Today (Sept 10) was a profound day. But the true import of the day has not sunk in yet. It’s like living in a dream.
Today was a breakthrough day. It was a day of days.
We are living amid a tectonic shift. A time when profound, deep changes are occurring – and how deep this shift is, how profound has not yet been appreciated. Much of what is roiling is happening below the surface.
I woke up this morning to read the Right Honourable Joe Clark’s op ed piece in The Globe and Mail. It was profound. I’ve been getting up at 6 am to read the papers, email, blog before the day gets started. It’s a good time to quietly reflect upon the most important things to achieve in the day.
When I was a Progressive Conservative (23 years ago) I was a Joe Clark Progressive Conservative. I admire him. He is a decent man. And his op ed piece today re-enforced that. Canadian politics has become acidic. Corrosive. Mean.
Mr. Clark is concerned that politics as it is practiced by some in Canada is turning young people and voters off. Clark asked: “What might Canada do to break out of our mean political cycle, between now and October 14?” His answer – include Elizabeth May in the debates.
Clark wrote:
“Jason MacDonald, a spokesman for the network consortium, is quoted as saying that three parties – those led by Stephen Harper, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe – all opposed the participation of Ms. May in the so-called leaders debate, “and it became clear that if the Green Party were included, there would be no leaders debates.”
“That’s blackmail. If these three men want to boycott a genuine debate, let them have the courage to do so openly. Let them also explain why, in a year when U.S. party establishments could not shut out an Obama or a McCain, it is appropriate for the Canadian party establishments to muzzle a significant voice for change.”
Clark’s words were powerful – cutting to the core of the issue. Blackmail.
He summed the whole situation up in a single word. He captured in two syllables what was so upsetting to Canadians.
Clark was arguing for the Green Party’s inclusion in the debates because he’s arguing for democracy. Because he’s arguing for decency. He was arguing that a “significantly voice of change” couldn’t be muzzled.
And so today began with reading Mr. Clark’s op ed. That was profound.
To read the full text of the Rt Hon. Joe Clark’s opinion piece go to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080910.COCLARK10/TPSt...
So by six am this morning the first clue that today was going to be a profound day – a day of days – had become apparent. The first crack in the wall appeared. . .
The next piece that really jumped out was Toronto Star columnist Chantal Hebert’s piece “Networks have lost their journalistic backbone.” see http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/496450
In it Hebert (who I always enjoy reading) notes that the Internet has changed the rules of protest, has changed the rules of the game -- and it certainly has. On the Monday night that the consortium announced its' decision I sent out more than 1,000 emails urging friends to in turn to send out emails to all their friends. To talk to their neighbours. To blog. To write letters to the editor. To call in to radio talk shows. Personally I was mad as hell and wasn't going to take it any more -- to quote Howard Beale in Network.
The next piece that caught my eye described the backlash that Jack Layton was experiencing as he was dogged by questions campaigning on his reasons for opposing the Green Party’s inclusion in the debates. And the backlash wasn’t coming from outside his party – it was coming from within. The article reported that:
On Layton's Facebook site, Nik Spohr identified himself as "the youth officer for the Halton NDP." He wrote: “Please Mr. Layton, reconsider this move and allow May into the debates. Is this the face of the `New' Democrats? Let us put the ‘D’ back into NDP."
See http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/496459 for full story.
In BC a former student of Michael Byers's Political Science 380 class at the University of B.C. wrote in The Vancouver Sun, about a moving class in which chocking back tears he implored students to take action to protect the environment.
"What a difference two years (and a political agenda) make. The CBC recently reported that Byers came out in favour of the decision to exclude Elizabeth May from the leaders' debate. Calling the Greens a "single-issue" party, he argued that she has no right to be there on the grounds that, unlike the other parties' leaders, she isn't running for prime minister.
Not only is this argument unfair to the Green party's platform, it's flawed, in that it assumes Gilles Duceppe, who is running on an explicitly secessionist platform, has any interest in forming a national government.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/letters/story.html?id=ace4e9ac-3...
But then came Judy' Rebick's piece "Barbarians and the gate" in the Globe and Mail:
By denying Elizabeth May a place at the leaders' debate, the NDP is betraying the democratic principles upon which it is based. As the only woman leader and the most qualified leader to speak on the environment, it is in the interest of democracy that Elizabeth May participate in the leaders' debate.
I would be laughing if I wasn't so angry at the argument that she is really a Liberal. As a long-term NDP member, albeit often a critic, this is the first time I have felt ashamed to be associated with the party. I hope the membership of the NDP will rise up against this decision and demand that Jack Layton change his position.
For full piece see http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080910.COLETTS10-6/TP...
I worked with Judy on the Vote for MMP electoral reform referendum campaign in Ontario in 2007 and have a deep respect for her.
Later today the Globe and Mail reported that "Dogged by protesters and divisions within the ranks of his own party, Mr. Layton told reporters . . . that the debate about the debate has become an unwanted distraction."
When I read this I thought, when is democracy a 'distraction?' When is principle a 'distraction?' When is doing the right thing a 'distraction?' When is freedome of speech a 'distraction?' When is social justice a 'distraction?'
Freedom of speech isn't a distraction -- it's at the core of our whole belief in our society. It's fundamental.
Later in the afternoon Tony Burman, the former CBC News Chief and Chair of the Network Consortium called the process "a sham" and called for an independent body to govern the debates. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080910.wburman0910/...
Now this was something -- the former head of the Consortium up until last year (2007) calling the whole process a sham.
We were preparing to file a complaint with the CRTC – because the networks had abdicated their responsibility to protect the interests of Canadians. More on this later. It’s now too late to continue writing. . .
But in summary, Today was a day of days
It is a day I will always remember. Because Democracy won! Canadians won! Free speech won!
And this all happened because thousands of average Canadians said to themselves, this is completely unconscionable. This is completely unacceptable. We’re not living in some tyrannical regime or dictatorship – we live in a free society. And I won't accept this!!
Thousands of Canadians called into talk radio shows, wrote letters to the editor, joined facebook groups protesting this undemocratic exclusion, made phone calls to broadcast consortium members, emailed their friends.
The people spoke. Layton was forced to reverse his position. Harper was forced to reverse his position. The broadcast consortium had to relent. The people forced this. The people won.
This was a powerful day – a day that shows that it is people not parties or leaders who make up and run our democracy. It is people ultimately who govern.
This election is a turning point. For Canada. For our future.
This was not only a day of days -- it is a new day in Canadian political history in the unfolding . . .