February 4 anti-Mubarak protest in Alexandria, Egypt. Creative Commons photo by Al Jazeera English

In Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, even Italy, citizens are rising up, risking their lives to protest their corrupt governments. Egyptians, in a historical event, have proven they can be successful in overthrowing years of dictatorial leadership. Canadians were mostly cheering along (though our government wasn’t), but’s hard to put ourselves in their place—Canada, flawed though it is, is simply not Egypt. Corruption here is less pervasive; the military less present in our everyday lives; we have a functional political opposition. But since freedom, democracy, and human rights are on everyone’s mind right now, perhaps it’s time for a little self-evaluation session.

The uprisings in the Middle East should prompt Canadians to take a closer look at the state of our own politics. For just one recent example, see the recent KAIROS “not” scandal and assess how democratic our government’s behaviour truly is. Murray Dobbin on Rabble stopped just short of comparing Steven Harper to ousted Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, and called Harper’s Conservative cabinet a squad of “hit men.”

But would Canadians ever reach the point where we just couldn’t take it anymore? Could we rebel in  Egypt-like protests? Would our rants to friends or angry blog comments ever manifest as rebellion in the street?

Stereotypically, Canadians are polite and retiring; unconfrontational if you’re being nice about it, apathetic if you’re not. But there’s data to prove that we really don’t like things to get politically messy. Besides our dismal-and-getting-worse voter turnout rate, A 2000 General Social Survey by Statistics Canada found that only 9 percent of Canadians (age 15 and up) had participated in a public debate that year (things like calling radio talkback shows or writing letters to the editor). Half of those individuals researched information on political issues, and 10 percent volunteered for a political party. We also seem naturally more inclined to express our opinions with a group that we know will share or agree with our own opinions.

Historically, if Canadians take the time to understand a politcal issue, then get mad about it, we will find a way to express it. Like the time time the Conservative government decided prorogue parliament; a 63 day break while 36 government bills lay untouched. While plenty of us apparently didn’t know what the heck that meant, 200,000 Canadians got angry, logged onto Facebook and joined a group called Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament. Many attended actual rallies across the country.

If you were in Toronto in the summer of 2010, you witnessed Canadians in a more traditional form of protest during the G20 conference. Over 300 people were arrested and the images of Toronto streets seemed almost unrecognizable, as if it were a different country altogether.

The erosion of Western democracy seems to be everywhere you turn lately. Paul Krugman identified the union-busting tactics of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker as just the latest example of a hemisphere-wide push by anti-democratic forces: “What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy,” Krugman wrote.

Dobbin’s Rabble column sounds the same alarm for Canada: He calls Minister of International Cooperation Bev Oda’s corrections of the CIDA report “political thuggery worthy of a dictatorship.”  This seems to be just one example of our democracy moving backwards while citizens of Italy, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen are actively involved in taking back control of their respective countries.

Michael Ignatieff greeting listeners at a speech on the environment at Laval University, November 26, 2009. Creative Commons Photo by Robert J. Galbraith

Holy déjà vu, Iggy.

Is it just me, or is this whole post-prorogue budget announcement that the NDP and Bloc aren’t supporting feeling eerily familiar?

Rewind to November 2008. Stephen Harper prorogued the government to avoid a non-confidence motion brought on by the New Democrats and Liberals. This move bought him a little time, and as Dion stepped down as leader and Ignatieff stepped up, it put the new Liberal leader in a rather powerful position. The whole country looked to him to see what move he would make—maintain the coalition, or approve a Conservative budget?

Typically, we expect the party leading the country to hold the most power, but at moments like these it becomes apparent that the opposing parties are well-positioned to get some things done, leader of the country or not.

When the budget, and avoiding a non-confidence motion, hinged last year on Liberal approval, the Conservatives made room in their plan for some modest alterations Ignatieff insisted upon. Top of mind was the recession, and the creation of a strong stimulus package.

This year, why not leverage this power once again, Iggy? Last time around recession was the issue du jour, and certainly stimulating the economy is always a smart move, but that isn’t the only issue that Canadians feel strongly about—some uncertainty around climate change has settled in, but a majority of Canadians still believe that it is a very serious issue.

This year, Ignatieff could leverage his power and suggest changes to the budget that would increase jobs, stimulate the economy, and begin to lay the tracks for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.  My suggestions? Start modestly, but with policies that will lay the foundation for further climate change policies in the future.

• Introduce a strong transit plan with emphasis on effective public transit routes;

• Create a regulation or carbon price that would reduce total industrial emissions by 3% annually; and

• Make a national investment in renewable energy, green manufacturing and electric vehicles.

All of these strategies require job creation, and will cultivate a new “blue/green” economy. Of course, for this to be an effective political move as well as climate change reduction strategy, it will require that all parties get on board, which is why incremental change will have to be where we start for now.

So go ahead, Ignatieff,  force Harper’s hand into a new green economy. Afterall, this opportunity seems to come but once a year—you should make good use of it.

Well played, Mr. Harper, well played.

While you’re probably sitting comfortably at 24 Sussex, sipping Chianti and learning how to play “Hey Jude” for Laureen’s next fundraiser, I’m sitting in bed at 11pm Monday night trying to rack my brain for what to say this week about the state of climate change in Canada.

How did we get here? Just two months ago I could have made a full time job keeping up with the news updates on the federal reaction to COP15: “Mr. Harper will be attending part of the discussions in Copenhagen,” “No wait a minute, he has decided not to attend,” “But wait! Just more news from Parliament Hill…” The media provided a detailed play-by-play commentary on every move the Prime Minister and his colleagues made leading up to the international climate negotiations, and the response from the country, extensively covering protests, new studies and reports, and every other action. But now? Crickets.

As the swell of voices and actions came to a crescendo in November and December, so too did the voices of climate deniers and subsequently, so-called climate scandals. Anything that discredited the climate movement, climatologists or anything else to do with the COP15 meetings was eagerly thrust on the front page until we were so confused about what to think, who to blame and what to do next that we were all to happy to receive our holiday gift from Mr. Harper—distraction, in the form of prorogation.

Ah, yes, that wonderful word that so united the country for a brief moment to take to the streets (or to their Facebook accounts) and vent their frustration with the current government. We were all so very upset about a word I suspect most of us still don’t fully understand. It seems we needed the catharsis, and were legitimately fed up, and I bet much of that upset stems from the Prime Minister’s handling of the Canadian climate change policies.

But as the dust has settled, commentary on our carbon crisis has remained noticeably absent. Our Prime Minister has treated our legitimate concerns about climate change like a giant temper tantrum from a nation full of toddlers. And ever the stern disciplinarian, he has left us alone to wear ourselves out and lick our own wounds until we’re ultimately distracted. And what better way than by hosting an international sporting event (that will not be named here)! Yet another distraction for the media, and the country.

When Darcy and I started blogging about climate change we wanted to contribute to part of a bigger picture. We knew we weren’t necessarily saying anything that hadn’t been proposed before, but it was important to be one of many voices. I don’t mind telling you right now, it’s become a tad lonesome. Where’s the camaraderie? Are we merely a country of fair-weather environmentalists?

I know we all have [International Sporting Event] fever, and who doesn’t want an extended holiday after Christmas? But climate change policy is slipping off the national radar, and we are playing right into the federal government’s hand. It is all too helpful to Mr. Harper that we have shied away from the topic in recent weeks; we have an obligation to ourselves to follow through. Could the country, indeed the whole world, really have been this swept up in climate change only to let the issue fall off the agenda now? I don’t think so. Maybe like Wiarton Willie we just need a few more weeks of hibernating before we’re ready to come out of our holes and get back at it.

You may have won the battle, Mr. Harper, but if this keeps up, we are all likely to lose the war.

We’ve marched, oh how we have marched.

The “get back to work” signs now find their place in the closet where dust has begun to flirt with the climate-themed “350” signs of October and December. The proroguing of Parliament has left the country with no ability to act on any sort of climate legislation (though that’s not so different than when it’s in session). We also now have the launch of a popular movement for democracy, based partly on a collective desire to deal with a whole raft of issues, the climate crisis being one.

A failure of international politics in Copenhagen and of democracy domestically has left a situation that is indeed bleak, though also provides time for activists, and all active citizens, to regroup. Journalist Murray Dobbin wrote last week: “These politically opportune moments do not arrive very often and it is incumbent upon existing organizations to rise to the occasion, support the nascent movement and begin gearing up their own machinery to take the fight to Stephen Harper and his government.”

We now have an election coming up—if not April, then at some point soon. But are we really that serious about firing Steve, as many rally signs had proclaimed?

Dobbin continues to ask if this democracy movement is about reform in itself or will it include the specific goal of ridding Canada of its current Prime Minister?

The big elephant in the movement is the political siloing of the non-Conservative activists. Diversity of voice often brings strength, but a split of support because of the partisanship of most of us in the movement continues to pose a problem within Canada’s electoral system.

The Conservatives’ drop in the polls due to shutting down Parliament and the prisoner abuse scandal has been sharp and pronounced. While without much in the way of advertised policy, the Liberals have managed an upswing in support, with the NDP, Greens and Bloc all down slightly in the New Year. The now two-party race for government is something to keep more than an eye on.

While progressives are split within many parties, the weakness in civil society institutions and movement organizations is also harming the cause. The environmental movement itself within Canada seems to have more and more organizations working on similar climate ends, and there even exists more than one coalition/umbrella type group that focuses on federal climate lobbying: Power Up Canada, Climate Action Network, Power Shift, and so on.

Perhaps this can be used to advantage. Three main strategies present themselves to guide us to the ultimate aim of reducing climate change emissions immediately and in the long-run.

• Some organizations may wish to stick it out, putting continued pressure and policy work on the international negotiating system leading to Copenhagen 2: Mexico City.
• Others must work on focused action that directs the removal of high-carbon sources to our atmosphere like coal plants, tar sands projects and industrial projects, which could reduce emissions quickly and may influence positive actions in other countries.
• The remaining organizations can concentrate on lobbying and coalition-building that focuses MPs and political parties to bring the climate agenda far forward in preparation for legislative debate and the next election.

Organizations working on these three objectives should be ready to support each others’ goals, each with a focus that could bring results – a multi-pronged strategy that may well bring success in at least one area.

We have a unique opportunity.It is largely up to the size and tact of citizens movements whether we let the government keep pushing the climate around or we push the agenda over the top.

Follow Stop Everything’s climate, political and action updates at: http://twitter.com/stop_everything

Contrary to what the Harper government would have Canadians believe about the “chattering classes,” people are expressing their outrage over Harper’s unilateralism at family dinners, in the workplace, in social media and in print. Professional and aspiring writers across the country have been invited to submit poems for the anthology which will be published by Mansfield Press just in time for the reconvening of Parliament on March 3.

A book launch and protest will be held at or near Parliament Hill on March 5, 2010.

The book will be titled Rogue Stimulus: The Stephen Harper Holiday Anthology for a Prorogued Parliament. We’ll keep you posted on purchasing details as we get closer to publishing day.

Tomorrow is the big day all across Canada, as thousands of Canadians will be gathering to protest Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s decision to prorogue parliament until March 3. There are going to be many ways to participate in this peaceful, non-partisan event, both on the street and online.

This Magazine intern Luke Champion made this helpful Google map, above, which pinpoints the location of all the rallies we could find across the country (and in fact there are several happening outside Canada, too). Click any pin on the map to see the basic details of that event. Details for these are also available through this Facebook event page, and the Facebook group that started this whole ball rolling is here.

We intend to have boots on the ground at several of the rallies to photograph the events and talk to some participants, but we’re a teensy operation. That’s why we’d like your help. Because we just lurve screwing around with new web toys, and ripping off inspired by the pioneering work of our micro-media brethren (ahem), we’ve set up a sweet new Posterous account to aggregate photos, videos, and assorted other media flotsam generated during Saturday’s proceedings. It’s online here: post.this.org

You can easily contribute a photo or a YouTube video or a news link — just email it to:

post@this.org

…and we’ll do the rest (i.e., weeding out the libel and/or porn).

There are 200,000 members of the Facebook group, and buzz for Saturday is promising. But big media outlets have shied away from the anti-prorogue sentiment that has blossomed in the last few weeks, covering it from a distance, running their critical editorials, but always minimizing and hedging the power of digital media — not to mention good old-fashioned pavement-pounding street activism — to drive real change. We hope by collecting, aggregating, and distributing information in this low-friction way, we can prove them wrong. Hope you’ll help us out.

Motivational image by Flickr user "dmixo6", licensed under Creative Commons.

[Editor’s note: an experimental guest post today from online-culture columnist and Tumblr-er Rea McNamara, in Skype-chat-conversation with Jesse Hirsh. The large screengrabs of that chat below may not display 100% correctly for everyone, please let us know if you have insurmountable trouble.]

TGIF, if only to sit back and click through the old media misunderstanding of the on/offline anti-prorogue sentiments.

Yes, the “zeitgeist of self-flaggelation” involved in the Canadian Against Proroguing Parliament FB Group has been blogged about already: Group member numbers that now exceeds the population of Sault St. Marie, the social networking grassrooted acumen of a non-johnnyblog who’s just your average non-political activist who then has to deal with scoffing attention-diverting comparisons to “the membership of a dancing lobster fan club”. (Nevermind those Economist laments!)

And it’s understandable, especially given the greater dismissal of democratic action via the social networks (like the ‘slacktivism’ dismissal of last year’s “Twitter Revolution” story). But when you have a US Senator arguing for social networking to be a key component in foreign policy making, it’s worth re-assessing the framework to which we examine social networks.

Why do we focus on the how-many-people-joined-this-Facebook-group argument, when we should really be considering how the online interwebbed real-time streams of RT’s/bit.ly aggregation/’motivational’ Flickr photomanips is re-addressing our age-old how-many-ppl-went-to-this-rally protests? After all, those protests were staged for old media lenses and sound bytes. But when you got Conservative blog trolls hounding MSM op-eds, how does one register effective on/offline political dissent?

This is something that Jesse Hirsh — a former anarcho-syndacalist who founded both A-Infos and the Toronto-based tech activist project OAT — skimmed the surface in his much RT’d (over sixty times!) blog posting “Canadian Democracy in Crisis: A Challenge for the Creative Class”. Now an internet strategist/researcher/broadcaster, the tech expert argues that the Richard Florida-tagged crew needs to collaborate/connect/etc. on a diversity of tactics to prevent old media’s “compartmentalization” of the prorogue story.

So what better way to talk further with a ‘tech expert’ on his popular blog posting? Via Skype, of course. (Cue a Cole’s Notes version of an hour’s worth of screen grabs, after the jump.)

Peter Mansbridge interviewing Stephen Harper on CBC's the National, January 5, 2010. Screenshot from CBC broadcast.

It’s been a week now since the Prime Minister’s December 30 announcement that the house of commons would be prorogued until March 3, 2010. Peter Mansbridge’s toothless interview with the Prime Minister last night (first question: the underwear bomber? Seriously?) was disappointing. Mansbridge didn’t challenge the PM on anything of substance, and used that favourite tactic of TV talking heads everywhere, lots of “some would say…” and “you can’t read a newspaper editorial without hearing…” — the kind of non-interview interview where every question is attributed to someone (anyone!) other than the actual person sitting there asking the questions. It’s a shame, because we really needed a champion here, in the only opportunity to directly ask the PM these tough, crucial questions before a national audience.

The response to prorogue over the last week has run, as Dorothy Parker said, the emotional gamut from A to B: what I’ve seen, from grand media poobahs and my circle of friends alike, is various flavours of indignation, outrage, disappointment, fury, wrath, ennui, disapproval, disgruntlement, vexation, exasperation, umbrage, chagrin, and despondency. At least, that’s among the people who actually care, which is only about half the country, according to one disheartening poll.

Heather Mallick’s New Year’s Day article in the Guardian seems to express the sentiment in its most distilled form:

Instantly, we are a part-time democracy, a shabby diminished place packed with angry voiceless citizens whose votes have been rendered meaningless. […] Rage and shame are flowing on the internet because there is nowhere else for voters to turn. Even The Globe and Mail, Canada’s national and excessively staid newspaper, had a front-page editorial steaming with reproach. The Globe often leaves me frustrated, but I was moved when I read it and … did what exactly? I took a stand. I joined a Facebook group called Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament, an earnestly pathetic act that may be part of the reason our nation is so lessened on the first day of 2010.

The reason that sentiment rings so true for me is that a widespread response to the prorogue seems to have been “We have to do something” with a streak of “but nothing I can do will be enough.” There are thousands of people who joined that Facebook group who also simultaneously doubt the ability of that group to truly accomplish anything.

Jesse Hirsh published a blog post yesterday that also captures this zeitgeist of self-flagellation (though he’s ultimately more hopeful than Mallick’s take):

It’s hard not to snicker at the fact that joining a Facebook group to show opposition to something has become the ultimate cliché. While such a group does raise awareness and cross over into mainstream media with front page headlines, I am not alone in wondering whether it actually accomplishes anything.

Even worse, why is the alternative to this kind of virtual action doing absolutely nothing? It’s as if it has already become such strong orthodoxy that if you don’t join, or even worse complain, you’re regarded as a nay-sayer and are also responsible for providing alternatives.

We want to do something, but there’s no consensus on what to do, so anything we do in the meantime—calling our MPs, joining a Facebook group, emailing the Governor General—gets devalued because it’s not the One Big Thing that’s going to fix everything. I recognize the feeling because I feel it myself, even as I know it to be self-defeating.