Victoria Falls is probably the first heavily touristy niche Ive been to in Africa. It is probably the first such place Ive been to since Siem Reap almost 18 months ago.
The entry into the park containing the waterfall is $30, which, considering it costs only $20 for a day pass to Angkor and you can walk around for hours, seems a bit steep. Touts follow you around and harass you to no end about buying their carvings, going on the their rafting trips, bungee jumping, etc. But the main difference between Victoria Falls and Siem Reap is that Cambodia probably gets a huge portion of its income from tourism: go anywhere, and there are plenty of tourists. On the other hand, Im not sure Ive seen a single tourist in Zimbabwe (including Harare, Rushinga, Bulawayo, and Bindura) since I arrived two and a half weeks ago (outside of Victoria Falls, of course, which is swimming in them... no pun intended). Maybe one or two, but I wouldn't swear to it.
So I asked a number of people how they came to be there. It seems many are on tour buses from Johannesburg, some fly straight into Livingstone (internal flights are pretty ridiculous outside of South Africa), others come via Zambia. But what worries me most is the perception that the hordes of tourists may get of Africa in general and Zimbabwe in particular. Victoria Falls isn't Africa at all, and you really learn nothing about Africa by coming here. If you only came to Victoria Falls, there is nothing to say that you're in Africa other than that the local touts are black. For example, an individual I met said that some people he knew 'didn't like Zimbabwe at all', and I can see why if they only visited Victoria Falls. But we aren't in Zimbabwe. We are in a tourist bubble.
Like China, Zimbabwe is probably, on the whole, safer than North America. Consider the fact that in Canada you have to practically get cavity searches before you get on buses, and even a small pair of cuticle scissors will often have to be put with your stored luggage. On the other hand, at Mbare bus station when I was sitting on my bus waiting to go to Rushinga, there were touts outside the bus selling plenty of bizarre things, including 12-inch long kitchen knives and 15-inch sickles (which Li Weiguang could have used to behead an individual in one swipe...), their points capped with a small piece of cardboard or the top of a Coca-Cola bottle. Then on the bus as we were traveling through Harare, there were a few touts who stayed on the bus to do their selling. Standing in the middle of the bus aisle, he pulled out a chopping board and some cabbage to demonstrate the manner in which his 5-in-1 knife could shred cabbage. He then brought out some green onion and made short work of those. After this demonstration, the asking price was a dollar each and he distributed them like candy around the bus to anyone who put up their hand.
I can't explain this phenomenon completely, but my guess would be that there are at least two major contributors (aside from the completely random, absurdly gruesome, and probably unrepeatable Li Weiguang incident, which actually started the checks on buses in the first place). The first lies with the traditionally communal and often pacifist nature of Africans. Many are farmers (especially those going to remote villages like Rushinga) and survival is by no means a given (see the previous post), so violence is basically unheard of in many parts (putting aside violence between tribal factions, that is). In North America, the ultra-competitive and high intensity nature of society seems to lead people to adopt much more aggressive and dog-eat-dog demeanors. I have seen a few fights arise in bars in Africa now and again, but there is always a certain level of pride and humility involved on both sides. It isn't what sometimes feels like Hollywood nature of a lot of the bars in Canada with guys in muscle shirts calling each other out and heckling each other because they are so incredibly bored and need to somehow validate the inflated and often farcical notions of 'respect' and 'street sense' that they take from sitting in front of gangster and/or ghetto survival movies.
The other reason is likely the manner in which 'lawsuit society' has crept into Western society. Bus companies probably care much more about not being sued or getting bad publicity over some incident than the actual safety of their customers. When it is possible to sue the Winnebago company and win (and this may be an urban myth, I haven't corroborated that such an absurd incident actually happened) because it crashes because you put yours on cruise control to go into the back and make a sandwich, and 'it wasn't in the owner's manual that I couldn't do that', then companies this side really need to cover their asses.
But it brings me to a notion of freedom: in Africa there is much more freedom because of the organic nature of society, whereas in North America, everything is much more scrutinized and much more controlled. We may think we have more freedom because of the constant banding around of political buzzwords like 'freedom' and 'democracy', but in the end society ends up controlling itself through (amongst other things, see for example, Adam Curtis' series The Trap and/or Ray Bradbury's short story The Pedestrian), a combination of vanity and lack of confidence in one's ability to think for oneself. Acceptability and unacceptability to often come down to popularity amongst the general population: people think it absurd that I could study mathematics and philosophy with no eye to a possible career.
Education as an end in itself? You actually what to learn about the world for it's own sake? You want to satisfy your own curiosities about the underlying secrets of human nature? Have you seen a psychiatrist lately?
Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The Morals of the Wretched (Interlude: The Walk of Life)
I didnt actually expect to create this entry, but neither did I expect to create the last interlude to my entry on (see causality of this article) et al. But just like in that instance, 'something came up', and it just happened to fit with the theme (with a little stretching involved).
In January, a Toronto police representative made an ill-advised comment that “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized”. And so the SlutWalk was born to 'take back the word slut' and bring the public's attention to the manner in which people (predominantly women) are marginalized, bullied, and generally treated with contempt when their freedom of expression goes against the often dominant voice that advocates sexual conservatism, and the dangerous precedent that this stereotyped objectification sets. Marches have been held in many cities throughout North America, and over the next few months, these demonstrations are being planned in Amsterdam, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.
The phenomenon was originally brought to my attention by a feminist activist friend of mine, and at the time I didn't really think much of it other than 'huh... interesting concept', but on Sunday there was a BBC article that gave it a good deal of publicity, and the following day, a second BBC article announced details of the SlutWalk planned in London for June 4, rightly saying: "Organisers say the aim is to highlight a culture in which the victim, rather than rapist or abuser, is blamed. So what started as an 'interesting concept' was suddenly becoming a global phenomenon.
So the request, as put to me was "I would like to see an entry on people's delusion that they can provide any help for a cause by participating in a 'walk'". Now, I'm not a psychologist, nor do I have the ability to read minds, so I cannot know for sure how close my assessment will come to the reality of the situation, and clearly different people have different reasons for participating in public demonstrations, but I'll give it a go, but before I do, let me motivate the topic a bit by mentioning a few anecdotes about the situation in South Africa.
First and foremost is the HIV/AIDS problem. Sub-Saharan Africa, especially Southern Africa, has probably the highest proportion of HIV positive cases in the world, and the prevalence of rape, which, up until very recently when it was updated, was justified by a "Sexual Offences Act [that] dates back to 1957: the days of apartheid when the country's rulers were not only all white, but also all male." It doesn't help that the country's president is a polygamist with five wives, two fiancees, and twenty children, and had gone through an infamous rape trial when he had sex with an HIV positive woman (and later revealed he had 'showered to avoid HIV'). Indeed, under the previous government, president Thabo Mbeki pretended there was no HIV problem, and dismissed anti-retroviral treatment as 'toxic and dangerous'. Things are getting better, with groups especially from the townships like Khayelitsha coming together and boldly wearing shirts describing themselves as HIV positive, and billboards with celebrities like Ryan Giggs saying things like 'Be a man. Know your status." with regard to HIV.
Another, more personal story, occurred when I was sitting in the pub in a discussion with some friends of mine. For some reason we got into the topic of rape, and the gal at the table, who I didn't know, volunteered that there was an instance when she had been at a party and would have been raped but for a friend of hers happening to walk in 'just in the nick of time'. The gentleman to my left then volunteered that he 'had heard' that most rape instances 'are actually when women have second thoughts after the fact'. I told him flat out that this simply wasn't true, that if it is truly consensual, then there shouldnt be any 'second thoughts' and if there is any doubt there shouldnt be any sex. I told him about the historical accounts of women being intimidated and marginalized to the point where they rarely report rape cases, where too often the burden of proof is on them to prove that it wasn't consensual and that it often simply comes down to her word against his and she usually ends up losing out. A story was brought to my attention by friends of mine in Ghana about a purported 'thief' in a student housing block who was eventually mass-raped by a group of students. I have followed people's reactions (i.e. friends of friends in Ghana) on the story, and most of them (who are males) tend to offer little sympathy, justifying it by saying 'she got what she deserved'.
So what does this tell us? It tells us that there is a problem. As I alluded to in my gender bender story, the history of patriarchy means that gender equality is still not taken very seriously by many, even in 'developed' countries (and this includes the current Prime Minister of Canada). And this apparent 'ignorance' seems to grow in proportion to conservatism, especially religious conservatism. So what can be done about it? Well it appears that one may run into difficulties and general inaction if one petitions one's government representative to take it up as an issue, so there must be another way (though this is usually how it is).
I will start by saying that such a 'walk' is a form of 'direct democracy', a "form of governance in which people collectively make decisions for themselves, rather than having their political affairs decided by representatives." The truth is that if democracy was all about voting every couple of years, any majority government could do whatever they pleased (we will see if that is the case in Canada), when, in fact, mass protests are the means for people to tell their representatives in no uncertain terms that they are not doing a very good job if they refuse to deal with issues that are important to those that they purport to represent. Moreover, it sends a message to the general public that this is, indeed, an important issue that cannot be absorbed or swept under the carpet. Instead of dropping hints here and there, there is an active and very real component that brings people together in protest, and also brings people who may never have thought about such an issue to get the gears in their mind turning, and (hopefully) they may begin to ask themselves what they really think about the issue and why. Even if they do not agree, critical engagement and dissenting voices are always important democratically to figure out the best way forward.
And protests are important to keep governments in check. Oftentimes it turns out that violent protests, though riskier, are often much more effective (my Ghanaian friend's treatise on student activism gave me an intimate look into this world), but one must remember that non-violent protests are a show of obstinate defiance and (assuming the Declaration of Human Rights is upheld) insulates protesters from being victims of violence themselves. This is also what eventually allowed Gandhi to free India from British colonial rule.
So I ask who is responsible enough to stand up and fight for the rights and morals of the wretched, in this case, victims who have to carry the burden of the shame of objectification, marginalization, manipulation, and egregious invasions of their personal privacy?
Lest we forget also that protests are a means by which like-minded people come together for a cause, so it also presents the opportunity for a very interesting and often very rewarding social experience for everybody.
Hmmm... I had better get that 'SlutWalk Cape Town' ball rolling...
In January, a Toronto police representative made an ill-advised comment that “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized”. And so the SlutWalk was born to 'take back the word slut' and bring the public's attention to the manner in which people (predominantly women) are marginalized, bullied, and generally treated with contempt when their freedom of expression goes against the often dominant voice that advocates sexual conservatism, and the dangerous precedent that this stereotyped objectification sets. Marches have been held in many cities throughout North America, and over the next few months, these demonstrations are being planned in Amsterdam, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.
The phenomenon was originally brought to my attention by a feminist activist friend of mine, and at the time I didn't really think much of it other than 'huh... interesting concept', but on Sunday there was a BBC article that gave it a good deal of publicity, and the following day, a second BBC article announced details of the SlutWalk planned in London for June 4, rightly saying: "Organisers say the aim is to highlight a culture in which the victim, rather than rapist or abuser, is blamed. So what started as an 'interesting concept' was suddenly becoming a global phenomenon.
So the request, as put to me was "I would like to see an entry on people's delusion that they can provide any help for a cause by participating in a 'walk'". Now, I'm not a psychologist, nor do I have the ability to read minds, so I cannot know for sure how close my assessment will come to the reality of the situation, and clearly different people have different reasons for participating in public demonstrations, but I'll give it a go, but before I do, let me motivate the topic a bit by mentioning a few anecdotes about the situation in South Africa.
First and foremost is the HIV/AIDS problem. Sub-Saharan Africa, especially Southern Africa, has probably the highest proportion of HIV positive cases in the world, and the prevalence of rape, which, up until very recently when it was updated, was justified by a "Sexual Offences Act [that] dates back to 1957: the days of apartheid when the country's rulers were not only all white, but also all male." It doesn't help that the country's president is a polygamist with five wives, two fiancees, and twenty children, and had gone through an infamous rape trial when he had sex with an HIV positive woman (and later revealed he had 'showered to avoid HIV'). Indeed, under the previous government, president Thabo Mbeki pretended there was no HIV problem, and dismissed anti-retroviral treatment as 'toxic and dangerous'. Things are getting better, with groups especially from the townships like Khayelitsha coming together and boldly wearing shirts describing themselves as HIV positive, and billboards with celebrities like Ryan Giggs saying things like 'Be a man. Know your status." with regard to HIV.
Another, more personal story, occurred when I was sitting in the pub in a discussion with some friends of mine. For some reason we got into the topic of rape, and the gal at the table, who I didn't know, volunteered that there was an instance when she had been at a party and would have been raped but for a friend of hers happening to walk in 'just in the nick of time'. The gentleman to my left then volunteered that he 'had heard' that most rape instances 'are actually when women have second thoughts after the fact'. I told him flat out that this simply wasn't true, that if it is truly consensual, then there shouldnt be any 'second thoughts' and if there is any doubt there shouldnt be any sex. I told him about the historical accounts of women being intimidated and marginalized to the point where they rarely report rape cases, where too often the burden of proof is on them to prove that it wasn't consensual and that it often simply comes down to her word against his and she usually ends up losing out. A story was brought to my attention by friends of mine in Ghana about a purported 'thief' in a student housing block who was eventually mass-raped by a group of students. I have followed people's reactions (i.e. friends of friends in Ghana) on the story, and most of them (who are males) tend to offer little sympathy, justifying it by saying 'she got what she deserved'.
So what does this tell us? It tells us that there is a problem. As I alluded to in my gender bender story, the history of patriarchy means that gender equality is still not taken very seriously by many, even in 'developed' countries (and this includes the current Prime Minister of Canada). And this apparent 'ignorance' seems to grow in proportion to conservatism, especially religious conservatism. So what can be done about it? Well it appears that one may run into difficulties and general inaction if one petitions one's government representative to take it up as an issue, so there must be another way (though this is usually how it is).
I will start by saying that such a 'walk' is a form of 'direct democracy', a "form of governance in which people collectively make decisions for themselves, rather than having their political affairs decided by representatives." The truth is that if democracy was all about voting every couple of years, any majority government could do whatever they pleased (we will see if that is the case in Canada), when, in fact, mass protests are the means for people to tell their representatives in no uncertain terms that they are not doing a very good job if they refuse to deal with issues that are important to those that they purport to represent. Moreover, it sends a message to the general public that this is, indeed, an important issue that cannot be absorbed or swept under the carpet. Instead of dropping hints here and there, there is an active and very real component that brings people together in protest, and also brings people who may never have thought about such an issue to get the gears in their mind turning, and (hopefully) they may begin to ask themselves what they really think about the issue and why. Even if they do not agree, critical engagement and dissenting voices are always important democratically to figure out the best way forward.
And protests are important to keep governments in check. Oftentimes it turns out that violent protests, though riskier, are often much more effective (my Ghanaian friend's treatise on student activism gave me an intimate look into this world), but one must remember that non-violent protests are a show of obstinate defiance and (assuming the Declaration of Human Rights is upheld) insulates protesters from being victims of violence themselves. This is also what eventually allowed Gandhi to free India from British colonial rule.
So I ask who is responsible enough to stand up and fight for the rights and morals of the wretched, in this case, victims who have to carry the burden of the shame of objectification, marginalization, manipulation, and egregious invasions of their personal privacy?
Lest we forget also that protests are a means by which like-minded people come together for a cause, so it also presents the opportunity for a very interesting and often very rewarding social experience for everybody.
Hmmm... I had better get that 'SlutWalk Cape Town' ball rolling...
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Elections Canada
Well the results are in, ladies and gentlemen:
Conservatives: 167 seats (majority)
NDP: 102 seats (official opposition for the first time in history)
Liberals: 34 seats (outside top 2 for the first time in history, party leader Michael Ignatieff lost his seat)
Bloq Quebecois: 4 seats (party leader Gilles Duceppe lost his seat and Quebec was basically swept by the NDP)
Green Party: 1 seat (party leader Elizabeth May won the first ever Green Party seat in Canada)
I will be brief in my reaction, but I think that there are many positives to take out of it:
Pros:
1) NDP opposition: it seems that democratic socialism is not dead, even in Canada. It also means that although the Conservatives have a majority, they must tread carefully, and will perhaps have to be less Conservative than in former times. We shall see...
2) Green party seat: it's always nice when a new party gets a foot in the door.
3) Liberal fail: since history has not been repeated in terms of 'who does historically well', it may be that more people are actually critically engaging with issues.
4) Conservative majority: why is this under pros? well it will be under cons as well. But I think it is useful that people can finally see how much damage the Conservatives will do to the country over the next four years. Moreover, recall that it was after Mulroney's failures in the early in the 80s and early 90s that caused people to become disillusioned with Conservativism and ushered in Jean Chretien, who I still think was a reasonably good leader. Perhaps this will usher in an era of Prime Minister Jack Layton? Doubtful, but let's see what happens. And it also means that there will be no more elections and dissolved parliaments for awhile, as it is always a bit annoying to hear the ranting and raving and mudslinging every few years...
5) Linda Duncan consolidating her success in Edmonton-Strathcona. Nice to see she got a majority of the popular vote (>53%) and destroyed the Conservative candidate (~40%).
6) Left vs. Right. It will be interesting to see how the Conservative-NDP dynamic unfolds over the next few years. And it is very interesting to see how much the opinions of the voting public have been polarized recently, rather than opting for the more central-left Liberals.
7) Bloq destroyed in Quebec. Perhaps this will see a much more unified Canada over the next few years.
8) All the major gaffes that may come back to haunt various people down the line (see below).
Cons:
1) Conservative majority. They are in control of both the Commons and the Senate. How much damage will they do?
The gaffes are always the best though, so I recommend going through them yourself: 2011 controversies and gaffes. Though here are a few of my favourites:
i) Raymond Sturgeon, the Conservative candidate for the federal riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing was until December 2010 a lobbyist for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, the manufacturer of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter plane – which the Canadian government agreed to purchase in July 2010.
Insider dealings? You're kidding me.
ii) Cheryl Gallant, the Conservative candidate for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke compared Michael Ignatieff to Libyan dictator Gaddafi. She later apologized.
I dont see the connection. One is an individual that led a country from poverty to a general degree of wealth, and enacted a very interesting general political theory. The other is a washed-up pseudo-American whose books are filled with rubbish. But then one sort of expects uninformed mudslinging in these trying times.
iii) At a tightly controlled event aimed at immigrant communities in Brampton, Ontario, Harper used the phrase "you people" to attendees, implying they were categorically different from he or his party or government. Ignatieff and Layton immediately criticized Harper and pointed to his record of reducing family reunification quotas for immigration, and criminal justice policies that disadvantage non-white populations.
It's always nice to know that your leader cares about 'you people'.
iv) The Conservative Party came under heavy fire on April 11 when a draft report for the G8 summit was leaked to the Canadian Press, which indicated that the Tories misled the Parliament of Canada to seek approval for $50 million tax dollars to be spread on dubious projects, which over half of it was spent on the riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka – Tony Clement's riding. It prompted calls from the other leaders to release the report now, but the Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser; told reporters the rules forbid her to release it because she has to release it to the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Funneling public money into campaign coffers? You're kidding me.
v) Canadian Arab Federation president Khaled Mouamar received an email from Etobicoke Centre Conservative campaign staffer Zeljko Zidaric asking him if he had any groups that would like to participate in a Conservative rally "by having someone at the event in an ethnic costume". The email further elaborated that they wanted them for a "photo-op about all the multicultural groups that support Ted Opitz our local Conservative candidate and the Prime Minister." Mouamar took offence to the email.
Ignorance and over-simplification with respect to foreign, racial, and cultural issues by right-wing political groups? You're kidding me.
vi) A Liberal campaign volunteer for Joe Volpe in Eglinton-Lawrence was caught on camera removing Green Party pamphlets from mailboxes, throwing them away, and replacing them with Liberal campaign materials, as Volpe looked on. Tampering with mail is a criminal offence in Canada. Volpe has since fired the worker, but only after being caught on camera standing next to the worker as he committed these actions.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. What more need be said?
But in the end, just remember:
"The people will think [the House representative] is voting on toleration, on peace or war, on billeting or taxes or what not; but the real question on which he will always be voting is whether or no his party shall remain in office or he himself have to spend half his property on another election with the chance of losing his seat if his opponent has a few thousand pounds more to spend than he."
--George Bernard Shaw
Being in South Africa, I didn't see much of what was going on, but I hope everybody back home enjoyed the unfolding drama!!
Conservatives: 167 seats (majority)
NDP: 102 seats (official opposition for the first time in history)
Liberals: 34 seats (outside top 2 for the first time in history, party leader Michael Ignatieff lost his seat)
Bloq Quebecois: 4 seats (party leader Gilles Duceppe lost his seat and Quebec was basically swept by the NDP)
Green Party: 1 seat (party leader Elizabeth May won the first ever Green Party seat in Canada)
I will be brief in my reaction, but I think that there are many positives to take out of it:
Pros:
1) NDP opposition: it seems that democratic socialism is not dead, even in Canada. It also means that although the Conservatives have a majority, they must tread carefully, and will perhaps have to be less Conservative than in former times. We shall see...
2) Green party seat: it's always nice when a new party gets a foot in the door.
3) Liberal fail: since history has not been repeated in terms of 'who does historically well', it may be that more people are actually critically engaging with issues.
4) Conservative majority: why is this under pros? well it will be under cons as well. But I think it is useful that people can finally see how much damage the Conservatives will do to the country over the next four years. Moreover, recall that it was after Mulroney's failures in the early in the 80s and early 90s that caused people to become disillusioned with Conservativism and ushered in Jean Chretien, who I still think was a reasonably good leader. Perhaps this will usher in an era of Prime Minister Jack Layton? Doubtful, but let's see what happens. And it also means that there will be no more elections and dissolved parliaments for awhile, as it is always a bit annoying to hear the ranting and raving and mudslinging every few years...
5) Linda Duncan consolidating her success in Edmonton-Strathcona. Nice to see she got a majority of the popular vote (>53%) and destroyed the Conservative candidate (~40%).
6) Left vs. Right. It will be interesting to see how the Conservative-NDP dynamic unfolds over the next few years. And it is very interesting to see how much the opinions of the voting public have been polarized recently, rather than opting for the more central-left Liberals.
7) Bloq destroyed in Quebec. Perhaps this will see a much more unified Canada over the next few years.
8) All the major gaffes that may come back to haunt various people down the line (see below).
Cons:
1) Conservative majority. They are in control of both the Commons and the Senate. How much damage will they do?
The gaffes are always the best though, so I recommend going through them yourself: 2011 controversies and gaffes. Though here are a few of my favourites:
i) Raymond Sturgeon, the Conservative candidate for the federal riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing was until December 2010 a lobbyist for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, the manufacturer of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter plane – which the Canadian government agreed to purchase in July 2010.
Insider dealings? You're kidding me.
ii) Cheryl Gallant, the Conservative candidate for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke compared Michael Ignatieff to Libyan dictator Gaddafi. She later apologized.
I dont see the connection. One is an individual that led a country from poverty to a general degree of wealth, and enacted a very interesting general political theory. The other is a washed-up pseudo-American whose books are filled with rubbish. But then one sort of expects uninformed mudslinging in these trying times.
iii) At a tightly controlled event aimed at immigrant communities in Brampton, Ontario, Harper used the phrase "you people" to attendees, implying they were categorically different from he or his party or government. Ignatieff and Layton immediately criticized Harper and pointed to his record of reducing family reunification quotas for immigration, and criminal justice policies that disadvantage non-white populations.
It's always nice to know that your leader cares about 'you people'.
iv) The Conservative Party came under heavy fire on April 11 when a draft report for the G8 summit was leaked to the Canadian Press, which indicated that the Tories misled the Parliament of Canada to seek approval for $50 million tax dollars to be spread on dubious projects, which over half of it was spent on the riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka – Tony Clement's riding. It prompted calls from the other leaders to release the report now, but the Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser; told reporters the rules forbid her to release it because she has to release it to the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Funneling public money into campaign coffers? You're kidding me.
v) Canadian Arab Federation president Khaled Mouamar received an email from Etobicoke Centre Conservative campaign staffer Zeljko Zidaric asking him if he had any groups that would like to participate in a Conservative rally "by having someone at the event in an ethnic costume". The email further elaborated that they wanted them for a "photo-op about all the multicultural groups that support Ted Opitz our local Conservative candidate and the Prime Minister." Mouamar took offence to the email.
Ignorance and over-simplification with respect to foreign, racial, and cultural issues by right-wing political groups? You're kidding me.
vi) A Liberal campaign volunteer for Joe Volpe in Eglinton-Lawrence was caught on camera removing Green Party pamphlets from mailboxes, throwing them away, and replacing them with Liberal campaign materials, as Volpe looked on. Tampering with mail is a criminal offence in Canada. Volpe has since fired the worker, but only after being caught on camera standing next to the worker as he committed these actions.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. What more need be said?
But in the end, just remember:
"The people will think [the House representative] is voting on toleration, on peace or war, on billeting or taxes or what not; but the real question on which he will always be voting is whether or no his party shall remain in office or he himself have to spend half his property on another election with the chance of losing his seat if his opponent has a few thousand pounds more to spend than he."
--George Bernard Shaw
Being in South Africa, I didn't see much of what was going on, but I hope everybody back home enjoyed the unfolding drama!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)