I’ve received a few emails lately asking if I’m going to comment on the upcoming federal election, some even admonishing me for not making it a staple topic. I’ll not launch into the tired diatribe that Mblog has always primarily focused on human rights and anti-war topics more than others, most of you should know that by now. That said, some commentary on the upcoming election is definitely warranted.
The most popular question that I’m routinely emailed is – who are you voting for? I live in a riding that is, according to some, going to play an important role come January 23. For those of you from other parts of the country (or world) that would like to know more about it, please refer to the CBC’s Vancouver Centre information page.
Here are the candidates for Vancouver Centre:
*Incumbent: Liberal Party: Hedy Fry
Christian Heritage Party: Joe Pal
Conservative Party: Tony Fogarassy
Green Party: Jared Evans
Libertarian Party: John Clarke
Majajuana Party: Heathcliff Dionysu Campbell
New Democratic Party: Svend Robinson
Let me start by making clear that I am not a member of any one political party, nor do I think it particularly healthy to limit oneself to one specific party come election time. Given our system of government, I think it’s important to first examine how a candidate will represent not simply the concerns of those constituents that support the position of their party, but more importantly how they will represent those members of their riding that do not.
As far as I’m concerned, an MP is obligated to place the needs of their constituents above those of their party. Democracy is not the practice of betraying popular concern, or even popular minority concern, for the betterment of a partisan agenda, despite the fact that that trend has been prevalent in global democratic politics for some time. Simply because rats have always lived on ships does not mean that they should be tolerated in perpetuity.
That said, I have not yet decided who I am voting for.
Canada & Militarism
What is often described as ‘national security’ post 9/11 (and quite often prior to it), militarism is the belief that a strong military should be maintained and used to aggressively promote or defend the interests of a nation. Since our involvement in Afghanistan began in 2001, language employed by Canadian military leadership suggests that some within our armed forces envy the latitude enjoyed by their American counterparts, often mimicking the aggressive tone employed by US military commanders.
It should not be lost on anyone that the tenets of militarism go both ways. It is not enough to claim it excusable simply because those nations that have enjoyed a global monopoly over it claim that others have no right to do the same. The actions of the world’s foremost militarists set a global tone that influences every nation on the planet with a military capability. Since the advent of the war on terror, the world has seen an increase in arms production and sales, and terrorist organizations are not the ones reaping the benefits.
Canadians should suffer no illusions about our involvement in Afghanistan. Be it the use of JTF2 in a kill or capture capacity, or the use of Canadian troops in other operations, be they positive or not; Canada, and other NATO nations, are ultimately supporting the foreign policy initiatives of the United States in that region, one in which they are not strangers. No matter our well intentioned initiatives in Afghanistan, I do not support the use of our military to help further the policy ambitions of a foreign nation over which we have absolutely no influence and by which we are often, and arrogantly, disregarded. There are those that would argue that we are in Afghanistan for Canadian national security reasons, to which I would reply – Canada was not attacked on September 11th of 2001, nor was it named by any terrorist organization in Afghanistan prior to the Canadian government agreeing to support US efforts there. If anything, our military involvement in Afghanistan has created national security concerns, not helped abate them.
To be honest, Canadian support for US military objectives with regards to the global war on terror probably have more to do with trade relations than national security. Given the way many talk about our trade relationship with the US, it might as well be a national security issue.
For me, this is a crucial issue, one that I tend to focus on when investigating party leadership.
The Sponsorship Scandal
Let’s face it, we wouldn’t be going to the polls had there been no scandal. Every Canadian should be very concerned about it, without question, and it should most certainly be a factor in this election. But, and not attempting to reduce the severity of the scandal, it should not be overlooked that the Sponsorship Scandal is being used to deflect attention from other issues, such as same sex marriage, closer integration with the United States, two tiered healthcare, and even the very existence of Canada as a whole.
Should the Liberal party be trusted? That’s a question that voters should ask Liberal candidates running in their ridings. Tough questions should also be asked those using the scandal to promote agendas. For exmaple – the Bloc use it and they promote the separation of Quebec, the Conservatives use it and they want to repeal same sex marriage legislation, and it seems as though the NDP use it as a precursor to just about every issue.
I think that Canadians should most certainly ask tough questions about the scandal. Then again, I think they should ask similar questions about why the leader of the Conservative party took out an ad in a US newspaper apologizing for Canada’s refusal to support the US invasion of Iraq even though the majority of those he’s looking to represent were opposed to the invasion and supported the government’s position. Or, for that matter, why the NDP’s candidate for my riding, Svend Robinson, was given a full pardon after stealing a diamond ring, a crime that any one of us would have most certainly be convicted for.
There’s A Lot More
There is, of course, a great deal more to this election than I’ve brought up in this entry. Over the next two weeks I’ll do my best to tackle some more of it.
Ten Questions
Just as I did in 2004, I have emailed 10 questions to the candidates running in my riding. Given the time constraints they surely must have, I’ve attempted to make them as direct as possible. Obviously, given the opportunity, I would prefer them to be more in-depth, but, as I’ve said, I’m sure that each candidate has a busy schedule.
When I receive responses I’ll do my best to post them. Here are the questions…
As a constituent of the riding you are seeking to represent, I would like to know your position on the following.
1) Do you believe that an increase in defense spending is warranted?
2) Do you support Canadian inclusion in the ballistic missile defense program?
3) Do you support continued Canadian involvement in Afghanistan given the US co-option of NATO with regards to its Asian and Near East policy?
4) Would you support a serious reform of the Heath Ministry aimed at reducing the number of federal employees in Ottawa and increasing local representatives with medical backgrounds?
Do you support the privatization of healthcare?
5) Do you support the right for same sex couples to marry?
Were the current law to be challenged under a new government, would you vote to repeal it?
Do you consider personal sexuality a human rights issue?
6) Vancouver’s streets are home to a variety of individuals with mental health concerns that have been adversely affected by reductions in social welfare programs. How do you propose to represent the concerns of such citizens?
7) Do you support an increase in the corporate tax rate?
What is your position on the belief that an increase in corporate tax rates adversely affects growth in the business community despite the fact that standard wages remain radically disproportionate to employer profit?
8) What is your position on Canada’s role in the removal of Haiti’s Jean-Bertrand Aristide because of his refusal to privatize various sectors of Haitian business?
9) Canada’s child poverty rate is alarming. How do you intend to address this issue in this riding?
10) Do you support the reduction in arts programs in our schools in favour of promoting what are now viewed as more ‘vital’ educational aspects?
Lastly, and only if you feel comfortable doing do, could you please list those environmental, human rights, or animal rights groups of which you are currently a member?
Thank you very much for your time.
Matthew Good.