Tag: politics

Canadian Civics

*long, exaggerated sigh*

I was going to make this a podcast, or whatever, but I am just so frustrated. I keep seeing people push blame onto our Prime Minister here in Canada for stuff that has little to nothing to do with the Federal branch of our government. It makes me wonder if people actually remember the half-course that we all had to take in highschool, or if they just wished we lived in a dictatorship so they could take the easy road of blaming one person.

Federal Government
– Maintains spending on a country level
– Deals with military actions
– Handles foreign relationships

Provincial Government
– Healthcare, schools, provincial roads
– Housing, taxes on fuel, licences
– Has the most impact on your daily life

Municipal Government
– Local Streets and Parks
– Overall look and feel of immediate area
– Garbage and recycling

There are some crossovers, but nowhere near as many as people seem to think there are. Yes, the Federal Government can suggest laws down the line, but really that is all they are going to do. Let’s take into consideration the lockdowns that have been happening. The Federal branch recommended to the Provincial what should or should not take place. Enforcements were to be taken primarily on a provincial scale, with smaller infractions to be handled by Municipal governments.

Yes, these are just broad-strokes. There are a million tiny things, points, and ideas that I have left out because I could be here writing this for hours. No, I am NOT a professional. I am not even involved in politics at this time, aside from what I read in passing. I did NOT want to have to write this, but everyone is getting on my nerves by accusing arms of government for not doing what they think they should, or giving a pass to arms of power that do not deserve them.

Unintended Victory

I’m not going to be putting sources because this is mostly opinion/observation, also massive news regarding Roe V Wade in the states.

Has anyone else noticed how the Republican Party in the USA just guaranteed all future wins for the Democratic party over the last half decade?

Between The Former President orchestrating a failed coup that is now getting massive attention world-wide, and the SCOUS removing the main government from decisions regarding abortion, they have cemented a larger voice for those who don’t agree. As bad as all of their decisions have been over the last little bit, and how catastrophic they have been for democracy, it is becoming more and more apparent just how self-sabotaging those political moves have been.

To those who don’t get how it works (incredibly simplified), Roe V Wade meant that individual states have no say on abortion. This meant that it was up to the federal level to regulate how things like that worked. This was great on the macro level, but what was not thought about by the “Justices” is how unliked their ruling was in the collective mind. Now, someone running for governor just has to promise to keep/remake abortion legal in their state. There is enough support for that to make the elections extremely one-sided.

To be extremely clear: I am not a fan of democracy done that way. However, the right keeps making it easier for the “left” from the standpoint that their rulings are so incredibly unliked.

To be clear, I am NOT supporting this ruling. I wish I could do more to help those who need support, and I have made it my mission to amplify voices and movements to better the world. The Supreme Court has demonstrated just how relevant they are in today’s world, and keep making proclamations that cement that idea.

To get ahead of the question of why a Canadian cares: because I am human. Because what happens politically seems to try to cross the border. Because I want things to be better for others. Because I have some sort of compassion, in opposition to the consensus.

Protest

I was recently faced by someone who was in a camp for defending a protest that I did not.

Depending on where you stand, I either come off as someone who wants balance to the status quo, or potentially as someone who is anti-protest.

Let me make that point as clear as I can: I am very pro-protest. I love the ideas, the discussion that can come out of them, and the idea of a collection of people standing for a cause.

HOWEVER.

The point of protest is to bolster a point that you feel is being handled in the wrong fashion. In Canada, you have the right to protest (within certain parameters). That also means that I have a right to disagree with your protest.

The kind of person I am, I will not intentionally attempt to undermine a position. If I see flaws in the logic, I will point them out if I am asked about them. If I out-and-out disagree with the cause being screamed about, it is my right to state that. I choose to (mostly) in private. I do have opinions, but I will not voice them if I see no benefit.

Where I get a bit squirrely is surrounding the trucker protest we had in Canada a week or two ago. I was not even sure if I disagreed with it because everywhere I could find information about the “cause” they were fighting for, there seemed to be blatant discrepancies and contradictions.

I am afraid that it undermined real protests for important issues that we see all over this country. Especially around Native rights, the bodies of children that were found in basements of residential schools, and legitimate concerns around abuse of power. This really did come off more as a kid throwing a tantrum as opposed to an actual fight against “tyranny”, or whatever they said they were against.

Yes, I will probably get some flack about my stance, and I welcome someone to explain how the truckers were in any right. I know I made a video recently talking about how I was “done” in regards to things of this nature, but my point was that I was done explaining the same point hundreds of times just to be asked by the same person again.

Apparently radical?

I was in discussion with someone over the worker shortage being seen in the USA right now. They were saying that no one wants to work because they are collecting CERB and being lazy, and I was actively offended.

Let me be clear: CERB is meant as emergency funds to work with a household income to supplement the financial damage caused by the Pandemic. IF it is actually better to live off that funding than work a job making “minimum wage”, is it not an issue being created by the place of employment?

It’s easier for me to find the Canadian numbers, and I almost promise that our are higher than the American.

In Canada, you get $500 a week. That is barely enough to live on, let alone do anything on. If that is actually better than what you make working 40 hours a week, there is a glaring issue. I’m on disability, and I make half that. Don’t get me started on why that is deplorable, because I will start calling everyone Comrad and my new favourite colour will be red.

So, do I think people should be living off CERB or the equivalent? No, but I also see there being no shame if it is more than you make anyway. I see the shame being with the billion-dollar industries giving people less than a living wage to break their backs making money for a shadow they will never see.

Somehow, this opinion is radical. Please, tell me how I am being radical?

Silence V Misguiding

I was going to record another Vlog today. It was going to be in regards to the found bodies of indigenous children in residential schools across Canada. Like most, I am disgusted. Embarrassed, even. The very fact that my country could even be associated with such atrocities is hard, and I’m the last person to show any national pride.

So, if I feel so strong, why didn’t I record the condemnation that I have in my head?

There are a few different reasons why I didn’t. The first, and most important, is that I am not qualified in the slightest to say anything. I have nothing new to bring to the table, and my addition to the conversation would be little more than noise in a cacophony of voices. The last thing I would even want to be mildly responsible for is being louder than someone who matters more.I haven’t done the necessary research, and I get way too angry to be objective with any information I do find.

The second is that I have started to cultivate a reputation as someone focused more on the arts. Bad excuse, I am well aware. Hell, between the podcast and the youtube page, I have accumulated a bit over 500 plays of my ramblings. There is FAR from enough information to actually state that I have garnered a “reputation”.

The third is that I feel like I have nothing substantial to add. Even in writing this, I feel like I am downplaying the importance and gravity of the situation in Canada. I refuse to use any tags that could take away from more important articles, and I am using this as more of a damnation of this country.

The end point is that I have no idea what to do. I have no clues on how to make this all better. I am upset. I am disgusted. Fucking own up to your BS. Fuck this country. Fuck Christianity. Go find (and share) links to Indigenous works of art; whether they be music, film, or stage.

Disgusted

I was explaining to a friend of mine recently how my latest work-in-process has a very anti-police angle in one chapter. When I showed it to her, she claimed that I didn’t go far enough. To paraphrase what she replied with: ‘Your message is weak. The absence of opinion is a political stance.’

I wish I had kept the conversation so I could put what she said exactly, but basically she thought that my fears were unwarranted because I never actually stated clearly that ACAB (All Cops Are Bad). Due to this, she thought that my fears of offending some people were extreme, at best.

When I wrote the chapter, I felt that it was a necessary commentary on the police culture in modern western society. I also feared that my opinions were too radical, and subsequently wondered if I showed the wrong person for an opinion. I say that not because of a negative view on her opinion, but because she has a greater and more warranted opinion on the police in this country.

Then: Wednesday happened.

I am not going to give a detailed breakdown of my feelings towards the events. I am not educated enough, nor am I American. For me to weigh in feels disingenuous and judgmental.

I do, however, need to say something. Her words ring true: not giving an opinion is taking a political stance, and when you leave silence, your lack of words can lead to the wrong opinion. So, I will make my stance on the topic clear, concise, and if you do NOT agree, I can promise that I am not going to fight you. I realize that I might be deafening myself to an opposing opinion, and that is something I normally never do. I feel that the only way to remain educated and accepting is to hear opposing arguments.

THE STORMING OF THE WHITE HOUSE WAS A TERRORIST ACT. THE PEOPLE INVOLVED WERE TERRORISTS. THE CAUSE WAS WEAK, AT BEST. YOUR FEARS ARE UNFOUNDED.

I have never been so disgusted with a country. If this was a “third world” nation who went through the same attempted coup, American forces would be deployed and the sitting government would be dismantled by the Army.

The lack of response, or inappropriate response by the police on hand was deplorable.

Feel shame, United States of America. The world watched. We could not believe what you did.

If you did not take part in the “systematic” dismantling of parliament, you should still be embarrassed by proxy.

Politics and Why I am So Sorry

I recently posted the most egregious thing on FaceBook with no explanation. I simply set my status to “I give up” and turned off notifications from my phone.

I am sorry. That statement was less of a depressed admittance, and more of an angry and exhaustive representation of me throwing my keyboard to the ground in a moment of grief.

I know that I have kept my blog out of politics pretty well, with a couple of notable exceptions. This is because I know my own ineptitude, and I try not to share around opinions for fear of corrupting possible movements (as if I have enough clout to wield any power great enough to hamper a movement). I will, however, use this platform to point out my least favourite “argument” that seems to plague the current world of discourse.

A “Whataboutism” is more of a derailment method as opposed to an argument. It is used in place of a proper rebuttal to distract from the point being made in favour of outrage at an opposing (yet, strangely similar) point. The example that I was faced with was when I posted THIS article with little context, and the only reply I received in response was “Yeah, but Trudeau supported the Chinese regime.”. I was completely floored. Their comment had no additional context or room for debate, they completely undermined my attempt to raise a point in the overarching debate that is my feed currently, and now anyone who has anything to say on what I posted is divided between talking about the first article or the second point.

Let me be clear: I was not supporting what Trudeau said about China. It was not even really on the table. My point, and ONLY point, was the article discussing T*mp in North Korea a year ago. My reason for highlighting it was to illustrate some comparison between his tactics and his public statements. I was not saying that it was fair, I was just looking for some opinion. That is when someone derailed everything I was trying to set up and pushed my argument down to the bowels of argument Hell where it was to be ignored for fear of stirring up clearly unimportant points.

My official response to what Trudeau said in regards to China: that is definitely something we should keep in memory IF it ever comes into question. How that relates to what my point was? It doesn’t. T*mp is treating his presidency in one of the most questionable ways in recent decades, and the purpose of me sharing that article was to raise questions if he might be using tactics to gain an upper hand.

Yes. I am Canadian. No. American politics should not cause me to rubberneck like someone passing a horrible car accident. I would argue, however, that this is not only Canada’s neighbour, but also one of the biggest and most powerful countries in the world. So, yes, any argument from a Canadian is valid. In this case, any argument is valid regardless of what country you are from.

If you would like a more thorough explanation of improper arguments, I recommend this old video from Idea Channel on YouTube. I use that video to discuss improper arguments in general, but “Whataboutisnm” was defined beautifully by a video from Last Week Tonight.

Oh: you may have noticed me using an asterisk whenever I spell the standing President’s name. That is so, when you do a search on a search engine, this article doesn’t come up. This is so less hits can be made when searching his name.

ONTO WHY I AM SORRY.

My statement was not well divulged as to what I was giving up on. I was disheartened by the constant barrage of political statements (from all sides) not being well thought out then fought over with assumed authority. I cannot promise that this will be my last wade into the waters of political discourse, but I do promise to consider every side with equal weight, even if I vehemently disagree with you. We are all capable of respect.