Check out this posting on ROAR, the Russian Analytics and Opinion Review by Sergey Borisov. It offered insightful comments about the value of the G8 and G20.

 

From a Russian perspective, volunteering to host both summits was an attempt by PM Harper to "increase Ottawa’s political weight in the world affairs."

 

Apparently Russia might consider the G8 more valuable because it is the only voice for non Western states. The obvious weakness of the group is the narrow perspective of the members of such an exclusive club. The archaic model of politics or philanthropy as a subject and object exercise should be retired.

 

The G8 leaders can legitimately examine their own problems, so discussion of banking and economic stimulus is valid. Using the G8 forum to fund solutions to maternal and child health in other countries is not appropriate. First, sending money with political strings is not respectful of the autonomy of foreign nations. Second, complex issues like health and poverty cannot be solved without the full and equal participation of the recipient nations.

 

There is a place for the G8 leaders to appropriately discuss their own nation's role in promoting or reducing terrorism and nuclear proliferation at home.

 

The ROAR article challenges the ability of these "elite clubs" to hold each other to account. It even goes so far as to question the legitimacy of the decisions of the self selected groups and the lack of mechanisms for accountability.

 

In conclusion, the article states that so long as formal multilateral group like the UN, CIS, NATO and OECD are ineffective, the "multi-polar" groups like the G8 and G20 are indispensible.

 

Supposing for a minute that leaders and nations do not like to be held to account; it is possible that lack of accountability is a selling feature of the G8 and G20. Could it be that this is the very reason that G8 and G20 attract public criticism and protests? In Toronto, the court of public opinion appears to be imposing an accountability on  the G8 for past promises and exerting pressure on the nature of new commitments.

 

Many Canadians are aware that Stephen Harper has not been very respectful of the United Nations. Circumventing the United Nations initiatives is a strategy that excludes the breadth and diversity of global politics. To be kind, Harper may just prefer to be a big fish in a small pond. To be honest, the use of exclusive, unaccountable methods is expedient and compatible with Stephen Harper's style of decision making and limited democracy.

 

When the G8 and G20 leaders turn their attention to improving the effectiveness of the United Nations and holding each other to account to promises made in all multi-polar venues, the court of public opinion will see the value of the G8 and G20.

The first violation is by the government allowing private corporations to have the blood, information and possibly make money off the collective data.

Clearly permission must be granted by the individuals. Since the "donours" are under the age of consent, this area of rights should be clarified. Most likely , trust funds should be established for the benefit of the underage "donours".

Immediately the public health system should negotiate all of the above with an open bidding process including how much profit will belong to the public or in rare cases to the individuals.

To my way of thinking, this info should remain in the domain of the public and access should be limited and only sold with limitations as appropriate.

Storing B.C. babies' blood violates privacy: group  CBC.ca Wednesday, May 12, 2010.

"The B.C. Civil Liberties Association says as many as 800,000 babies in the province have been the victims of privacy violations that began the day they were born.  A functional DNA database has been created of all the infants born," Eby told CBC News on Wednesday morning.........."

 

Democracy is about freely expressing views-the values underlying democracy include equality, mutual respect and peaceful resolution of differences. Threatening those who express their values openly with more harsh consequences is poisoning the roots of our democracy. Shame on the Senator, the Calgary Herald's editorial board and Stephen Harper for attempting to defend or justify the use of intimidation in a democratic debate.

The Toronto Star first reports Senator Nancy Ruth's comment to women's groups "Shut the F**k Up"

The Globe and Mail article by Campbell Clark with reaction from more women's groups

The Calgary Herald declares "Well said, Senator"

Only cheerleaders need apply. The Conservatives do not want more information, opinions or questions. The time for learning has passed. IMO not a good role model for business, artists, journalists, beaurocrats or students.

 

Conservatives Vent Spleen at CBC-Globe & Mail April 30,2010

Women's health should be a medical issue, not a political issue.

Harper has no right to impose his narrow flawed vision of women's health on anyone.

Canadian women and broad minded men should support the full spectrum of reproductive health options and give the freedom to other countries and empower their women to make their own decisions.

G8 Meetings open in Halifax

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY  2008

Speech written and delivered by Playwright Sharon Pollock

In Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Sunday March 8, 2008

At the International Women’s Day Brunch

A non-partisan event celebrating women as leaders

Sponsored by the Calgary Liberal Women’s Policy Network and the Alberta Liberal Women’s Commission

100 years ago, 1908, 15,000 women marched in New York City demanding shorter hours, better pay, and voting rights.

 

 In 1910 over 100 women from 17 countries came together in support of a proposal to set aside a day, the date undetermined, to celebrate women’s achievements and to promote universal suffrage.

 

On March 08, 1917 Russian women began a strike for “Bread and Peace” in reaction to the death of 2 million Russian soldiers in WW I. The result?  The abdication of the Czar, and the granting of the right to vote for women, plus the setting of March 08^th as International Women’s Day.

 

And so we celebrate the advancement of women’s rights in social, political and economic arenas on March 8^th every year. More important perhaps, in honouring progress we instill hope and inspire action locally and globally.

 

I think of these as the facts, the public information, you can boot up your computer and learn as much or as little of International Women’s day as you choose. But there’re many internal and personal journeys and I’m going to speak briefly of mine in the work that I do.

 

I write plays.  In my early work I wrote no roles for women. I was told I wrote like a man. What’s so strange about that? For centuries, and in too many places today, the lives of women have literally depended on their ability to read men’s minds and interpret their motivations and actions. I could get inside the minds of my male characters better than I could access my own mind and that apparent ability to read the minds of men made for credible characters.

 

 I’m told I write plays about ethical choices as opposed to expedient choices. If I look at the work I think that’s true. But I believe a playwright should never make a moral judgment of a character. You create the character as honestly as you can, making the best case for their actions, and allow the audience to make that moral judgment. And that too created a problem in creating female characters.

 

I couldn’t write principal roles for women because I did judge women’s actions, often harshly, just as I constantly judged my own actions.

 

And to make it all more difficult, I’m interested in dramatic action on stage and I did not see women as “action figures”.  I saw them more as foils for the action of men. Occasionally female characters did creep in the plays out of sheer necessity, but in small supporting roles. 

 

Over time I grew to know myself better and a woman’s story did force its way onto the page and stage. Even then I had to set it in the late 19^th century to get some distance from it, and to tell myself that I would never offer the play for production as it was just an exercise. The play was “Blood Relations” my take on Lizzie Borden and on myself in a way. It’s thought Lizzie murdered her step mother and father in 1892 mistakenly believing financial freedom would lead to personal freedom. At one time I contemplated murdering a husband under the same illusion. Fortunately I didn’t act on it.

 

Two more plays followed with women in lead roles.  But then I looked at them and thought, mmn, that’s strange.  I’m not interested in writing “role models” for women but in these plays one female lead chooses murder, one suicide, and one goes crazy rather than submit to the roles assigned to them by their time and place.  Surely there’re other choices a woman might make.  Maybe I could write about them.

 

 I wanted women characters to triumph.  But how could I do that without cooking the books?  Women, in order to fully realize themselves, struggle against powerful forces. How can I write a play about a woman who wins without trivializing the nature and strength of the opposition? 

 

Truth be told, I don’t know how.  I don’t want to lessen the dimensions of the struggle.  But what I’ve discovered over time and experience is that small victories count, and that there is nobility in the struggle no matter what is achieved.

 

I’ve theatrically celebrated women warriors in plays springing from the life of Zelda Fitzgerald and of silent film actor, screenwriter and producer Nell Shipman. But another woman warrior engages me now. A paragraph in some article caught my eye a while ago. It referred to a woman described as

 

“one of the most significant women of the 20^th century, a flamboyant journalist, feminist and political activist who made historic contributions to letters and politics on three continents.”

 

The final phrase “But nowadays she is largely forgotten.”

 

How can that be? I searched her out. Her life is a trajectory from poverty and the coal country of Colorado; to Berkeley and Greenwich Village; to Berlin, Moscow, and China. Fueled by a fury at injustice, she threw herself headlong into the crucial issues of the time.

 

Among a host of other things, she was jailed for distributing birth control information in New York; she set up the first birth control clinic in Berlin; her 1929 autobiographical novel Daughter of the Earth is described as the first feminist proletarian novel, while her Battle Hymn of China, published in 1943, is considered one of the best works of war reporting of the Second World War.

She worked as a journalist for the British, German and Chinese newspapers, she marched with the Red Army, covered the Japanese invasion in WW II, was put on the FBI’s watch list for her opposition to segregation;  helped form a civil rights group committed to defending Hollywood artists accused of communist sympathies. In poor health she died in 1952. The House of Un-American Activities Committee held a posthumous hearing on her, and her books were burned by U.S. Information Agency libraries around the world.

 

She was called an evil villainess and an immoral hussy, accused of racing horses, cross dressing and offering lessons on birth control, western dance and romantic love. Her refusal to marry and bear children was stated as un-American and evidence of her political beliefs.

 

Termed the “Calamity Jane of the Chinese Revolution” it’s said she once danced on a table singing the “Internationale” wearing nothing but a red hat. She shines as the prototype of the 20th-century feminist who is driven not only to claim her own personal, sexual, and political freedom, but to play it out on the international stage.

Her name is Agnes Smedley.  How to encompass her life on stage? All I have is a title “Woman at Large”.

 

I don’t know how many of you knew of Agnes Smedley before today, but now a few more are aware of her and that’s good thing.  It’s an inspiring thing.  She inspires me and I hope she inspires you.

 

At the same time let us celebrate all of those women whose names are known and unknown, and who in big and small ways work for opportunity, education and equality for all women.

 

Thank you.

It appears that Stephen Harper would like to run against the coalition in the next election.  There is no plan for a coalition. For a full history see the blog  A Coalition of Nonsense by Alheli Picazo http://apicazo.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/a-coalition-of-nonsense/

 

The use of "coalition" at election time is a ploy perfected by Ralph Klein in Alberta. Run your election against something or someone NOT on the ballot. Klein ran against Chretien and the federal Liberals. If people disagree they can't vote for Chretien since he isn't running.

 

When the media buys into the ploy they continue with the false alternative, short changing the real opposition's opportunity for exposure and in-depth consideration.

 

In Harper's case, he knows that Canadians were polarized on the coalition in 2008. Throwing the opposition parties into the 'coalition' bag together, Harper anticipates they will peck each other's eyes out. When parties and leaders show lack of trust for each other, Harper's minority of supporters just need to show up. In Harper's best case scenario, the supporters of the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc are disgusted by their own leaders and don't vote, opening the possibility for a majority victory. In any event if they don't agree with Harper, they are given no image, direction or leader that Harper has empowered by acknowledgment.

 

Many of the Republican communication strategies are versions of this one. Don't acknowledge the issue, don't mention it, show no sign of respect or recognition. Create a new reality, flesh it out, breathe life into it, never let it die, continue after proven false, illegal, impossible or highly improbable.

 

If this were just a marketing game between widget co. and gadgets corp., it would be interesting.  It isn't, Harper's games do not respect democratic institutions, rule of law or the importance of reputation to Canada's health, success and economy. While putting your head in the sand can make life simpler, in the meantime Harper, has not been open to new information, relationships and solutions. Harper does not model the skills needed to be globally competitive. Harper's communication strategy about a 'coalition' is only an opening to a rabbit hole that leads to a nonsensical world of political illusions and deceptions.

This telus software has not been working. I will try one more time but otherwise I will link to a blog hosted by a different site. Sorry for being out of contact here. You can reach me on twitter @jcpollock or facebook, my profile is http://www.facebook.com/#/jenniferpollockcalgary?ref=profile. My direct email is still jennifer@jenniferpollock.ca.

Tuesday, July 22, 2009

The Aboriginal Commission hosted a meet and greet in the evening. Our nomination contest was put in perspective by the three MPs attending. One MP was elected five times but had never faced a contested nomination. Todd Russell, MP for Labrador, with only 20,000 electors in his riding, had 5,000 votes cast at his first nomination. What an exercise in democracy. Tonight we will have our first campaign meeting, if you want to join the team call Richard at 403-701-7313.

Monday, July 20, 2009

My campaign for the nomination was successful. Approximately 120 people attended. There were 88 votes cast and in accordance with the rules only the winner is announced. Speeches started at 6:40. The room was full, virtually all chairs were taken and people were standing at the back and in both the entryways.

Both Ernie and I used the entire 15 minutes we had been allotted. Neither of us spoke alone. Josh Fraser, former Co-chair of the Federal Liberal Aboriginal Commission led off for me, followed by Bryndis Whitson, VP of the National Women's Commission, and Dr. Bill Dickson, the former Deputy Chief and Acting Chief Superintendent for the Calgary Board of Education. Each spoke in their own voice. I am grateful for their kind words but also for their courage. The meeting was enriched by the voices of members, a good start to a new campaign that must involve more listening than speaking.

While Ernie's speech, by necessity, involved his introduction to the members, I focused on what the Liberal party and our campaign must do to earn the respect and votes of our friends and neighbours in Calgary West. We must be more democratic. The nomination meeting was a good start.

The Liberal party needs to build relationships with people, not for an election, but for a lifetime. Whether they agree or disagree, each citizen is an individual and should be treated as such by political parties. Like a friend, we should know issues and interests that are important to our constituents. Of course, the next step would be to act on those issues and implement those ideas of constituents. I will try to understand the individuals in Calgary West first, and if given the chance to represent them, demonstrate that I will deliver on the issues.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Every day this week the nomination team has offered their thoughtful advice. Thanks for your support and generosity everyone.


Monday, July 13, 2009

At noon today the membership was determined for the nomination meeting in seven days. It looks like the membership grew by about 50% over last year.

Thursday, July 8,2009

It's official. Tonight we received notice that the Nomination Meeting for Calgary West has been called for MONDAY, JULY 20, 2009 - 6:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. - Varsity Community Centre - Membership must be purchased before Monday July 13th, 2009 at noon to be eligible to vote.

Tough choice

Keep Harper and allow our Canadian values, reputation, economy and environment to deteriorate  OR

Go to an election and hope for the electorate to make a different choice.

 

Harper will be spending money irresponsibly all summer, without a plan or strategy outside public debate or the accountability of the House of Commons. Harper will continue to sell off Canadian assets and open the doors to foreign takeovers. Attack ads will continue with pre-election spending without limit.

 

I support Ignatieff and I don't want an election BUT maybe Canadians need to take back their country. If there is no election I hope there is some way to reverse Harper's summer of desperate promises and deceptive lies.