G7 Welcoming Committee Records. Uncooperative since 1997.

You appear to be using a shitty web browser. Brent suggests getting a better one.

32 fragments of dialogue thus far ...

(Subscribe to discussion about this post via RSS)

• Comment by tom on December 8th, 2005 at 1:54 pm:

  i should point out first that there are 4 major political parties in canada. you neglected to mention les Bloc Quebecois. maybe i only know that cause i live in q-bec. does the bloc exist anywhere else? im not a supporter, anyways.

  i heard an interview on http://www.ckut.ca with an observer of these hunts. he indicated how dificult it is to even be allowed to observe the seal hunts. he said it was systematic, too.

  seal hunt observers are forced to renew their permits daily, with the slightest discretion in any part of the procedure resulting in refusal. this is a direct result of the policy of Industry Canada, of course protecting Corporations’ inherit right to exploit any resource necesary to achieve economic prosperity. the government will stick up for big buisness before they stick up for us, or even more, the seals?

  to hear about them preventing the green party from the “democratic” process is even less surprising, because as you mentioned there are a lot of issues at stake here, and undoubtedly, the greens might hold a much more progressive, or say, sane approach to our impact on the enviroment.

  and id just like to also say that since when has democracy been about choosing the lesser of four evils? when did it stop being a human process where we are all involved? was it ever this way?

• Comment by Matt on December 8th, 2005 at 4:52 pm:

  The Green Party indeed should be allowed to participate in the debates; it even runs a candidate in every riding, which the Bloc doesn’t do yet they are allowed to participate.

  But beware, the Green Party is not the progressive party they make themselves out to be. There is a good article that shows the conservative tendencies of the Green Party here: http://www.alternati....ca/article1328.html

  That’s not to say that they are wrong about seal-clubbing or that they should be exluded from the national debates, but nevertheless, we must be wary of this party just like any other.

• Comment by rv on December 9th, 2005 at 9:39 pm:

  the greens are just as lame as the rest.
  they are led by mike… i mean jim harris, a former progressive conservative who describes himself as an ecological conservative or “eco-capitalist.”
  in 2004 he hired david scrymgeour, a former national director of the progressive conservative party and aide to right-wing cabinet minister jim flaherty.
  last election, the greens’ platform included tax cuts on corporate income.
  let the greens shut up!

• Comment by Kyle on December 10th, 2005 at 2:44 pm:

  tom: the Bloc Quebecois only exists in Quebec.

  Of course the Green Party should be allowed in on the debates; is there a reason given for why they shouldn’t be?

  I considered voting for the Green Party in the last election, but I also considered writing the name of my website on the ballot and voting for it.

  How did Jim Harris become the leader of the Green Party? I assumed they would be different… Is there anything else we should know?

• Comment by Adam on December 10th, 2005 at 2:53 pm:

  After doing a little reading on the Green party I am convinced that there is absolutely no one worth voting for in the forthcoming elections. What other options are there besides spoiling one’s ballot?

• Comment by D-Rock on December 10th, 2005 at 10:00 pm:

  Just want to clarify: this wasn’t meant as an endorsement of the Greens – just to emphasize that they should be allowed into national debates, as they do represent differing – and more progressive – viewpoints from the other major parties, as exemplified by the seal hunt issue.

• Comment by tomass on December 12th, 2005 at 12:11 pm:

  people will say whatever they wantto get power,i guess. i really dont think it makes any difference voting for any of the current parties in existence. they all bow to economic power, and cater to the rich. its all a matter of degree, and thats bullshit.

  the facade of democracy wont be unmasked by voting for a new “more” progressive party, i think at this point its about overthrowing the master-lords of economy.

  of course, every party should be allowed into the debates. the question is, will anything change?

• Comment by dtrain on December 12th, 2005 at 5:19 pm:

  They should let the greens debate, but yeah, I think it was the Sierra Club that actually rated the NDP’s environmental policy better than the Greens.

• Comment by Barbara Bush on December 12th, 2005 at 10:38 pm:

  Things these days work in steps. A major revolution would be a very difficult thing. The next step, even though a small step, would be filtering out the republicans and democrats from office and filling them with the more progressive, environmental, anti-corporate Green party.

  Unfortunately the current U.S. political system does not allow a third party to be involved in the presidential election. Not by law, but ya know, the whole government/corporate/media influence on the american political institution. The best thing to do right now is vote. Vote for the Green’s so they can get enough votes for their federal funds to run an even better campaign after 4 years. Whether it’s a small step, it’s still a step towards a more progressive future.

  And a little side note: I would have gave my left nut to see Nader standing up their with Bush and Kerry debating on the current economic and environmental issues… Maybe someday…

• Comment by Jordan on December 13th, 2005 at 4:49 pm:

  Um, we’re talking here about the CANADIAN Green Party, just to clarify.

  There’s a pretty big difference between Canadian and American Greens. While the U.S. Green Party may be progressive both environmentally and socially, the Canadian Green Party isn’t. They do have some pretty good ideas in the environmental sphere, but their social policies are all conservative.

  That said, they should definitely be allowed to debate with the other parties, whether their ideas are good or not.

• Comment by IgnoranceISBliss on December 14th, 2005 at 7:23 pm:

  http://www.canadianactionparty.ca

• Comment by interesting on December 14th, 2005 at 7:34 pm:

  who runs the green party

  http://www.davidicke...s/bronfmandeath.html

• Comment by Danarcho on December 15th, 2005 at 4:33 pm:

  Probably the best party right now in Canada: The Undecided Party.

  http://www.undecided...ndecided/index2.html

  I am debating whether to vote or not. I know it’s not exactly anarchist of me (snickers) but I like Chomsky’s view: destuction from the inside. If I do vote, it will either be Green or Marijuana. Or Christian Heritage depending on how wasted I am.

  I read a good article in the Star about the rise of new fringe parties of both the left and right. Apparently, the law is making it easier to form a federal party (get this! you only have to be able to afford an auditor!).

  However, the law is not making it easier for parties to speak. The media does not like to cover fringe parties, and the top 4 are the only ones that seem to get any coverage. Obviously the mainstream media has nothing to gain if the Action Party wins any seats. Democracy my left big toe.

  Yes. Give the Green a voice. And while they are speaking, a bunch of people should go burn down Parliament Hill. That is all.

• Comment by tom on December 15th, 2005 at 7:16 pm:

  north american mainstream media is so homogenous. smaller parties never get mainstream media coverage, or equal footing (money) in terms of their ability to throw a “campaign”. when the smaller or fringe parties do get covered, its by community radio or some other type of not-so-commercial radio. not even mainstream TALK radios, who apparently “talk” about things, focus on views other than the one or two versions of “the way democracy can be” spewed out by the THREE OR FOUR major parties. that was a run-on sentence, ok, but it makes sense: their proposals and methods vary by little degree.

  i am heavy on the chronic but i find the marijuana party here well, focused only on one thing….. im all for legalization, but its such a small part of a gigantic problem, the prison-industrial complex, and, i dont think this issue is even covered! oh wait, yes….harper DOES want to make sure that “criminals”, who are “immigrants”, DO get shipped out of “our country”.

  letting the greens speak is important, but i think at this point what it comes down to is what are the parties actually going to do if they get power? who really has the power? if we vote for a certain party, will they give the power back to the people? stand up for the people?

  does anyone know how politicians get by without commiting suicice everyday?

• Comment by Brecht on December 16th, 2005 at 2:25 pm:

  What can people in Europe do about the seal hunting?

  An unrelated question:
  Some people raised the topic about legalization of marihuana. I totally agree. But there’s something I’m bothered with lately. I love smoking weed, but every time we smoke a joint we’re also supporting the shitty tobacco industry. So it’s kind of the same like, for example, drinking Coca-Cola. What’s your opinion about this?

• Comment by Barbara Bush on December 16th, 2005 at 7:37 pm:

  Well great Jordan, I was talking about the U.S. Green party, since this topic is dealing with “let the greens speak” and it’s a major concern over here in the U.S. also in which case the Greens get absolutely no media converage or debate time dealing with all sorts of important issues.

• Comment by david on December 17th, 2005 at 6:28 pm:

  it’s definitely not easy to start up a party. at a cost of $1000 per candidate, you can’t exactly be poor to do it. i don’t think i’m going to vote because it’s not worth the effort of riding my bike to the polling station. i’d rather watch advertisements on my tv.

• Comment by D-Rock on December 21st, 2005 at 8:39 am:

  As a follow-up to this, here’s a piece very critical of the Canadian Green Party.

• Comment by Marc on December 21st, 2005 at 10:14 am:

  I know this doesn’t belong in this blog, but is there any way to access the Free Radio Santa Cruz interview w/ Chris via archive? I missed it live. Thanks.

• Comment by drew on December 23rd, 2005 at 3:46 pm:

  i was wondering about that too.

• Comment by Jordan on December 24th, 2005 at 6:31 pm:

  Thank, Barbara.

  I’m aware of the issues facing the Greens in the States, but this thread in particular is addressing the specific issue of the Canadian Green Party leader not being allowed to participate in election debates during the federal election we’ve got going on up here. I know, I know, there are a lot of parallels, and the media isn’t helping any, but this is more about Canadian election regulations.

• Comment by Aaron on January 4th, 2006 at 8:24 pm:

  in response to brecht, stop putting tobacco in your pot, man! that’s fucken disgusting!

• Comment by rob on January 6th, 2006 at 2:24 pm:

  ahhh, politics. shitty. greens. better than the rest? probably not…

  seals. cute and cuddly. charismatic megafauna. the posterchild of the angry eco-folks. also the lifeblood of the inuit until some misguided white folks saw it as objectionable. ruined entire communities. mass suicide. substance abuse. not so fun.

  think before you act.

  vote indenpendent.

• Comment by D-Rock on January 6th, 2006 at 3:27 pm:

  Rob – mass suicide and substance abuse in Inuit communites is the result of objections to the mass murdering of seals? Um, sorry, wrong answer. Try an entire people colonized and decimated, culture and language criminalized and obliterated. I’d venture a guess that this might carry a little more responsibility than animal rights activists opposing the wholesale slaughter of seals.

  We don’t oppose the seal hunt because they’re cute and cuddly. We oppose it because we oppose the killing of all animals.

  And the idea that any activity that sustains dispossessed communities is ‘justified’ simply because it sustains them is absurd. As much so with the killing of animals so parts of their bodies can be sold to white people, as with clearcutting forests, or any other activity that damages the planet and animals (human or non-human).

• Comment by rob on January 7th, 2006 at 10:06 pm:

  hi, me again.

  D-rock – listen, all i’m saying is that these enviro people, including yourself, are stuck in their post-martialistic worldview and are so myopic that they fail to realise that this is how things have been done for centuries, many centuries before the euorpeans came and devastated us. The opposition to and subsequent embargo on seal skins is what drove many people to do such self-destructive things. And don’t tell me what I know about decimated cultures. I live it everyday with little sympathy from white people, even those who think they “care” about what happens to us… I don’t see you doing anything beyond typing a few rightious words in a blog.

  The world is a gift from the creator, and i respect it very much. But where we don’t see eye-to-eye is that if it weren’t for the spoils allowed to us in the form of fresh meat, skins, wood, etc. we wouldn’t be here. We depend on the earth to survive, every organism does, or have you forgot that? The problem is, and I’d hope you’d agree about this, is the ass-backward economic system that your ancestors brought with them. We’re simply trying to make our way in this shit storm you brought with you. It has happened (the “slaughter” of animals wha wha wha) for millenia ’sustainably’, then here came the europeans… now you’re trying hide it. Go figure. It baffles me.

• Comment by Alfred Qaida on January 8th, 2006 at 7:17 am:

  Rob.
  “Many centuries ago”, they had a good reason for killing animals.
  Today, in the western world, it’s the market that needs to be fed, rather than meat hungry people. How many tons meat and fish gets dumped every year?
  I agree that we wouldn’t have a civilization here, if it wasn’t for animals. But there’s just nothing “natural” or forgiving about today’s meat industry.

• Comment by D-Rock on January 9th, 2006 at 12:11 pm:

  Rob … there are actually no aboriginal people involved in the commerical seal hunt. Subsistence hunting of seals by aboriginal people is done in the arctic, not on the east coast. It’s essentially white people on the ice.

  As for “the way things have been done for centuries”, I highly doubt that hundreds of thousands of baby harp seals were killed annually – for fur and to be ground up for animal feed – by your ancestors, and if they were to see what’s hapening now with the commerical seal hunt, they would be appalled.

• Comment by Kyle on January 9th, 2006 at 6:45 pm:

  …and let’s not forget about historical context. Clubbing seals might have made sense at some point in time — and maybe it still does make sense for some communities –, but from my understanding, these seals aren’t being killed in order for a large group of people to survive (if that were the case, I’d have to reluctantly support it).

  Most people who have come to North America since it was ‘discovered’ and those of you who were already here have been fucked around (Hell, one side of my family might have sent the other side down to Louisianna). We can either blame each other for this bullshit and not get anything done, or put our complaints together and burn some shit down (figuratively speaking, of course).

  Don’t vote… or vote for me. I’ll solve all your problems. Tax cuts, tax increases, gun banning, gun giving… You name it, I’ll say I’ll do it.

• Comment by rob on January 10th, 2006 at 5:52 pm:

  There’s no doubt to how wrong the current order of things is unfolding. I don’t agree with how animals are treated in industrial farming, or how wasteful the “meat industry” can be. But the implication that banning any seal hunt, be it east coast, arctic, greenland, wherever, leads people to believe that even subsistence hunting is wrong. It’s unfair and even misguided to think otherwise. That’s all I was saying…

  And some of these ‘evil’ seal hunters, though they’re white, are also just trying to get by. it’s just too bad that the system they have adopted for resource use is perverse and embraces the need for wealth accumulation. just look at the bison “use” by the early white settlers on the plains. if only the ‘indians’ were a little more human, they may have taken us a little more seriously (note the sarcasm, please)

  kyle – just what i was thinking, even if it appears that I have been a little belligerent with my words. and if you can promise me complete and utter economic restructuring (in the positive, environment-embracing way – not the imperialistic genocidal way) you have my vote.

• Comment by falcore on January 19th, 2006 at 9:30 pm:

  there is something about this story that i dont understand why are observers not allowed or required to carry a permit to watch the hunts. i would think it would be the other way around. that monitors would be required to be there like a game warden or a federal ranger to ensure the hunters aren’t taking more than they should. Also does any body know if thease hunts are diminishing the seal population, like clearcutting forest for paper and particle board?
  oh ya speeking about old sustainable living Hemp would solve a lotta issues if it could be grown across the world. It is considered one of the oldest know crops domesticated by humans i think a piece of hemp cloth was dated back to 5000 or 8000 b.c. but thats more of a u.s.a. issue thease days

• Comment by Hetzuz Christo on May 16th, 2006 at 9:09 pm:

  Hello my friends.

  I can not believe you do not vote. Not only is this gross disrespect of those who have, however naively and pointlessly, died for the freedoms we enjoy today. Furthermore, you realize the true meaning of the word idiot. The eytymology of the word lies in ancient Greek, where an idiot was someone who chose not to participate in the political process. Thus, by not voting, you are an idiot. That makes you by definition and proxy, idiots. Nice work, idiots. It is because of idiots that a douchebag like Bush is president. I hope you are happy with yourselves. Idiots.

• Comment by D-Rock on May 17th, 2006 at 10:16 am:

  Hello friend,

  I cannot believe you are commenting on a post from December! Especially with such compelling arguments!

Dialogue has ended on this post.

Archives | RSS