I think we need to clarify the end-goal on this. I am confused on this, like I suspect many others on what is it we are trying to prevent. It looks to me like a battle of images more than one of substance.

   

I don't understand what you mean by number 1.<br /> <br /> For number two I would suggest serious reservations before accepting too positive a spin on this. There's no doubt that there was considerable pressure to not publicly support BMD's. However, like the same sex marriage issue, there are pretty concrete reasons for thinking this a smokescreen.<br /> 1. Essentially what the US wanted was for Canada to beef up its military. Which it is doing, however, it's forced to spend in other areas as well or candians would flip. While Canada doesn't always 'toe the line', especially publicly, we usually come in handy at some point in most excursions.<br /> 2. Under Nafta and with government subsidies the US already benefits from our energy, and it takes a lot of energy to run an occupation, as well as increased exports and research in weapons. <br /> 3. Under Norad and Nato there are few areas of the country that are out of bounds for their military when and if necessary. <br /> 4. While canadian public support is always welcome, the idea that canada is some kind of internationally known peacekeeper and 'objective impartial soft power' is severely overhyped. Canadian support would be welcome, but is not necessary.<br /> <br /> THere's no doubt that any public 'no' is welcome. Unfortunately in many cases this also works as a diversion. Saying 'yes' to BMD would mean canadians would mobilize and get more informed about militarization in general, however, as we saw in Iraq, we were seriously involved, however, Chretien standing up and saying 'no' meant that the media considered it a done deal and canadians went back to feeling smug and badmouthing americans.<br /> <br /> As far as your point about the ease of public input I think that that's overstated, however, I do agree with most canadians that a minority government is the best form of government to have. In this whenever I talk to anybody I make sure to tell them that if another election is called then make sure you vote for the same person as last time.<br /> <br /> Finally, I don't know if this is the forum for the grassroots action you imply simply because there aren't the numbers here and there isn't the organization or even the agreement on the issues. For the specific battles you mention there are already large organizations working on such issues and your time and money would best be used there. I come here to gab occasionally, however, my research time, volunteer time, and money goes to them. For any specific issue just ask and I'll forward a list.

   

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] I don't understand what you mean by number 1.<br /> <br /> For number two I would suggest serious reservations before accepting too positive a spin on this. There's no doubt that there was considerable pressure to not publicly support BMD's. However, like the same sex marriage issue, there are pretty concrete reasons for thinking this a smokescreen.<br /> 1. Essentially what the US wanted was for Canada to beef up its military. Which it is doing, however, it's forced to spend in other areas as well or candians would flip. While Canada doesn't always 'toe the line', especially publicly, we usually come in handy at some point in most excursions.<br /> 2. Under Nafta and with government subsidies the US already benefits from our energy, and it takes a lot of energy to run an occupation, as well as increased exports and research in weapons. <br /> 3. Under Norad and Nato there are few areas of the country that are out of bounds for their military when and if necessary. <br /> 4. While canadian public support is always welcome, the idea that canada is some kind of internationally known peacekeeper and 'objective impartial soft power' is severely overhyped. Canadian support would be welcome, but is not necessary.<br /> <br /> THere's no doubt that any public 'no' is welcome. Unfortunately in many cases this also works as a diversion. Saying 'yes' to BMD would mean canadians would mobilize and get more informed about militarization in general, however, as we saw in Iraq, we were seriously involved, however, Chretien standing up and saying 'no' meant that the media considered it a done deal and canadians went back to feeling smug and badmouthing americans.<br /> <br /> As far as your point about the ease of public input I think that that's overstated, however, I do agree with most canadians that a minority government is the best form of government to have. In this whenever I talk to anybody I make sure to tell them that if another election is called then make sure you vote for the same person as last time.<br /> <br /> Finally, I don't know if this is the forum for the grassroots action you imply simply because there aren't the numbers here and there isn't the organization or even the agreement on the issues. For the specific battles you mention there are already large organizations working on such issues and your time and money would best be used there. I come here to gab occasionally, however, my research time, volunteer time, and money goes to them. For any specific issue just ask and I'll forward a list. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I don't think a minority government is always preferrable, but right now it's a godsend.<br /> <br /> What I meant by number 1 is: how did enough people get pissed off enough to e-mail th government in huge numbers? I say this because apparently the government did get a huge response. Was it the word "missile" that scared everyone? Did the Council of Canadians mibilize everyone? I don't think everyone is back to being smug--some are, some are more informed.<br /> <br /> <br /> Point being, all the U.S. wanted was an approval from a respected, relatively peaceful ally. They won't get that now. How did we get to this point? The pollsters? Was it simply a chaos that got us here?<br /> <br /> Why can't the Council of Canadians mobilize more often on issues like their "Colony or country" tour. I read their conclusions, and they werne't impressive.<br /> <br /> Why can't people be mobilized to oppose the economic sellout in plain English, e.g. they own our resources, companies, etc....instead of the "colony or country tour". Why no big e-mail campaigns on this? <br /> <br /> It seems people only get excited over issues that are matters of principle, rather than economic and military issues--which make our society and social peograms possible.<br /> <br />

   

My simple answer to the main question, being why can't canadians be 'mobilized' is an objection to the question, as canadians we are as capable as being mobilized as anybody else and there are literally thousands of organizations in Canada. We do not have the population that many countries have, so the turnouts weren't quite as huge, but they happen, and fairly often until the draconian use of police force made people realize that that was simply too risky. Many people spent months in jail for no other crime than organizing a campaign, that's pretty serious dissuasion. However, you'll notice that even in spite of that there was already organization, you can click on the Saskatchewan link. When people are so organized even before a decision is made then you know you're in serious trouble (the government I mean). <br /> <br /> You should really look at a list of organizations in Canada, it's a pretty impressive list. Just go into an independant bookstore in your home town and in the magazine rack you will find close to ten canadian magazines of the 'culture jamming' persuasion. Our media is as controlled by corporations as the americans, and CBC knows that when it gets out of line it's staff and budget goes down the toilet, so it is hard to 'get the message out'. <br /> <br /> I seriously doubt that it was a huge 'emailing' campaign simply because in fifteen minutes I can write a program that will send an email and make it look like it's coming from thousands of people. As I said above, I'm pretty sure this a diversionary tactic designed to get canadians to say 'phew' and more apt to swallow a multibillion dollar increase in the military budget. THIS is what the US wanted, by no means do they just want public affirmation, in case you haven't seen George Bush, he's not that interested in such things and has no real need of it. As McKenna said, it isn't even clear what's being asked, and publicly saying 'no' certainly doesn't mean we won't be involved-we are already. And it's not like the chinese or russians are going to go 'well, that's ok if the canadians are involved'. <br /> <br /> Just to angle the theme towards direct democracy, another point is that canadians aren't stupid. When you have no power of recall or referendum, essentially it means you can't do anything about it anyway, so why get involved? There's lots of 'bad things happening' but if you have no power, then it makes perfect sense to me that people ignore it and focus on ones own life, which is work enough for most people. THe only real difference between them and us is that we're taking a few moments to type down our thoughts, while they are smart enough to know that nobody cares what we think<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'>

   

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] My simple answer to the main question, being why can't canadians be 'mobilized' is an objection to the question, as canadians we are as capable as being mobilized as anybody else and there are literally thousands of organizations in Canada. We do not have the population that many countries have, so the turnouts weren't quite as huge, but they happen, and fairly often until the draconian use of police force made people realize that that was simply too risky. Many people spent months in jail for no other crime than organizing a campaign, that's pretty serious dissuasion. However, you'll notice that even in spite of that there was already organization, you can click on the Saskatchewan link. When people are so organized even before a decision is made then you know you're in serious trouble (the government I mean). <br /> <br /> You should really look at a list of organizations in Canada, it's a pretty impressive list. Just go into an independant bookstore in your home town and in the magazine rack you will find close to ten canadian magazines of the 'culture jamming' persuasion. Our media is as controlled by corporations as the americans, and CBC knows that when it gets out of line it's staff and budget goes down the toilet, so it is hard to 'get the message out'. <br /> <br /> I seriously doubt that it was a huge 'emailing' campaign simply because in fifteen minutes I can write a program that will send an email and make it look like it's coming from thousands of people. As I said above, I'm pretty sure this a diversionary tactic designed to get canadians to say 'phew' and more apt to swallow a multibillion dollar increase in the military budget. THIS is what the US wanted, by no means do they just want public affirmation, in case you haven't seen George Bush, he's not that interested in such things and has no real need of it. As McKenna said, it isn't even clear what's being asked, and publicly saying 'no' certainly doesn't mean we won't be involved-we are already. And it's not like the chinese or russians are going to go 'well, that's ok if the canadians are involved'. <br /> <br /> Just to angle the theme towards direct democracy, another point is that canadians aren't stupid. When you have no power of recall or referendum, essentially it means you can't do anything about it anyway, so why get involved? There's lots of 'bad things happening' but if you have no power, then it makes perfect sense to me that people ignore it and focus on ones own life, which is work enough for most people. THe only real difference between them and us is that we're taking a few moments to type down our thoughts, while they are smart enough to know that nobody cares what we think<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'>[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> I disagree. Martin was killed at a debate in Penticton, and MPs were getting a solid stream of 25+ e-mails a day for months.<br /> <br /> As for most people, I don't agree they can't make a difference. I know you don't love David Orchard, but what if average people had joined the Conservatives in record numbers a few years ago? He would have won the eleadership, and may be PM. I realize that most politicians are not David Orchard, but I think most people are in denial regarding Canada, or completely out of touch.<br /> <br /> People are simply not literate when it comes to Canadian history and politics. In a system where people vote a party out, not in, it is IMPERATIVE that good people join EVERY party, not just the Liberals or NDP. It is also imperative that good people run for leader.<br /> <br /> The government does care what we think because they live for re-election. If a million people wrote letters about NAFTA, they'd have to think about doing something. It would at least make them squirm.

   

It's tough to get people in Canada to fight for this country when the majority of them don't even realize that they are losing it.<br /> <br /> We could fight to get out of NAFTA but Paul and his corporate friends a purposely keeping Canadians out of knowing what is going with this country because they think they own it.

   

Obviously I was misunderstood or not thinking when I was writing. That people can't and don't make a difference is about the last thing I would write. However, although emails may be symptomatic, it is the other organizations that worry politicians more. I agree, they of course want to be re-elected, however, the question then becomes how many emails were from people who said they were opposed, and how many said they were opposed 'and so wouldn't vote liberal'. That's a big distinction we don't know about, but certainly it's a minor one. <br /> <br /> I've often made the point that things would be far different if people were heavily involved, however, everything is stacked to keep people from being involved. You're quite right that if EVERYBODY made their opinion known that would have an effect, particularly on issues where a clear majority agreed. However, there's no certainty in that. Canadians made it clear they wanted GM foods labelled, and there were significant demonstrations, however, the government knew it was just one issue among others and they had no real fear. Combine with that the fact that even your local representatives have little power and are constantly 'kept in line', and it isn't surprising canadians don't pay attention. <br /> <br /> Finally, I think Orchard makes good points, and certainly I'd pay attention. If Patrick Boyer was still running I'd definitely be campaigning for him, and wish I'd read him when he was running against Kim Campbell because he was planning on instituting many direct democracy agenda's. I've even read some articles that insinuate that he was the primary force behind the decision to hold the 93 referendum. I've now counted ten people who run similar campaigns to mine so have no doubt that the 'direct democracy party' is not far off, and the whole idea of that is to involve people. Like Venezuela I think it takes some movement like this to get people to the point where they realize they are part of the system. There are of course bumps and risks, but at this point we have little to lose. <br /> <br /> People fight in different ways and anything I can do for these issues I do, but the David Orchards will come and go, certainly there are many others like him. Historically in Canada it is movements that have made a difference, not parties, however, history only counts for so much. Again though, this only counts for so much, amongst the complaints I still haven't heard what policies specifically are to be targetted and how, there are only vague references to Nafta and threats to canada, etc. These don't count for much, as the government knows all it means is that we bounce from conservatives back to liberals, back to conservatives again. People think that politician's must act in a certain way in order to be re-elected, but I think that overstates the case. Looking at Paul Martin I see a guy who was picked for this job by Paul Desmarais. If he loses the election, then like other good little soldiers he gets a nice cozy directorship or something else. In other words, the fear of losing doesn't mean as much as people think, they will make more money and have more power in their private industry afterwards-they're 'rewards' for doing a 'good' job.

   

I would like to see a more direct approach to things. MARCARC why don't you get us started, give us some ideas. I do e-mail letters to politicians and sign petitions but I always wonder if I make a difference.

   

I'm not sure I follow what you mean. There are literally thousands of issues out there, at the end of this message I'll include one of the pages of links I have for organizations. Although many problems are national in nature, often the 'easiest' way of impacting is getting involved locally, where there are all sorts of other organizations at work. Sometimes it involves organizing things yourself. Because of the nature of politics this often means that activism is not going to result in a change of policy, that's why it's important to pick an issue that really motivates you. <br /> <br /> As many of you know, my main interest is direct democracy, because I believe that most of the issues can collectively be resolved if and when canadians have democratic powers. The united states would no doubt be a different place if they had the democratic tools at the federal level that they have at the state and local level. In Canada, we have practically no political powers, hence almost all projects are extremely difficult. <br /> <br /> As a personal note, our own behaviour contributes mightily and I find that this is the most satisfying aspect of 'activism' simply because a change in behaviour results in a concrete result, giving one a sense of accomplishment that won't exist in societal problems. Each day I find some new change or behaviour that betters society. Low flow toilets, energy conservation, turning down heat, eating less (or no) meat, avoiding fast food restaurants, buying second hand goods instead of new, buying locally, etc. I take it as a point of pride each time I do one of the above, that way there is immediate gratification. Of course there are other obvious things, paying attention to housing problems in your area, being sure homeless and youth are not harassed by police. It goes on and on...<br /> <br /> Canada:<br /> Antigonish Coalition for Economic Justice www.stfx.ca/institutes/coady<br /> Canadian Catholic Organization Development & Peace Canadian Consortium International Social Development http://ccsj.org<br /> Canadian Council for International Cooperation www.ccic.ca<br /> Canadian Environmental Law Association www.cela.ca<br /> Canadian Environmental Networks www.isn.net/~network/links.html<br /> Canadian Labour Congress www.clc-ctc.ca<br /> Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society www.cpaws.org<br /> Canadian Union of Public Employees www.solinet.org<br /> Canadian Voice for Women and Peace http://home.ca.inter.net/~vow<br /> Council of Canadians www.canadians.org<br /> Earth Rainbow Network www.earthrainbownetwork.com<br /> Eco-Materials Group www.web.net/~emg<br /> Greenpeace Canada www.greanpeace.ca<br /> The Halifax Initiative, which includes www.halifaxinitiative.org<br /> Oxfam-Canada www.oxfam.ca<br /> Social Justice Committee of Montreal www.article19.com/portfolio/sjc.htm<br /> Sierra Club of Canada www.sierraclub.ca<br /> OPIRG – Ottawa www.opirg.org<br /> Polaris Institute www.polarisinstitute.org<br /> Solution to Pollution http://library.thinkquest.org/28472/solforpol.htm<br /> Turtle Island Earth Stewards www.ties.bc.ca<br /> <br /> <br />

   

Thanks for taking the time to post links. I've been doing a lot of reading!! It's overwhelming after a while. <br /> My husband and I have made many changes over the past year, especially with our wallets. We try to buy Canadian and shop locally. I have started making my own household cleaners and try not to buy frivolous things that I really don't need. But I still feel I am not doing enough.<br /> I'm pretty shy, but I am going to make an effort to be more active in my community. I like the idea: act local, think global. If we all do our part, we can make changes. I'm working on a web site as well, who knows..it could motivate even one person. Anyways, thanks.