Omnibus Nightmare

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In January, parliament will vote on the second major omnibus bill since March of 2012. To many in opposition, this represents a continued weakening of the analysis and criticism new laws are being given before they are passed. An omnibus bill is an act of parliament in which several laws of diverse and unrelated topics are grouped together in order to be voted on as one. The habit of this Harper Government, or the Government of Canada as it used to be called, to propose omnibus bills is becoming more frustrating as time goes on. The current omnibus bill, Bill C-45, the opposition to which has sparked the now worldwide “Idle No More” campaign, is the second omnibus bill since the budget in March 2012.

While omnibus bills are defended by ruling parties as “time savers”, time is not always what we as the voters and citizens of Canada should be concerned with saving. Our parliamentarians are paid large amounts of money to debate and decide what the laws of this land should be and what is in the best interest of our nation. What are we paying them for if discussion and debate are being limited, not only by ridiculous 400-plus-page reports, but also by simultaneously passed “time allocation” bills? These bills, which limit the time that our elected officials can spend reading the omnibus bills, are more commonly used to bring parties together to negotiate an acceptable distribution of the time spent by the House. However, they are now used to curtail debate of the opposition. As Kelly McParland of the National Post states, “if the Tories are so certain of [a bill’s] parts they shouldn’t be fighting so fiercely to save them from scrutiny.”

The first omnibus bill of 2012 sparked a filibuster from the opposition and delayed Parliament for days. Elizabeth May, leader and sole elected member of the Green Party, led the charge last spring to challenge the omnibus bill. Eventually the bill was split, causing the whole of Parliament to spend almost 24 hours in the House of Commons voting on the separate bills. The original bill included over 70 changes to laws regarding the environment, Employment Insurance, and the age of eligibility for Old Age Security. This second omnibus bill also limits environmental protection by making cuts to the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Environmental Assessment Act. These are acts that protect the resources of Canada from pollution and exploitation. Many of the now unprotected waters are on First Nations land. While the Harper government maintains that many of these waters are still protected under different laws, the Idle No More supporters fear that these changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act will, in fact, remove protection of 99.9% of lakes and rivers in Canada.

For this government to continue to hastily pass monstrous omnibus bills will mean a continued limitation on Canada’s parliamentary democracy. For our government to make informed decisions, it must allow for discussion and debate. Our government must allow itself to be challenged in order to adequately represent our diverse population. While 39% of Canadians who voted cast their ballot for the Conservatives, there remains 61% that did not. The dissenting voice must be acknowledged. No longer must we allow the Harper Government to limit dissension, for as Harper himself said in 2005, “When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is frankly when it’s rapidly losing its moral authority to govern.” This government has two and half more years to grasp at the straws of its legitimacy. After its all said and done, the Harper Government may have used these omnibus bills to change Canada and our parliamentary democracy forever. This lack of discussion and informed decision making just may be the new norm and we will have this government to thank.

Do Not Fix Your Antennas, Radio Is Not Dead!

By Logan Schunk

________________________________________________________________________________

Do not fix your antennas, radio is not dead! UBCO just needs a station of its own! 

Through my first couple of years at UBCO, by far the one of the most common complaints has been that Kelowna’s radio sucks. The initiative to create a UBCO radio station has been an ongoing one for some time.  A radio station did exist on campus in the past, but when UBC moved into town and the construction of our new UNC began the radio station was no more.  But I believe that the students of UBCO’s vibrant, youthful campus have the capacity to change and revive radio in the place we call home. So what would a radio station on a campus of 8,000 strong look like? 

The radio station I propose will be Internet-based. Run entirely by students and a faculty of volunteers, an online station will be fast and easily accessible.  You would have the ability to listen to it from anywhere in the world. It would provide students with experience in radio, broadcasting and production. Imagine this, UBCO - having the ability to be heard not only Kelowna and the Okanagan but to be heard from the corners of the globe, with just the click of a mouse.  The rest of Canada could listen to our perspective and opinions. Kelowna would become a hub for information and knowledge.

There are certainly some who believe radio to be an old form of technology.  But if this is so, why is it that close to fifty campuses in Canada have radio stations? What makes UBCO so hesitant to obtain a radio station? Surely something as beneficial as a radio station can only help the community experience on and off our campus. 

Take, for instance, the sense of disconnect that exists on our campus, felt by many students on a daily basis. In a 2010 Maclean’s article, a former student brought the term “disconnect” to the forefront of issues at UBCO. The University has attempted to eradicate this issue through the creation of The Collegiums, as well as through on campus events like Community Day and Club Day. Aside from the Collegium space, campus wide events happen sporadically and their full effects are in doubt. Through the implementation of a radio station on campus these issues could be discussed and a conversation could be initiated. Our campus would have the ability to reach its fullest potential.  Students will have the ability to give UBCO the community feeling it lacks, collectively with faculty, as well the outside community.     

Once implemented, a radio station would provide the public with innovative and alternative radio programming directed specifically at students that would enrich both academic and cultural life at the University and the community as a whole. It will create an awareness of local issues and it will create a voice for marginalized groups within the community. Without hesitation, I believe the time is now for UBCO to break new sound in radio and obtain a radio license. 

Hurricane Sandy Hits the US Presidential Election

By Julia Faurschou

________________________________________________________________________________

Over this past week the east coast of the United States has been ravaged by Hurricane Sandy. Hospitals have been evacuated, buildings have collapsed, and mass flooding has drenched the area. Millions of Americans have been affected by the devastating storm. But what effect could Sandy pose on the upcoming American presidential election? President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney have both been forced to cancel campaign events in affected states. With the race for the White House already so tight, a false move by either candidate could be detrimental to their presidential ambitions.

As soon as the news of the hurricane broke, President Obama sprang into action. His response to the storm could make or break his run for reelection. A poor response to the devastation could prove disastrous to his public opinion ratings, as previously demonstrated by George W. Bush and his lack-luster response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. This was Obama’s chance to show the people of the United States that he has the take-charge, decisive, yet understanding attitude needed to cement his second term as president.

Judging by the federal governments swift response this past week, this could very well prove to be the deciding factor in the final week of the election. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is, according to Vice-President Joe Biden, “working like it’s supposed to” in providing proper aid to the affected areas. The storm even had the power to change the notoriously outspoken Republican Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie, previous supporter of Mitt Romney, into the latest fan of Obama. When asked about the Presidents role in the disaster relief efforts Christie had nothing but praise for Obama, calling him “outstanding” and “incredibly supportive and helpful to our state.” 

With praise for Obama pouring in from all across the political spectrum, Mitt Romney has been washed to the sidelines. Romney's well-wishes for victims of the hurricane seem insincere, as those experiencing the most devastating effects of the storm generally fall into that “47%” category of Americans whom Romney sees as economic free-loaders. Romney now faces the challenge of staying relevant in the wake of Obamas unfaltering leadership in the storm response. 

Staying relevant is not the only challenge Romney faces this week, as another skeleton emerged from the Mitt Romney closet. During a debate in 2011 for the GOP presidential nomination Romney argued the FEMA should “absolutely” be shut down. Mitt continued on to say that “Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.” According to Romney’s preposterous logic, not only can states do a better job than the federal government in responding to a natural disaster like Sandy, but privately owned profit-making companies are even more capable of providing the best aid possible to citizens. Try selling that campaign feature to the millions of Americans who are now struggling to keep their livelihood afloat in the aftermath of the hurricane. With images of hurricane destruction and it’s victims saturating the airways this past week, Americans all across the country must find Romney’s statement difficult to justify. 

Romney already has a very poor track record of responding to natural disasters. In 2005 Greenfield, Massachusetts suffered terrible flooding due to heavy rains and the overflow of the Green River. Roads in the area had to be shut down, the water treatment plant was submerged, and many citizens lost their homes. Greenfield’s mayor at that time reported that Romney, the governor of Massachusetts during the incident, never made any attempt to contact her and aid in the recovery. This would have been the perfect opportunity for Romney to demonstrate how states could be much more effective in disaster relief efforts, but he made no attempt to seize it. If Romney did such a poor job in responding to this smaller scale disaster, it does not bode well for his role at the federal level. 

The hurricane could be just what America needs to help bring to light just what kind of candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney really are. Obama has made sure that the federal government is readily available to citizens who are most direly in need of help. Romney, on the other hand, advocates an increased role of states in disaster aid, or worse, handing over the role of disaster relief to private companies, thus eliminating the governments role all together. Even though most of the states affected by the hurricane are traditionally Democratic to begin with, Sandy may have the power to change the mindsets of voters all over the country.

The European Union Wins the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize

By Julia Faurschou

_______________________________________________________________________________

It was announced on the morning of October 12th that the European Union would receive the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee stated that they chose the European Union for this years annual award because the EU has “for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.” The award comes at a time when Europe is plagued with the mounting debt crisis and rapidly declining numbers in popular support. The $1.2 million in prize money, or an estimated 0.0027 euro per inhabitant of the EU’s member states, seems trivial in the context of the hundreds of billions of euros in debt that is currently overloading the Union.

The news of this years winner appeared to baffle both the “Euroskeptics” and the European leaders themselves. Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, responded to the pleasant surprise, saying, “I have to say that when I woke up this morning, I did not expect it to be such a good day....The award today by the Nobel Committee shows that in these difficult times the European Union remains an inspiration for countries and people all over the world and that the international community needs a strong European Union.”

Nobel committee president Thorbjoern Jagland touted the EU’s zealous quest for peace despite great economic and social unrest, claiming that “The stabilizing part played by the EU has helped to transform most of Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace.” The great irony in it all is that Norway, out of which the Nobel Committee is based, has refused membership to the EU three times. One would think that if this organization was as substantial as the Nobel Committee has made it sound, then the Norwegians would be falling over themselves to secure their own EU membership.

The rationale behind the European Union winning the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize is rather weak - there is some substance behind it, but not near enough to justify it as a substantive answer. It all stems from the fact that yes, the EU has managed to deter  another global scale, genocide ridden World War. What started as the Coal and Steel Community, designed to make war materially impossible among its six original members, has developed into the economic, social, and political integration of twenty seven member nations over the past sixty plus years. The Union has been credited with quashing emerging dictatorships and establishing democracy in its place in such countries as Spain, Greece, and Portugal. It has withstood the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Cold War, conflict in the Middle East, just to name a few. And now the EU is faced with large scale economic crisis. With the surmounting debt and repercussions of it, tension and hostility are becoming increasingly evident within the affected nations.

The United States and NATO have also been great contributors to any degree of peace in Europe. Both have been critically important in dealing with European instability. For example, the bloody conflict in Yugoslavia following the fall of the Berlin Wall only ended once the US intervened. The US spent a vast amount of time and money to provide a military wall behind which Western Europe could regain its strength. Both the US and NATO deserve mention of the supporting roles each played.  

The announcement of the prize comes in the wake of the Angela Merkel’s visit to Greece. Upon her arrival in Athens she was greeted by fifty thousand austerity protestors, complete with seven thousand law enforcement officers present to keep the German Chancellor out of harms way. Some Greek protestors were even so bold as to arrive dressed as Nazis. The hostility stems from the strict austerity measures that the EU has laden upon the Greeks in exchange for around two hundred billion euros in bailout funds. Violence is on the rise in Spain and Portugal for similar reasons. Greece, Spain, and Portugal, when initially pursuing EU membership, were required to give up their previous authoritarian regimes in exchange for democracy. Following their initiation into the EU, these countries have all experienced economic difficulties and become the recipients of large amounts of subsidies and aid. Not quite the advancement of peace and democracy the Nobel Committee had in mind. 

The EU has been accused of an assault on democracy in it’s own institutions. The Eurocrats are determined to advance European integration towards a continental government, a United States of Europe if you will, no matter the objections that have been raised. Trust in the Union has plummeted in recent years as the push for a Europe-wide government intensifies. There is minimal loyalty of European citizens to the EU, and politics in Europe remain primarily focused on national issues. More than language barriers divide the Union. There is no “European” identity, only national mindsets. The stark lack of a European consciousness is becoming more evident and problematic by the day. 

Thus, awarding the Nobel Peace prize to the EU is either a nostalgic look back to the twentieth century, the EU pre- debt crisis, or a diplomatic push in the right direction towards resolving the crisis in the most peaceful manner possible. It is a prize not so much for any current peace in Europe, but for that which is expected and encouraged. It is hoped that the awarding of this prize will contribute to fostering European moral in overcoming potential currency disaster by reminding them of what they have accomplished in the past, no matter how long ago that was, and not end up being a final parting gift. 

The (f)Utility of Social Media: Preliminary Thoughts

By Andrew Geistlinger 

________________________________________________________________________________

The last few years has seen a drastic upsurge in the international discourse regarding the place of social media. The Arab Spring has been called the 'social media revolution' by some pundits and scholars. While this is rather crass because the Arab Spring(s) are first and foremost Arab revolutions and the social media aspect is just a small part among many that seems to be getting a rather fair amount of  the attention. 

The social media craze has emerged once again with the KONY 2012 movement (if movement is the right word, I'm more inclined to call it a fad) and the power of social media is once again being analyzed as part of a radical change in the international discourse. I am not planning on weighing in on the benefits/problems with KONY 2012 and Invisible Children; rather, I am interested in the phenomenon of social media itself. Tentatively, I hope to explore the possibility of harmful effects that social media can have in international politics. I also hope to elucidate on the limits of social media and how it should not be viewed as part of a revolutionary change in how international relations work. (I'm also going to try to keep it semi-short since I do have a tendency to ramble)

Aristotle described democracy as the rule of the many over the few (paraphrasing of course, he considered it the rule of the poor in Politics, but the Occupy movement maintains that the many and the poor are the same thing). This of course leads to the tyranny of the majority which we all can agree is not a good thing; nobody wants to be on the receiving end of a majority decision that is not in their favour. This phenomenon can be seen to be emerging with the social media craze. The KONY movement is based around the idea that if enough people become knowledgeable (if they undergo a 'consciousness raising' in good ol' Marxist terminology) they will be able to pressure their governments to take action. While this may seem noble on the surface, the undercurrents of it are less pleasant. It could turn into a slippery slope whereby the populace at large could potentially pressure a government to take action in the international system that is unwise and quite dangerous. 

The debate about KONY is bringing this to the forefront. Invisible Children is for military intervention which would be: (1) very difficult to do; (2) imprudent because it violates sovereign borders and; (3) unwise in the KONY situation because he uses child soldiers and military intervention would inevitably lead to the deaths of children. 

In the Arab Spring situation Libya was doable (as well as within the national interest of France, Britain, and the US so they probably would have gone in regardless of how many people tweeted about it). Syria is something else though. Setting aside the argument about the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which was touched on in another blog post, it would be much more difficult and much more dangerous given that Syria is in a geo-political powder-keg. The possible power of social media (and the way that its effects are being theorized) could inject instability into the international system at the cost of governments being able to coherently follow foreign policy objectives.

           

With the possible detrimental effects of social media out of the way it is time to move onto its limits. Personally, I am a critic of social media in most of its forms (yes I have a Facebook account but I do not post too much and it is a nice way to keep in touch with overseas friends) and am critical about its implications in the international system.

Libya and Egypt saw a surge of tweets (and blog posts, and fb shares, and whatever forms of social media there are. Also, it was curious to see the marked absence of Tunisia compared to the other North African nations since that is where the Arab Spring started) at the beginning but as the NATO intervention of Libya dragged on social media attention began to wane. Syria went through this phenomenon even faster. I watched an Al Jazeera program before school one morning and they showed the statistics about how long it took for Syria to be tweeted less about than Hollywood personalities, it was an embarrassingly short time (from what I recall it was around about a month, possibly a little bit less, do not quote me on that though – I will do a search to find out though). It just shows that the West has the attention span of gnats and unless something happens quickly and decisively we will quickly go back to our lives (there are some good psychological studies about this phenomenon and I suggest if you have the time looking at some of them). 

I predict that KONY 2012 will suffer a similar fate. The longer this drags on and the less that is done about (less as in nothing spectacular will happen to nab him but there might be some diplomatic processes that begin between nations concerned) the more people will turn their attention to more immediate things, whether that is another cause in the Global South or what George Clooney is doing. The problem with social media is that it does not lead to action no matter how many people like a post, share a video, or check what is trending on twitter.

So I am at 900 words and would like to go on, to further delve into these musings on social media but if I did I'd slide down my own slick slope and end up writing a research paper. With that in mind I am going to cut it off there and try to make some coherent concluding comments and sum up my most basic thoughts on social media's place in the international system. 

First, it could create the impetus or a foundation from which the majority could overtake events and force the hand of government, or at least cause the hand to shift slightly in a direction that is not prudent. The entire point of the KONY 2012 movement is to get people, and governments, to take action, which is a complicated process and rather divisive idea. Second, social media has its limits. The 'social media revolution' in the Arab world was not a 'social media revolution’; it was an Arab Revolution against despotic rule. While social media played a part it would have happened at some point regardless and revolutions have historically had media outlets (the Mexican Revolution had pamphlets and La Cucaracha, which was a musical way of spreading the revolutionary method). Furthermore, the West has a less than long attention span and if we do not get our way quickly then our interest wanes precipitously. 

These musings are not definitive statements; the are exactly that 'musings'. I do think, however, that we need to critically think about the discourse surrounding social media and its place in the international political system. We should be wary about what it can do and cannot do and the fact that it is unregulated. Of course this is just my view and I am far from a fan of bottom-up democracy (I am a self-described realist with post-modern flair) and believe that the social media craze will not have the optimists' projected effects. This is all open for debate though and anything criticisms are welcome; they will help me sharpen my arguments and expand my ideas with regard to this phenomenon    

Students in Action Win Marks Transition from Community College to World Class University

By Kit Sauder

________________________________________________________________________________

The recent students union election was the first truly contested election in the previous five years. Pitting the old guard of Students4Students against a newly minted slate, Students in Action. The differences between the two organizations were marked and in this writer’s opinion signify not just long overdue change in the running of student affairs at UBCO but a shift in the culture of this campus.

When UBCO was founded in 2005, it was not a newly minted institution, but instead had inherited the legacy of Okanagan University College. OUC, although by no means a disreputable institution was for all intents and purposes a teaching college, what in the United States is referred to as Community College. This institution transformed, overnight it seems, into a campus of the province’s most prestigious university. And although we managed to nab many of the choice professors from the campus before the transition, and bring in many new ones through aggressive headhunting the transformation of this college into a university worthy of global recognition took time.

UBCO has under the leadership of Stephen Toope and Doug Owram embarked on a campaign to focus on undergraduate education of the highest level. The slow building of a university infrastructure has grown almost as rapidly as the influx of students and the erection of buildings. One of the most significant differences between the initial years at UBCO and the current cadre of students is that we are far more diverse than ever before, no longer is this a campus that represents the largely white, largely Christian identity of rural BC.

This diversity is what was represented by Students in Action, their slate of 22 members boasted nationalities from 18 countries. This cultural diversity, and the tenacity that it takes for a student to travel overseas was showcased by members of the campaign. One of the significant factors in activating voting on this campus was the involvement of this slate in so many campus activities through campus life, student societies, and charity work.

The Students in Action win wasn’t just a throwing out of S4S, who by and large were generally Caucasian and raised in Canada, but also about the student body recognizing itself in its leadership. Although many have bemoaned the fact that the parties might not be as good, and Students in Action will be lucky to find a corporate affiliation as awesome as Red Bull, the real story to take away from this win, is that having grown as a campus we are now recognizing leadership that reflects our now incredibly diverse culture.

For those S4S supporters who are bemoaning the loss of ‘your’ team, remember all of the half hearted appeals to community that you espoused, and the scattered and largely ineffective ‘political action’ campaigns you initiated to the begrudging recognition of most of campus. This change, is a change to a more worldly, more representative group of students for this campus. If we’re lucky, they’ll respect the good in the legacy you left them, and build a better future for this campus.

With hesitation, I look forward to seeing what a group of students that truly represents the diversity of this campus can do and hope that everyone here realizes that this should be praised as a transition point from what we were into what we can become.