The question facing Canadians on May 2, 2011 is not "who is the better leader for us?" but why we are even accepting that Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff and Gilles Duceppe and even Elizabeth May, or any other "leader" of any "officially recognized political party", should be considered as credible options for our next Prime Minister, especially when this election is supposedly forced because of Stephen Harper’s contempt for Parliament.
When do we, the citizens, start to stand against the contempt for our laws and the citizens that the silence of these supposed "leaders" too loudly signals? Do, we wait until the laws that they are breaking are ones that result in us being jailed or shot? Or do we demand that our Parliament return to being an instrument for the voice of all citizens, not an instrument of abuse for the friends of these elitists who tell us that they are our only options for our next "leader".
While they make new rules that exclude the dissenting voice in all things democratic.
Our Vote.
Propaganda.
Bullets.
History.
Hypocrisy.
Freed words.
It is time for a "100,000 People March"?
My book, Just Business (available at JustBusinessTheBook.com), is as much about a journey to real democracy as it is about the story to why real change must happen. No, it is far from being grammatically correct and perfect in structure.
But, the citizen who claims to be concerned about democracy should start to think about this.
I "googled", on March 27, to find news on any pending Canadian federal election in 2011. The first article that popped up was a report on what is apparently a Chinese based news network (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-03/27/c_13799756.htm). "... Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Saturday that Canada's 41st federal election will be held on May 2. Harper made the announcement after meeting with Governor General David Johnston in Rideau Hall Saturday morning to seek the dissolution of Parliament. ...". The predictable pronouncement from Mr. Harper after a "vote of no confidence" in "our" Parliament? "... Harper criticized opposition parties for forcing "an election the country doesn't want; an election the economy doesn't need," especially at a time when the world economy remains fragile and risky, and conflicts, political turmoils and humanitarian disasters still haunt the world. "Now is not the time for political instability. Now is not the time for economic uncertainty. And now is most certainly not the time for higher taxes," said Harper. ...".
Why is there "political instability"? Because the "leadership" in those nations was corrupt.
Why are there economic uncertainties and turmoil? Because the business "leadership", internationally and in our monitoring government bureaucracies, was corrupt.
But, what is the option for leadership in Canada?
Even the Chinese media bow to the propaganda that there are only three possible "leaders" in Canada after May 2, 2011. And so, their report is on what?
Michael Ignatieff. Liberal. He is quick to deny any intent to form a "coalition government" with other political parties. But, the reporter says this, "... Ignatieff attributed the election to Harper's losing confidence in the parliament, saying that it was the first time in Canada's history a prime minister to be found guilty and in contempt for parliamentary constitution. "We will be offering Canadians a government of the people, a government devoted to the people," he said. ...".
This commentary comes from a man "leading" those Liberals who ripped off the people and led to another Conservative whose buds continue to rip off the people. So, what is "the only other option" the news media, national and international, wants us to consider? "... NDP leader Jack Layton asked Canadians to help him defeat Harper's Conservatives and elect him prime minister on May 2. Delivering his first speech of the campaign, Layton vowed to bring "Canadian leadership" to the job and to fix what he says is broken in Ottawa. ...".
But, wait a second!
We have a Prime Minister, named Harper, who dared to insinuate that the Liberals in power, before 2006, were base criminals, when it came to ethical leadership. Gaining power through our vote in 2006, he simply did what the Liberals had done for years: he favoured his friends and ignored the citizen. But, in March 2011, Ignatieff and Layton band together to kick out this "corrupt" man with the insinuation that this is the first "... prime minister to be found guilty and in contempt for parliamentary constitution ....".
So, common citizen, tell me this.
Section 126 of our Criminal Code still says this on March 28, 2011: "... Disobeying a statute ...".
126. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament
by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do
anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly
provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for
a term not exceeding two years.
Attorney General of Canada may act
(2) Any proceedings in respect of a contravention of or conspiracy to contravene
an Act mentioned in subsection (1), other than this Act, may be instituted at
the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that
Government.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 126; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F).Ignatieff, aligned with Layton, implies that our Prime Minister and his gang ignored our constitution. It is an Act of Parliament. This follows the real record of Prime Ministers, like Chretien and then Martin and then, yes, even Mr. Harper, who was most vocal in opposition about this, using our taxes to bribe other political party’s members across our Parliamentary floor. Scott Brison stood behind Ignatieff last week, as the bigger hints that this election would happen began to appear in our corrupted media. Brison, and others, crossed our Parliamentary floor without a vote. This became a breach of the Criminal Code section forbidding abuse of position gained and any breach of trust.
BUT our "Parliamentarians" have conveniently passed new laws making themselves above our founding laws. Therefore, the question becomes, critically, this.
To whom and when does this section of the Criminal Code, forbidding the elected from violating any Act of Parliament, begin to apply? Only after they have changed the law, making us all "equal before and under the law", to the point that we are jailed and then shot upon for what we dare to write and say?
We are already there. Read my book, including The Final Corollary, which will be in the second edition of the book. And then remember the hypocrisy of the G-20 Summit of 2010. Last summer, Canadians were marched into narrow corridors of "allowed voice". And then read what happened on February 17, 2011 in Canada’s national capital when I tried to deliver my book to Senator Dallaire and two Parliamentarians, so that my voice would be heard.
Let me start my real challenge to the "citizens of democracy" by asking this: Did the people of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and, now, even Syria, need the leadership of "their leaders", who had achieved "official party status" or who used the "rules of democracy", set up by their arrogant "rulers". Or, did the citizens stand up against those "leaders" who told the people of those nations that they had to accept their definitions of what was "right" and "wrong", despite the people knowing what was wrong? Yes, windless words from me, again. But.
Do we allow people in power to define for us how we will challenge their abuse of privilege and power? OR
Do we need a "100,000 people freedom march"?
Aw, yes. The focus by others on my communications to date could be on how I stated things. Freed words that challenge? Freed words that express my emotions of the moment while defining the reality of my being? And my criticism of the illegalities that thrive in the world surrounding us. In the moment. In moments that others will hide with their propaganda.
But, I write knowing this reality.
My words will not come to fruition unless, under the law, the violators of my rights voluntarily come to respect the law OR if they are forced to respect the law in front of a jury of twelve of my peers (read the book to understand why I will never allow a hearing before a singular judge in my case, given the revelations in my book about our corrupted courts). My words, about accountability to the law, even in the hypocritical boards of institutions, which make a mockery of our human history and laws, will not come to be UNTIL masses of citizens say that this accountability to our history must happen. That will happen, I recognize, only if principled justice is returned to my nation.
HOWEVER, the principal reality then becomes that my right to my freed words does not mean that these things must come to be BEFORE my words are freed.
Which leads to a citizenry that must start to think about this.
I refuse to allow propaganda to hide the reality of our modern world. Why should I, given our world’s history. The examples now surround us even today, in distant nations while, in North America, we remain brazenly apathetic and irresponsible. To the laws of 1948. And our constitution of 1982. And our Criminal Code of 1989.
I will not allow those who sit in elitist positions to hide from the illegal hypocrisy of their daily living.
But, neither am I naive.
I write to register my warnings.
I write the letters, made record in (this blog below), to warn those who take away my rights. And your rights.
With the propaganda.
While the bullets from our history are conveniently forgotten.
So, ironically, what the citizen now needs to think about most carefully comes from more propaganda from our history.
Hana’s Suitcase ... Friends were recommending that I attend this play in Thunder Bay’s Magnus Theatre by March 25. So, I went to the Theatre’s web site. Its short playing ended on March 19. But, the irony is in this.
The play is supposedly based on real circumstances. The Japanese, as do too many countries around this world, build "Holocaust" memorials. They call them museums. They are supposedly built to remind us not to repeat history. Japanese school children, entering the museum’s display, are shown a small suit case. The name "Hana ..." is written inside. It is the children who ask who Hana was and what happened to her. This inspires the writing of a theatrical play that becomes just too convenient, tear-jerking propaganda, again.
It is the innocence of children that leads to the actual exploration of whom really owned the suitcase. Until that visit, the suitcase was made a symbol by adults who cared not about the whole story.
Now, like Anne Frank’s bookish diary, adults tell us that the theatrical play of Hana will, supposedly, educate the world to the importance of remembering the impacts from our history on individuals. "Especially on the children!"
More pompous propaganda.
Same day that I am exploring this. March 26, 2011. Election fever is building in "democratic" Canada. Politicians. In anticipation of "their" election day, they are already paying into their "media". Realigned taxes disappear into the pockets of big, private mega corporations who claim that they are "for free speech". As long as we align with the concept that "free speech" can only be credible IF it comes out of the mouths of already positioned Parliamentarians, our media will sell us what "democracy" is.
They will tell us that politicians and their partisan lawyers only know what is best for us.
We make a hypocrisy of our history. Hana and Anne were overwhelmed and murdered because the citizens allowed themselves to be sold the propaganda that they must accept what those "in government", the partisan entrenched courts and policing offices and then in "the media" told them what was "right" and "just".
So, do we participate in this farce and make the illegal legal?
I will not.
I will not waste my time walking into any voting station in my nation on May 2, 2011.
I will not waste my time with people, who are generally "good citizens" until it comes to standing up against corruption. Justifying it as "good", simply because we are not to the stage where Hana’s suitcase or Anne’s diary are not factors, yet, in the world that surrounds us, is irresponsible behaviour. I will not align myself with those who shout at me that their "concepts of democracy" are best while the reality is this.
IF you do not have $1,000 of your own, do not even apply for voice in a farce that is called "democracy" in my "democratic" nation.
Here, in Canada, our "leaders" are called criminals, publicly. They abuse their positions, again and again, to make themselves above our laws. And, they already shut out the voice of the dissident and the critic.
WE know that all of this is wrong. The questions become this, as I ask in my final corollary to my book.
When do we get the courage of Libyans and others to stand in front of our police stations and court houses to demand that the corruption in our institutions of "justice" ends so that WE, not the Parliamentarians and our partisan judges, judge their corrupted friends?
When do we get the courage of Tunisians and Russians and others, to stand on our Parliamentary grounds to demand the resignations of Ignatieff, Layton, Harper and Duceppe so that a return to "credible leadership" does begin to prevail (visit my TakeBackDemocracy.ca web page later this week for suggestions on how this can be achieved without a full election before a "fixed date election" is indeed required in this nation)?
When do we surround the grounds of the residence of a Governor General, who, as the Queen’s assigned representative, is beholden to uphold the constitutional right of each and every citizen but who, instead, gladly acquiesces to the Conservative or the Liberal because he is a good lawyer who will gladly legitimize the illegal for the sake of appearances, despite our base laws?
When do we gain the courage of citizens of democracy to take the simple step to write to the Elections Commissioner of Canada to register that we refuse to partake in an "electoral process" which was corrupted the moment people like Scott Brison crossed our Parliamentary floor? When will the angry citizen make record that they had their rights taken away and that they want the likes of Brison and his recruiting Parliamentarians to resign or be thrown into jail for the breach of trust that this implied?
Oh, dear citizens of Canada. It is now time to demonstrate whether you are wimps to the lessons of our history and cowards to the principles set down in laws after 1948. Will you simply say that "it is worse over there!" and allow the use of an electoral process that is no longer legal or credible in any way? Because of the years of corruption.
OR does first one citizen write to an elections’ commissioner and warn these bureaucrats and politicians that the citizen will no longer participate in what is no longer credible? And then 100 more follow. And then 100,000, who march while millions of others write and record their brave position that they will NOT allow the first hint of Hana’s suitcase or Anne’s diary to appear in my nation.
For the sake of generations yet to come.
Yes, read my book, Just Business. And go to TakeBackDemocracy.ca to start to understand how to change all of this, with the courage of Libyans and others in our living and past history.
Or start to prove even yourselves hypocrites when it comes to responsible democracy.
(PS... visit my book site at JustBusinessTheBook.com to see how you can engage me in talking about all of this, in person)..
No comments:
Post a Comment