Why do I see and hear anti-conservative, Anti Harper stuff at the camp. I believe aprox 30 percent of Canadians vote Conservative, is this movement not for them. To include all 99 percent we must not back or oppose any party. Please bring this up at the next town meeting and discuss further on this message board
I suppose that Harper is the embodiment of all that Free people dislike. Free people as in Liberals, Left-Libertarians, Right-Libertarians, Anarchists (anarcho-communist, syndicalist, Agorist, Capitalism).
Harper is an authoritarian leader. He is socially Authoritarian and financially neo-Liberal (Corporatism).
This movement is protesting people like Harper.
There is nothing with with Conservative views per-say... but Harper supports the very things that Occupy Wallst is angry about (and by that I mean he is the full monty pretty much).
I do agree with you that the term "Conservative" ought not be tainted by Stephen Harper and Co though. It's just that Harper is doing the very things that have led the USA to protest.
Privatizing Prison's
Escalating War and armament
Giving tax breaks to the wealthiest while cutting social services for the most needy
That new Copyright Act is a sham too
Cutting regulations (though I am opposed to State regulations as a Mutualist myself)
Tougher Laws and Sentencing for petty drug related crimes (MJ)
Taking more power at the Executive (proroguing parlament twice, this "Harper Government" and silencing his MPs from speaking to the media).
Much much more of course... and don't even get me started on the Liberals - Sponsorship scandal lol
IMO Harper is Canada's Ronald Reagan. He more than any other leader (Including Mulroney and Chretien) is accelerating us towards a Milton Friedman style Chile-sorta state. That is the end goal. The Chicago School of Economics goal of what Naomi Klein terms Neo-Liberalism (which used to be reserved only for when talking about foreign policy). I usually use the term Neo-Classical Liberalism but that term is also associated with my Libertarian friends on the right who are opposed to the Authoritarian means. Ok I've blabbed enough... Peace (and if I offended I do apologize as this is not my intention).
As an example of responsible, ethical government going the road of a democratic inquiry into the affair. That is light-years ahead of what the neocon regressive conservative party has done with its repeated scandals. If we knew the truth, there would be a REAL revolution in Canada. Our sovereignty has been given to the U.S.A. in return for membership to the NWO. Scary stuff.
The New World Order is not conspiracy stuff and lizard people. For example George H. W. Bush mentioned it in his inaugaural address in Sept. 1990, just before he launched the first war on Iraq.
Zulu, NWO is a silly word to many, one which should be avoided, weither you beleive in a greater organisation of people deeply corrupted.
It should be avoided because it takes away your credibility, weither you have facts to prove your sayings or not.
Keep the idea within you and fight against it as you will, but you have to educate people gradualy no matter what. If you start by claiming the WW3 is upon us, the people wont bother to listen. But if you explain them how the current situation, by this, that and that all seem to point toward some sort of coming conflict, perhaps they'll keep the idea and, before dismissing it, they'll seek to prove you wrong with facts, leaving them to inform themselves.
I merely stated that it is NOT conspiracy stuff...it has been and still is mentioned by world players such as US presidents, Secretaries of State, British Prime Ministers etc... I also don't think that anyone should avoid using certain terms...it's a matter of free speech.
Every one of those things on that list are things Obama has done and many in the U.S. compare him to Reagan too. He is an "R" with a "D" beside his name. Harper and Reagan doing business with Obushma. No wonder we are in trouble.
Although there should not be support for a particular political party, Harper and his party are exactly the problem and should be criticized mercilessly. They are fundamentally changing this country to eliminate any equalizing tendencies we may have had.
Politicians, for the most part, do what people want them to do. Europeans wanted a lifestyle and their politicians mortgaged their countries to do it. Americans wanted low taxes and a big military and their government gave it to them.
If we can decide what we want then our governments, through our politicians, will attempt to give it to us.
Somebody else in this forum stated that Harper is just a figure head. If not for him it would be somebody else, don't hate on him he is just trying to make a living pleasing the majority (30%) of Canadian public. If you want to change Harpers procedures and political actions we must educate, debate and discuss these issues with his supporters 30 % of Canadians. Convince these 30% that Harper actions are bad and then and only then will Harper change; his ways, only then you change the minds of the Conservative VOTERS. IF I WAS A CONSERVATIVE VOTER and I walked by or saw on the news that these OCCUPY FOLKS were ANTI HARPER therefore ANTI CONSERVATIVE I WOULD: 1. FEEL LIKE YOU ARE ATTAKING THE LEADER THAT I VOTED FOR (therefore inderectly attacking me). 2. Once I felt that you were attacking my party I would RIGHTFULLY not listen to you OR attack you back
ATTACKING HARPER IS ATTACKING CONSERVATISM (leave the puppet out of the debate its not worth it)
It is hard enough to get the Conservaive Voter to listen to us, let us try do actions to encourage their support.
ONLY THEN CAN WE BE TRULY THE 99%
'IF WE CONTINUE TO RIDUCULING HARPER WE MUST CHANGE OUR SIGNS TO...............
If you try to appropriate the voice of the people (99%), you cannot ignore the ugly facets of the population. Not everyone is a liberal student, you must actually look at both sides of the coin.
Instead of focusing on what the problems are and what you hate, reasonable solutions should be proposed to the media and the politicians.
For example, there are lots of good measures in the Omnibus bill, such as keeping sexual predators likely to re-offend longer in prison. There are also terrible suggestions.
If we can go through these and make suggestions as to which parts we do not agree with, the we would seem a lot more reasonable than by just screaming 'screw Harper, screw the Omnibus bill!'
Totally agree. From a strategic point of view, it would be a critical mistake to start alienating such a large group of people who are part of the target audience (they are the 99%)
When talking about issues like crime policy; copyright reform, Internet and media regulation, human rights, and war, it is inevitable that a lot of the electoral right (and even orthodox, Socialist International social democrats) is going to be taking a lot of heat. You hear anti-Harper, anti-conservative stuff because an overwhelmingly majority feels that their goals for Canada and for the world as a whole reflect the interests of the 1% whether than of the 99%. Even if that were not the case, to have a salient discussion about these issues, particularly when doing so in a Canadian context, often requires that we look about where the Harper government stands on them and where stand in relationship to that government. This latter point would be the case no matter the political stripe of the government we have in office.
We're not in the business of imposing dogma on anybody. Pretty well all of us know damn well that sectarianism and ideological fundamentalism can sap this movement dry in a matter of hours if we're not cognizant of it and are not therefore fair and respectful. I mean, there's left-liberals, social democrats, greens, democratic socialists, anarchists, revolutionary leftists, and *sighs* libertarians in this movement. Some of us are members of political parties. Many of us are members of none. We have brothers and sisters among us who believe in many deities, in one deity, or perhaps none at all; and to be fair, some of us subscribe to metaphysical paradigms and philosophical truths in which the existence of deities is tangential, if not altogether irrelevant. We are workers, farmers, professionals, students, single parents, and intellectuals.
At the same time though, for all the ways in which we do disagree or experience life and reality from different perspectives, what we undoubtedly share is that we're not going to shut up when we see that something's unjust or that something makes no fucking sense. Many of us feel that those somethings, unfortunately, are far too often the perspectives, policies, and decisions of the Harper government.
The government in power has just announced cuts to Environmental/Science groups while giving our money to an oil-industry-advocating institution [Canada School of Energy and Environment] to improve the image of the tar sands industry.
While I am not fan of Harper, or the Conservatives, I don't try to focus on politics too much in general. It is bad for the brain. As a few people have pointed out already, political leaders and parties are largely figure heads and distractions to distract people away from the things that are really shaping the world.
I don't believe if any one else were in office things would be drastically better. The reason Harper is in office is because he has appeased certain interests, related to oil, finance, defense, etc. If he had not done so, he would not have been elected, but someone else would have made similar promises and would have been in the chair right now: Same problems.
I disagree with OP though. Rather than not opposing any party we should oppose ALL parties.
Political parties and their supporters are not "anyone" or "everyone." There are more non-voters, disenfranchised and unaffiliated people than there are members or supporters of any party. Most votes come from the ethic of voting for the least of evils. These people are also not supporters of political parties, even though they sometimes vote for one or the other. There are lots and lots and lots of people to work with. They are out there, and failing to find them wont be a result of shunning affiliation and cooperation with political parties.
Let's keep in mind that here in Ontario the NDP Government (1990-95) instituted some neoliberal reforms. As have other NDP governments across this country. Obviously we can agree that the federal Liberals have brought in deregulation, liberalisation, and privatisation on a similar scale as the Conservative Government.
This a movement that is about raising awareness and encouraging people to start thinking critically about our political, social, and economic systems. Since our movement stands at a confluence of several important needs: better environmental protection, wealth redistribution, better social services, stronger human rights and equality, and a wide variety of others that I couldn't even dream of listing.
Ultimately, I agree with those of you who have posted above that we remain NON-PARTISAN. It is not in our best interests to endorse or oppose a political party when it comes to the posters and banners in our park. Perhaps when we are speaking to people about particular issues we can make mention of the actions of politicians, and perhaps make mention of how similar corrupt and questionable policies have been made by politicians of all other stripes. Our system is totally unfair, and we are opposing our limited options.
It is definitely appropriate to protest Harper and his supporters. It is appropriate to protest against the collusion and self interest of all parties, who have served together over decades to bring us to where we are today. This does not mean protesting conservatism per-se. Less attentive conservatives need to learn that Stephen Harper is not a conservative, he is a radical reformer, who in every sphere, from foreign, social policy to economic policy, wants to break clean with Canada's traditions and sell out our sovereignty to an internationalist, neo-liberal, oligarchical agenda.
Quoute from previeous post "It is appropriate to protest against the collusion and self interest of all parties, who have served together over decades to bring us to where we are today.". What if I believe that the green party are self interested and have no real platform or idea how to run government. And I am also participating in the Occupy Ottawa Movement, is it OK for me to then create a bunch of Anti-Green anti-Elizabeth May Sings (I heard she actually visited the camp but that is besides the point)
Kurtiz, you again! This time we disagree (sort of) haha. If you really believe that about the green party, then make your sign. The process that is put in place at the park, will result in your being confronted about your anti-green-party sign, and being asked why you are doing it. A debate would ensue, and that would be a good thing.
But let's be reasonable. Even if you believe as you say (that the green party is self interested and has no clue) that is a rather small issue, isn't it? The green party does not, nor have they ever, had any political power, nor have they had a hand in much if any of the type of political and economic corruption that the occupy protests are seeking to speak out against. As far as problems go, the green party as a problem is pretty low on the ladder.
Let me clarify my statement that you quoted: "It is appropriate to protest against the collusion and self interest of all parties, who have served together over decades to bring us to where we are today." Is there anything wrong with protesting against the inherent self interest of political parties? Of partisanship in general? Of the undemocratic processes that form the basis of political parties, such as their nomination processes? Such as having to pay to join? I say it is appropriate, and that is the sentiment I have tried to express in the first clause of my statement. The system of partisanship disenfranchises people. This needs to be in the public discourse.
In the second part of my statement, I mean to say it is appropriate to protest in particular those parties who over the last decades (generally the Libs and Cons, sometimes NDP and Bloc) have colluded with each other or through their negligence allowed other undemocratic, anti-social, self-interested corporations and institutions to have undue influence in our government. If that is not appropriate, then I don't know what is. They are selling us down the river.
To refine my argument further then, it is to say that protesting political parties, in general, can be done on the basis of anti-partisanship, and in the name of transparency and democracy. But when we have a particular party, such as the conservatives, who are particularly active in pushing forward the polices which have driven people to the park, then they should be named as doing such. To suggest people should not exercise their right to name what political parties are dismantling our political and economic sovereignty is to deny people from making statements of verifiable facts, that everyone needs to hear. If this is done unintelligently, it will cause alienation of some conservative voters, as people here seem to fear. If it is done articulately and intelligently, it may cause less alienation, but some conservatives will still be unable to stand criticism of their party. In anycase, people need to know what they are supporting when they vote for Stephen Harper's party (which I have also stated is not in fact conservative in their political outlook, they are radical corporate socialists) Those who want to keep their head in the sand, will do so regardless of what our signs say. But I don't know anyway better of including conscientious conservative minded people in this debate than debating whether or not Stephen Harper and his policies in fact betray the nature of Canadian Conservatism.
So again, like a lot of things: if criticism of Harper and the Conservative party (or any party) - if the criticism/sign is both RELEVANT and INTELLIGENT, it will resonate and have a positive democratic effect. If it is crude and baseless, people will reject it.
We should not let the fear of negative consequences unduly affect our will to express what is the truth.
---personally, my advocacy in this issue does not stem from my desire to hold up a sign which criticises the conservatives in particular. It stems entirely from my desire to press the idea that ALL signs and expressions must be made with forethought, and must speak to facts and the wider reality, rather than expressing tired rhetoric and baseless criticism.
This is a learning process.....Your response has enlightened and changed my perspectives. I actually vote green and I know their would probably never be any anti green sings created, nonetheless thanks for your respectful response.
These forums are all about debating and questioning....
Let us always have the ability to question and criticize our own beliefs and actions
I might as well just repost what you've put down, Curtis! Your arguments caused me also to rethink, and refine my arguments. My perspective has changed during the course of reading these posts and writing my responses.
Each time I leave the camp, I feel like I have a few more answers, but a great deal more questions. I appreciate very much what you have written here. Usually people are afraid to change their mind or think differently, because they feel that would make them "wrong," which is false. I used to be that way I must admit. But I have come to understand, that changing one's mind from time to time when new ideas or info is presented, simply demonstrates rationality, freedom of mind, and courage. Further, I think it demonstrates a profound empathy, the ability to see from a different perspective, and a philosophical nature. I am glad to have met someone such as you who seems to embody these qualities.
There are questions and arguments I feel much less sure about than the issue being discussed on this thread. One I will start a new thread for in a moment, and as for the rest, I hope to bump into people such as yourself at camp to hash them out. I go by Phil online and in the real world. Looking forward to talking with you more, here and at the camp!
What makes us a 99% is our economic situation, not our political views. We can always carry the banner of belonging to the 99%, even if some choose to "attack harper."
That said, I think the real argument here is one of strategy. Harper and his cronies and policies must, and are already, being confronted by these protests. Some conservative voters, and others, will miss the point of what occupy ottawa is saying, and that is inevitable. But the question being posed, in the context of "attacking Harper" is actually a broader one: "What types of rhetoric will alienate people from the message of this protest movement?"
Let us protest what must be protested, and speak what must be spoken. If that means publicising Stephen Harper's misdeeds, and naming him, then it must be, and the collateral is always that in the eyes of some of his supporters this is an "anti-Harper" protest. But these people might be the last people we need to worry about. They will be the last to come around anyway. What is important, is that the criticism, the message of this protest is articulated clearly and intelligently, so that people who are reasonable and open minded can consider INFORMATION, rather than seemingly closed-minded rhetoric.
What good is a "f*** Harper" sign? No good. "Harper=Hitler" sign? I don't think that will stick with many people either. But "Harper=Radical neo-liberalism" "Harper=anti-science" "Harper is a pretend conservative" "Harper=corporate profit before community concern" etc etc etc these are fair, correct, and reasonable. If people were to reject occupy ottawa on the basis of these messages, then they would have done that anyway, regardless of the signs we put up for now. They have already rejected it, in fact, before a single sign was even made. It will take more time and hard work to convince such types of people that they are welcome and have a place in the occupy ottawa protest, we must not loose spirit or momentum for the sake of worry over losing or gaining the support of this or that Harperite.
When making signs and slogans, think hard, make sure it is a substantive statement of truth, not opinion, and put in language that people outside the protest movement can understand. This protest is different. If it looks, sounds, and expresses itself differently, people will react. People are tired of rhetoric in politics and protests. Tell them something REAL, about Harper or anything!
Now, like many here, I am firmly against the policies that have been put in place by the Cons. Although, if for examples we had Liberals or NDPs leading the country, I strongly believe that the situation would end up looking the same. Perhaps with a different approach, but in the end, you'd reach the same bus stop. Let's face it, all these parties, once they are in power, or even before, are puppets and most are either easily corrupted or eliminated.
Supporting or opposing, ANY party will simply alienate those who are supporting parties that we are opposing. Many have been fooled by either Cons or even Liberals and NDP as well in the past. We've all been fooled at one time or an other. Now, most of us are awakening, opening our eyes. Let's help the others to do the same. If we start to oppose the Cons, their supporters will not feel welcomed by the movement. Many will feel "attacked" by our movement.
Plus, taking any stance, politically, is also giving fuel the medias could use against us. The "enemies" are not our politicians...who are in majority simple tools used for certain means... the real opponents we are facing are the corporate elite. They are the ones responsible of outsourcing jobs, the disintegration of democracy, the erosion of our public services, the destruction of our ecosystem, etc ... the list is quite long, too long for a post.
I agree with all your arguments, yet I draw the opposite conclusions.
I believe your conclusions stem from fear. If we cannot name Harper, and the political parties who have in essence "occupied parliament" for fear that we will alienate people, then what else can we say? How can we name a corporation? Could you single out Exxon? How will every esso employee and executive, every oil worker, every truck driver, everyone whose economic interests depend on the oil industry react? You don't seem worried if they feel "attacked." Nor should you be. Because they need to hear the truth. That is the best we can do. We should be careful of withholding messages of truth about our politicians who are betraying their constituents long term interests.
On another point, are the politicians really all stooges? How many of them emerged from, or will pass through the revolving door? There is so much cross-contamination of the 2 large federal parties and the corporate gentry that they might as well be the same thing. You cannot effectively criticise or resist corporations, without criticising and resisting the political parties that have cooperated/almagamated themselves with corporate interest.
The last time the Conservatives had a majority they gave us Free trade with America (which screwed Canada over good job Mulroney) Now Harper will be giving us Free trade with the EU in 2012 ... yes lets give all our resources away for free , lets drive more jobs out of Canada .. When will Canadians wake up and clue in that the only thing Conservatives care about is there own pocket book ..
Every conservative MP thinks they way harper does why do you think we are seeing back bench bills on topics harper promised he wouldnt talk about ie Anti-Abortion bills
the whole party is evil and the sooner you all figure that out the better off Canada will be
How many of you know that the NCC (National Citizen Collation) Agenda is the same as Harper's ?? the NCC is an extreme right wing group that harper left politics for to become the groups president ... he then returns to politics as the opposition leader and then prime minister ...
So far 5 of the NCC's Agenda has come true
- Removal of the "Long form Census"
- Removal of the "Long Gun Registry" (well be happening soon)
- Removal of the "Wheat Board" (Currently in the process of being dismantled)
- End the money political parties receive from the government (no funding will mean the end of those smaller parties ie Green Party)
- Spend Billions on the military so we can have state of the art equipment and be a force for our allies
Up next ?
- Abolish the CHRC (Canadian Human Rights Commission)
- Kill the CBC
- Kill Unions
- Privatize Health Care ( may sound good but can many of you afford health care in America? not likely)
- and many more radical ideas that benefit the rich
nationalcitizens.ca
In my Canada I see everyone as equal , I see everyone with equal chance to succeed, But I dont see that in the conservative vision of Canada
Its time we stood up and re take our country our beautiful country that they are destroying
Signed,
A Concerned Citizen
PS like it or not the Occupy movement is very political, it is also a very LEFT WING movement. or you could say it is a Socialist movement So how come many of you dont vote for the only socialist party in Canada? The fact you are taking part in this movement tells me your all socialists at heart ... after all it is really what Canada is, a socialist country as we care about everyone...
I believe we should not back or oppose any Political Party
Submitted by Kurtiz on
Why do I see and hear anti-conservative, Anti Harper stuff at the camp. I believe aprox 30 percent of Canadians vote Conservative, is this movement not for them. To include all 99 percent we must not back or oppose any party. Please bring this up at the next town meeting and discuss further on this message board
Thanks
I suppose that Harper is the
Submitted by ElMoIsEviL on
I suppose that Harper is the embodiment of all that Free people dislike. Free people as in Liberals, Left-Libertarians, Right-Libertarians, Anarchists (anarcho-communist, syndicalist, Agorist, Capitalism).
Harper is an authoritarian leader. He is socially Authoritarian and financially neo-Liberal (Corporatism).
This movement is protesting people like Harper.
There is nothing with with Conservative views per-say... but Harper supports the very things that Occupy Wallst is angry about (and by that I mean he is the full monty pretty much).
I do agree with you that the term "Conservative" ought not be tainted by Stephen Harper and Co though. It's just that Harper is doing the very things that have led the USA to protest.
Privatizing Prison's
Escalating War and armament
Giving tax breaks to the wealthiest while cutting social services for the most needy
That new Copyright Act is a sham too
Cutting regulations (though I am opposed to State regulations as a Mutualist myself)
Tougher Laws and Sentencing for petty drug related crimes (MJ)
Taking more power at the Executive (proroguing parlament twice, this "Harper Government" and silencing his MPs from speaking to the media).
Much much more of course... and don't even get me started on the Liberals - Sponsorship scandal lol
IMO Harper is Canada's Ronald Reagan. He more than any other leader (Including Mulroney and Chretien) is accelerating us towards a Milton Friedman style Chile-sorta state. That is the end goal. The Chicago School of Economics goal of what Naomi Klein terms Neo-Liberalism (which used to be reserved only for when talking about foreign policy). I usually use the term Neo-Classical Liberalism but that term is also associated with my Libertarian friends on the right who are opposed to the Authoritarian means. Ok I've blabbed enough... Peace (and if I offended I do apologize as this is not my intention).
I think you should mention
Submitted by Kruedog on
I think you should mention about the LIBERAL's - SPONSORSHIP SCANDAL, Refresh everyone's memory. Stimulating the brain To think collectively!!!!!
I do mention it
Submitted by Raymond Chénier (not verified) on
As an example of responsible, ethical government going the road of a democratic inquiry into the affair. That is light-years ahead of what the neocon regressive conservative party has done with its repeated scandals. If we knew the truth, there would be a REAL revolution in Canada. Our sovereignty has been given to the U.S.A. in return for membership to the NWO. Scary stuff.
FearMongering
Submitted by ExpertTroll (not verified) on
Stop it with the NewWorldOrder.
We are not controlled by lizard people, please keep the conspiracies theories out of this.
NWO
Submitted by zulu127 on
The New World Order is not conspiracy stuff and lizard people. For example George H. W. Bush mentioned it in his inaugaural address in Sept. 1990, just before he launched the first war on Iraq.
Truth be told
Submitted by Friend on
Zulu, NWO is a silly word to many, one which should be avoided, weither you beleive in a greater organisation of people deeply corrupted.
It should be avoided because it takes away your credibility, weither you have facts to prove your sayings or not.
Keep the idea within you and fight against it as you will, but you have to educate people gradualy no matter what. If you start by claiming the WW3 is upon us, the people wont bother to listen. But if you explain them how the current situation, by this, that and that all seem to point toward some sort of coming conflict, perhaps they'll keep the idea and, before dismissing it, they'll seek to prove you wrong with facts, leaving them to inform themselves.
NWO
Submitted by zulu127 on
I merely stated that it is NOT conspiracy stuff...it has been and still is mentioned by world players such as US presidents, Secretaries of State, British Prime Ministers etc... I also don't think that anyone should avoid using certain terms...it's a matter of free speech.
They are all the same. Working for money interests and not us.
Submitted by Cafreeb (not verified) on
Every one of those things on that list are things Obama has done and many in the U.S. compare him to Reagan too. He is an "R" with a "D" beside his name. Harper and Reagan doing business with Obushma. No wonder we are in trouble.
Anti- Harper should be encouraged
Submitted by Brett Hodnett (not verified) on
Although there should not be support for a particular political party, Harper and his party are exactly the problem and should be criticized mercilessly. They are fundamentally changing this country to eliminate any equalizing tendencies we may have had.
Absolutely Agree
Submitted by John Hansen (not verified) on
Politicians, for the most part, do what people want them to do. Europeans wanted a lifestyle and their politicians mortgaged their countries to do it. Americans wanted low taxes and a big military and their government gave it to them.
If we can decide what we want then our governments, through our politicians, will attempt to give it to us.
regards,
John Hansen - john@hansengate.ca
WE ARE THE 66%????
Submitted by Kurtiz on
Somebody else in this forum stated that Harper is just a figure head. If not for him it would be somebody else, don't hate on him he is just trying to make a living pleasing the majority (30%) of Canadian public. If you want to change Harpers procedures and political actions we must educate, debate and discuss these issues with his supporters 30 % of Canadians. Convince these 30% that Harper actions are bad and then and only then will Harper change; his ways, only then you change the minds of the Conservative VOTERS. IF I WAS A CONSERVATIVE VOTER and I walked by or saw on the news that these OCCUPY FOLKS were ANTI HARPER therefore ANTI CONSERVATIVE I WOULD: 1. FEEL LIKE YOU ARE ATTAKING THE LEADER THAT I VOTED FOR (therefore inderectly attacking me). 2. Once I felt that you were attacking my party I would RIGHTFULLY not listen to you OR attack you back
ATTACKING HARPER IS ATTACKING CONSERVATISM (leave the puppet out of the debate its not worth it)
It is hard enough to get the Conservaive Voter to listen to us, let us try do actions to encourage their support.
ONLY THEN CAN WE BE TRULY THE 99%
'IF WE CONTINUE TO RIDUCULING HARPER WE MUST CHANGE OUR SIGNS TO...............
"WE ARE THE 66%"
Reason
Submitted by ExpertTroll (not verified) on
This guy right here.
If you try to appropriate the voice of the people (99%), you cannot ignore the ugly facets of the population. Not everyone is a liberal student, you must actually look at both sides of the coin.
Instead of focusing on what the problems are and what you hate, reasonable solutions should be proposed to the media and the politicians.
For example, there are lots of good measures in the Omnibus bill, such as keeping sexual predators likely to re-offend longer in prison. There are also terrible suggestions.
If we can go through these and make suggestions as to which parts we do not agree with, the we would seem a lot more reasonable than by just screaming 'screw Harper, screw the Omnibus bill!'
Figureheads
Submitted by zulu127 on
I did NOT speceifically say that Harper is a figurehead, I said they, meaning political leaders. Harper is just the current figurehead.
I believe we should not back or oppose any Political Party
Submitted by ski_diva (not verified) on
Totally agree. From a strategic point of view, it would be a critical mistake to start alienating such a large group of people who are part of the target audience (they are the 99%)
When talking about issues
Submitted by BolivarianZero (not verified) on
When talking about issues like crime policy; copyright reform, Internet and media regulation, human rights, and war, it is inevitable that a lot of the electoral right (and even orthodox, Socialist International social democrats) is going to be taking a lot of heat. You hear anti-Harper, anti-conservative stuff because an overwhelmingly majority feels that their goals for Canada and for the world as a whole reflect the interests of the 1% whether than of the 99%. Even if that were not the case, to have a salient discussion about these issues, particularly when doing so in a Canadian context, often requires that we look about where the Harper government stands on them and where stand in relationship to that government. This latter point would be the case no matter the political stripe of the government we have in office.
We're not in the business of imposing dogma on anybody. Pretty well all of us know damn well that sectarianism and ideological fundamentalism can sap this movement dry in a matter of hours if we're not cognizant of it and are not therefore fair and respectful. I mean, there's left-liberals, social democrats, greens, democratic socialists, anarchists, revolutionary leftists, and *sighs* libertarians in this movement. Some of us are members of political parties. Many of us are members of none. We have brothers and sisters among us who believe in many deities, in one deity, or perhaps none at all; and to be fair, some of us subscribe to metaphysical paradigms and philosophical truths in which the existence of deities is tangential, if not altogether irrelevant. We are workers, farmers, professionals, students, single parents, and intellectuals.
At the same time though, for all the ways in which we do disagree or experience life and reality from different perspectives, what we undoubtedly share is that we're not going to shut up when we see that something's unjust or that something makes no fucking sense. Many of us feel that those somethings, unfortunately, are far too often the perspectives, policies, and decisions of the Harper government.
The party name doesn't matter...
Submitted by zulu127 on
it's what they do when they have the reins of power. Currently this is what is happening.
The government in power has just announced cuts to Environmental/Science groups while giving our money to an oil-industry-advocating institution [Canada School of Energy and Environment] to improve the image of the tar sands industry.
They are just figureheads for the most part...
Submitted by zulu127 on
as KRS One says in this video.
Don't blame Harper
Submitted by Jacob on
While I am not fan of Harper, or the Conservatives, I don't try to focus on politics too much in general. It is bad for the brain. As a few people have pointed out already, political leaders and parties are largely figure heads and distractions to distract people away from the things that are really shaping the world.
I don't believe if any one else were in office things would be drastically better. The reason Harper is in office is because he has appeased certain interests, related to oil, finance, defense, etc. If he had not done so, he would not have been elected, but someone else would have made similar promises and would have been in the chair right now: Same problems.
I disagree with OP though. Rather than not opposing any party we should oppose ALL parties.
Fear of authority
Submitted by ExpertTroll (not verified) on
Good luck with that, by not working with anyone you will accomplish nothing.
Fear Of Authority?
Submitted by Phil (not verified) on
Political parties and their supporters are not "anyone" or "everyone." There are more non-voters, disenfranchised and unaffiliated people than there are members or supporters of any party. Most votes come from the ethic of voting for the least of evils. These people are also not supporters of political parties, even though they sometimes vote for one or the other. There are lots and lots and lots of people to work with. They are out there, and failing to find them wont be a result of shunning affiliation and cooperation with political parties.
Fear of authority?
Submitted by Friend on
A party bears its ideology, it's mistakes, it's corruption, it's image.
Opposing parties is the same thing as not supporting any of them.
By not associating this group with any political platform, we have fresh ideas that are not being
filtered by anything. Let it be this way, for it's the only way we won't turn against eachother.
Non-Partisan Criticism
Submitted by James Mitchell (not verified) on
Let's keep in mind that here in Ontario the NDP Government (1990-95) instituted some neoliberal reforms. As have other NDP governments across this country. Obviously we can agree that the federal Liberals have brought in deregulation, liberalisation, and privatisation on a similar scale as the Conservative Government.
This a movement that is about raising awareness and encouraging people to start thinking critically about our political, social, and economic systems. Since our movement stands at a confluence of several important needs: better environmental protection, wealth redistribution, better social services, stronger human rights and equality, and a wide variety of others that I couldn't even dream of listing.
Ultimately, I agree with those of you who have posted above that we remain NON-PARTISAN. It is not in our best interests to endorse or oppose a political party when it comes to the posters and banners in our park. Perhaps when we are speaking to people about particular issues we can make mention of the actions of politicians, and perhaps make mention of how similar corrupt and questionable policies have been made by politicians of all other stripes. Our system is totally unfair, and we are opposing our limited options.
Non-partisan
Submitted by Phil (not verified) on
It is definitely appropriate to protest Harper and his supporters. It is appropriate to protest against the collusion and self interest of all parties, who have served together over decades to bring us to where we are today. This does not mean protesting conservatism per-se. Less attentive conservatives need to learn that Stephen Harper is not a conservative, he is a radical reformer, who in every sphere, from foreign, social policy to economic policy, wants to break clean with Canada's traditions and sell out our sovereignty to an internationalist, neo-liberal, oligarchical agenda.
Again, I think we should keep the parties out of the picturee
Submitted by Kurtiz on
Quoute from previeous post "It is appropriate to protest against the collusion and self interest of all parties, who have served together over decades to bring us to where we are today.". What if I believe that the green party are self interested and have no real platform or idea how to run government. And I am also participating in the Occupy Ottawa Movement, is it OK for me to then create a bunch of Anti-Green anti-Elizabeth May Sings (I heard she actually visited the camp but that is besides the point)
Cheers for the great discussion,
PEACE
keep parties out of picture?
Submitted by Phil (not verified) on
Kurtiz, you again! This time we disagree (sort of) haha. If you really believe that about the green party, then make your sign. The process that is put in place at the park, will result in your being confronted about your anti-green-party sign, and being asked why you are doing it. A debate would ensue, and that would be a good thing.
But let's be reasonable. Even if you believe as you say (that the green party is self interested and has no clue) that is a rather small issue, isn't it? The green party does not, nor have they ever, had any political power, nor have they had a hand in much if any of the type of political and economic corruption that the occupy protests are seeking to speak out against. As far as problems go, the green party as a problem is pretty low on the ladder.
Let me clarify my statement that you quoted: "It is appropriate to protest against the collusion and self interest of all parties, who have served together over decades to bring us to where we are today." Is there anything wrong with protesting against the inherent self interest of political parties? Of partisanship in general? Of the undemocratic processes that form the basis of political parties, such as their nomination processes? Such as having to pay to join? I say it is appropriate, and that is the sentiment I have tried to express in the first clause of my statement. The system of partisanship disenfranchises people. This needs to be in the public discourse.
In the second part of my statement, I mean to say it is appropriate to protest in particular those parties who over the last decades (generally the Libs and Cons, sometimes NDP and Bloc) have colluded with each other or through their negligence allowed other undemocratic, anti-social, self-interested corporations and institutions to have undue influence in our government. If that is not appropriate, then I don't know what is. They are selling us down the river.
To refine my argument further then, it is to say that protesting political parties, in general, can be done on the basis of anti-partisanship, and in the name of transparency and democracy. But when we have a particular party, such as the conservatives, who are particularly active in pushing forward the polices which have driven people to the park, then they should be named as doing such. To suggest people should not exercise their right to name what political parties are dismantling our political and economic sovereignty is to deny people from making statements of verifiable facts, that everyone needs to hear. If this is done unintelligently, it will cause alienation of some conservative voters, as people here seem to fear. If it is done articulately and intelligently, it may cause less alienation, but some conservatives will still be unable to stand criticism of their party. In anycase, people need to know what they are supporting when they vote for Stephen Harper's party (which I have also stated is not in fact conservative in their political outlook, they are radical corporate socialists) Those who want to keep their head in the sand, will do so regardless of what our signs say. But I don't know anyway better of including conscientious conservative minded people in this debate than debating whether or not Stephen Harper and his policies in fact betray the nature of Canadian Conservatism.
So again, like a lot of things: if criticism of Harper and the Conservative party (or any party) - if the criticism/sign is both RELEVANT and INTELLIGENT, it will resonate and have a positive democratic effect. If it is crude and baseless, people will reject it.
We should not let the fear of negative consequences unduly affect our will to express what is the truth.
---personally, my advocacy in this issue does not stem from my desire to hold up a sign which criticises the conservatives in particular. It stems entirely from my desire to press the idea that ALL signs and expressions must be made with forethought, and must speak to facts and the wider reality, rather than expressing tired rhetoric and baseless criticism.
Great Response!!
Submitted by Kurtiz on
This is a learning process.....Your response has enlightened and changed my perspectives. I actually vote green and I know their would probably never be any anti green sings created, nonetheless thanks for your respectful response.
These forums are all about debating and questioning....
Let us always have the ability to question and criticize our own beliefs and actions
CHEERS,
Curtis
debating and questioning
Submitted by Phil (not verified) on
I might as well just repost what you've put down, Curtis! Your arguments caused me also to rethink, and refine my arguments. My perspective has changed during the course of reading these posts and writing my responses.
Each time I leave the camp, I feel like I have a few more answers, but a great deal more questions. I appreciate very much what you have written here. Usually people are afraid to change their mind or think differently, because they feel that would make them "wrong," which is false. I used to be that way I must admit. But I have come to understand, that changing one's mind from time to time when new ideas or info is presented, simply demonstrates rationality, freedom of mind, and courage. Further, I think it demonstrates a profound empathy, the ability to see from a different perspective, and a philosophical nature. I am glad to have met someone such as you who seems to embody these qualities.
There are questions and arguments I feel much less sure about than the issue being discussed on this thread. One I will start a new thread for in a moment, and as for the rest, I hope to bump into people such as yourself at camp to hash them out. I go by Phil online and in the real world. Looking forward to talking with you more, here and at the camp!
Phil
We are, and always will be the 99%, anti-harper or not
Submitted by phil (not verified) on
What makes us a 99% is our economic situation, not our political views. We can always carry the banner of belonging to the 99%, even if some choose to "attack harper."
That said, I think the real argument here is one of strategy. Harper and his cronies and policies must, and are already, being confronted by these protests. Some conservative voters, and others, will miss the point of what occupy ottawa is saying, and that is inevitable. But the question being posed, in the context of "attacking Harper" is actually a broader one: "What types of rhetoric will alienate people from the message of this protest movement?"
Let us protest what must be protested, and speak what must be spoken. If that means publicising Stephen Harper's misdeeds, and naming him, then it must be, and the collateral is always that in the eyes of some of his supporters this is an "anti-Harper" protest. But these people might be the last people we need to worry about. They will be the last to come around anyway. What is important, is that the criticism, the message of this protest is articulated clearly and intelligently, so that people who are reasonable and open minded can consider INFORMATION, rather than seemingly closed-minded rhetoric.
What good is a "f*** Harper" sign? No good. "Harper=Hitler" sign? I don't think that will stick with many people either. But "Harper=Radical neo-liberalism" "Harper=anti-science" "Harper is a pretend conservative" "Harper=corporate profit before community concern" etc etc etc these are fair, correct, and reasonable. If people were to reject occupy ottawa on the basis of these messages, then they would have done that anyway, regardless of the signs we put up for now. They have already rejected it, in fact, before a single sign was even made. It will take more time and hard work to convince such types of people that they are welcome and have a place in the occupy ottawa protest, we must not loose spirit or momentum for the sake of worry over losing or gaining the support of this or that Harperite.
When making signs and slogans, think hard, make sure it is a substantive statement of truth, not opinion, and put in language that people outside the protest movement can understand. This protest is different. If it looks, sounds, and expresses itself differently, people will react. People are tired of rhetoric in politics and protests. Tell them something REAL, about Harper or anything!
Great statement
Submitted by Kurtiz on
Great statememt
Innapropriate
Submitted by D.A.V. (not verified) on
Now, like many here, I am firmly against the policies that have been put in place by the Cons. Although, if for examples we had Liberals or NDPs leading the country, I strongly believe that the situation would end up looking the same. Perhaps with a different approach, but in the end, you'd reach the same bus stop. Let's face it, all these parties, once they are in power, or even before, are puppets and most are either easily corrupted or eliminated.
Supporting or opposing, ANY party will simply alienate those who are supporting parties that we are opposing. Many have been fooled by either Cons or even Liberals and NDP as well in the past. We've all been fooled at one time or an other. Now, most of us are awakening, opening our eyes. Let's help the others to do the same. If we start to oppose the Cons, their supporters will not feel welcomed by the movement. Many will feel "attacked" by our movement.
Plus, taking any stance, politically, is also giving fuel the medias could use against us. The "enemies" are not our politicians...who are in majority simple tools used for certain means... the real opponents we are facing are the corporate elite. They are the ones responsible of outsourcing jobs, the disintegration of democracy, the erosion of our public services, the destruction of our ecosystem, etc ... the list is quite long, too long for a post.
good points
Submitted by Phil (not verified) on
I agree with all your arguments, yet I draw the opposite conclusions.
I believe your conclusions stem from fear. If we cannot name Harper, and the political parties who have in essence "occupied parliament" for fear that we will alienate people, then what else can we say? How can we name a corporation? Could you single out Exxon? How will every esso employee and executive, every oil worker, every truck driver, everyone whose economic interests depend on the oil industry react? You don't seem worried if they feel "attacked." Nor should you be. Because they need to hear the truth. That is the best we can do. We should be careful of withholding messages of truth about our politicians who are betraying their constituents long term interests.
On another point, are the politicians really all stooges? How many of them emerged from, or will pass through the revolving door? There is so much cross-contamination of the 2 large federal parties and the corporate gentry that they might as well be the same thing. You cannot effectively criticise or resist corporations, without criticising and resisting the political parties that have cooperated/almagamated themselves with corporate interest.
You all should be Anti- Cons If your apart of this movement
Submitted by Concerned Citizen (not verified) on
The last time the Conservatives had a majority they gave us Free trade with America (which screwed Canada over good job Mulroney) Now Harper will be giving us Free trade with the EU in 2012 ... yes lets give all our resources away for free , lets drive more jobs out of Canada .. When will Canadians wake up and clue in that the only thing Conservatives care about is there own pocket book ..
Every conservative MP thinks they way harper does why do you think we are seeing back bench bills on topics harper promised he wouldnt talk about ie Anti-Abortion bills
the whole party is evil and the sooner you all figure that out the better off Canada will be
How many of you know that the NCC (National Citizen Collation) Agenda is the same as Harper's ?? the NCC is an extreme right wing group that harper left politics for to become the groups president ... he then returns to politics as the opposition leader and then prime minister ...
So far 5 of the NCC's Agenda has come true
- Removal of the "Long form Census"
- Removal of the "Long Gun Registry" (well be happening soon)
- Removal of the "Wheat Board" (Currently in the process of being dismantled)
- End the money political parties receive from the government (no funding will mean the end of those smaller parties ie Green Party)
- Spend Billions on the military so we can have state of the art equipment and be a force for our allies
Up next ?
- Abolish the CHRC (Canadian Human Rights Commission)
- Kill the CBC
- Kill Unions
- Privatize Health Care ( may sound good but can many of you afford health care in America? not likely)
- and many more radical ideas that benefit the rich
nationalcitizens.ca
In my Canada I see everyone as equal , I see everyone with equal chance to succeed, But I dont see that in the conservative vision of Canada
Its time we stood up and re take our country our beautiful country that they are destroying
Signed,
A Concerned Citizen
PS like it or not the Occupy movement is very political, it is also a very LEFT WING movement. or you could say it is a Socialist movement So how come many of you dont vote for the only socialist party in Canada? The fact you are taking part in this movement tells me your all socialists at heart ... after all it is really what Canada is, a socialist country as we care about everyone...
Add new comment