New Democrats—more or less. Another minority parliament—and one that is far worse than the last one, since no party would enjoy a mandate to govern alone, while the influence of the separatist Bloc Québecois would be magnified. The NDP would have nearly twice as many seats as now but only a fraction of the influence! (It's bad enough that the first-past-the-post system gives the Bloc nearly half again as many seats as it deserves, without the added insult of giving it the balance of power in a divided parliament.)

Only three governments could emerge in such a divided parliament. The best scenario, perhaps, would see a “grand coalition” of Liberals and Conservatives, akin to the current government of Germany, which would make the old “unite the right” movement look timid in its aspirations. If the Bloc maintained its earlier position when it once found itself as the second-largest party in the House, then the NDP would become the official opposition. The second scenario would see either the Liberals or the Conservatives enter into an unholy alliance with the separatists, in return for concessions that might leave most Canadians longing for the days of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. The third scenario would see the Liberals continue in office, governing timidly to ensure that either the Conservatives or the Bloc were always onside, until once again the two latter parties came together to bring down the government and force another election—undoubtedly before a year had passed.

Canadians can only hope that public opinion shifts during the course of the election campaign, so that the election returns a government able to govern, either alone or in partnership, without being beholden to those who would balkanize our parliament on their way to destroying our country. Unless things change dramatically between now and election day, we will find ourselves in need of either dramatic electoral reform or a fundamental political realignment in this country, so that the affairs of state aren’t dominated by the party that finishes in fourth place when the popular vote is tabulated—a party that seeks to destroy the very country that tolerates its existence.

Assiniboine Park and the Mayor's Folly

Earlier this month, the accidental mayor of Winnipeg, Sam Katz, announced a plan to lease part of Assiniboine Park to private developers to construct condominiums. Our city’s grandest park rivals the great parks of North America’s leading cities and it should be preserved as a public trust, not parceled off for private development.

During his short political career, Mayor Katz has shown that he is, it seems, constitutionally incapable of distinguishing between private interest and the public good. Winnipeg voters should hardly be surprised, since this mindset was plainly clear before they elected him mayor. Like so many celebrities, whether in business or entertainment, Mr. Katz came to office with dubious credentials and no real platform, other than the thinly-veiled intention to serve the private interests of the so-called "business community" over the public good.

It's time to take back City Hall from the developers and other private interests who long ago captured it and have held it hostage ever since. Luring voters with promises of lower taxes, those elected officials who are beholden to private interests rent or sell off the city's capital assets to pay for their folly, while generating private profits for their friends. If Assiniboine Park is in sad shape today, it is only because the present city council and its predecessors have lacked the courage to maintain taxes and other sources of revenue at a level that would have allowed proper maintenance of what is truly a public treasure. The same is true for our city's crumbling streets and declining infrastructure.

So I say let's take the mayor's latest venture into undermining the public good in the name of so-called development as a signal to begin the campaign to throw him out of office, along with those burnt-out and unimaginative councillors who support his agenda. Winnipeg deserves a city council that values parks over parking lots, community centres over corporate interests, libraries over landfill, and public servants over private profiteers. It's time that this city replaced the pirates at City Hall with a progressive alternative.

From Journaling to Blogging?

Several times over the years, I have started to keep a personal journal. Each time, the effort has failed, if one considers continuity of production to be a mark of success. All I have to show for my attempts at journal-keeping is a small collection of incomplete volumes and the knowledge that, unlike Ralph Waldo Emerson or Virginia Wolff, the world will never come to know me through daily jottings in some leather-bound chronicle of my life. It may be just as well -- I've been known to say and write things I later came to regret.

So I've turned my attention away from keeping a journal towards keeping a blog! Perhaps I just need an audience, or the fantasy of an audience, to stick with it. Journal-keeping is like talking to yourself on paper. Blogging feels more like a conversation, or at least one side of it. Even if my ramblings prove to be nothing more than a one-sided conversation, I can at least imagine that there may be someone out there reading it.

Moreover, blogging seems a more promising vehicle for expressing my views than the collection of unpublished letters to the editor and unanswered memos to public officials that clutters my filing cabinets. Of course, as a preacher, it's unlikely that blogging can compete with the power of the pulpit and the satisfaction it brings. It does, however, give me somewhere to preach the other six days of the week. Stay tuned!