Before discussing what Canada’s 75 billion dollar bank bailout means for the financial health of the country, I can’t help but comment on Chossudovsky’s point made about the time during which information regarding the budget was released to the public. The point to be made here, is that it was known but not published appropriately to the Canadian public at the time it became known. In the article, Chossudovsky states “in contrast [to the TARP bailout in the United States], in Canada, the granting of 75 billion dollars to Canada’s chartered banks was implimented at the height of an election campaign, without duly informing the Canadian public”.
Although I have not yet had the oppurtunity to analyse today’s budget, I am aware that the Conservative government recently declared a 64 billion dollar deficit. This frightens me, and forces me to wonder what this means for the financial health of our country.
It is my estimation that the Harper government - which repeatedly associates itself with a balanced budget – states that the deficit funding is necessary. It claims that this is a necessary move in the peak of a major economic recession. This concerns me, and I am not sure whether to believe it.
Moving on, I think that although the budget may have many small effects and impacts on Canada, that in the big picture Canada’s financial stability is still strong; definitely stronger than most other economies around the world.
Harvard Law professor, Eben Moglen’s views on the internet’s impact on society and our collective human wealth are interesting and controversial in nature. What is most interesting to me is the concept of the evolution of humanity into a more egalitarian global society as a result of and on the basis of freedom of information, speech, and association which are inherent in the online community.
The impacts of online communities are tremendous on society. It is suggested that the the online community and the offline world are equally important to people in our advancing society. As a result, this new value is changing the basis of civic life, particularly how citizens become engaged in society.
American statistics state that over the past six years three quarters of their citizen’s - the percentage of the population who have access to the internet – engage in online activities for upwards of 9 hours weekly. While one may believe that this is limiting, and people are less engaged with society due to their internet involvement, they are actually mistaken. People who actively engage online are likely drawn to the freedom which is grants them. This freedom, includes but is not limited to: freedom of niformation, speech and association. The freedom to access information quickly with ease from nearly anywhere is a definite appealing factor. Furthermore, not only are people able to read and learn from information posted by others, but they are given ample opportunity to voice opinions, concerns by presenting ideas and questions to the online community. Due to this ability, one is then provided with the chance to articulate information to people all around the world, networking with individuals everywhere. This great freedom facilitates one’s openmindness, essentially making them more aware of the world around them and active in it’s progress.
To go into more detail, one’s internet use is significantly productive. Impacting information production and publishment, to relationships, and what is particularly facinating and applicable tothis discussion, civic engagement.
Online content is being produced at record breaking rates as approximately 13% of the internet using population has established an individual website and close to 8% has published and maintains a blog. Additionally, 24 percent of internet users appeal to the personal social aspects which allow them to post photos online.
Internet users have the ability to network with others from around the world, that they would otherwise not have the ability to meet. On average, each internet users forms a friendship with over 4 people annually; that they have never met in person. Furthermore, the internet allows families and long lost friends to contact eachother and stay connected despite physical distances. Over half of the members of these communities are active daily, and upwards of 70 percent participate on a regular basis.
Most applicable to this course, would be the intnet’s impact on the participation of citizens in their civil duties. It appears that there is a direct impact on civic engagement. The internet community is reported to take 40 percent more action online for civic causes than they would offline. Moreover, nearly 70 percent of internet users state that they would be an activist for a cause, after being involved in online communities.
As a result of the internet, our society is rapidly evolving into a more egalitarian society as we are more readily supplied with an outlet for seriously excercising our freedoms; particular of information, speech and association.
RSA Animate - The Internet in Society: Empowering or Censoring Citizens?
Nearly nine months have past since the G-20 summit in Toronto, Ontario,yet it still remains a pressing topic in the provincial media. Common concerns have arisen from a combination of citizens who either witnessed the event first hand, as protesters or peaceful bystanders at the events in Queen’s Park, T.O, as well as those who watched the events unfold on the television and in the news. The Toronto Police have been scrutinized and condemnedfor their behavior in response to the state of their city during the summit.
Although violence did occur from various small groups, the protesters were, for the most part, peaceful advocates of issues which were considered to be important to them. The damage in the city included variousburned police vehicles, smashed windows of local establishments ranging from small shops to banks,and vandalized storefronts. Approximately 900 individuals were arrested during the protests that ensued over the weekend. Police Chief, Blair predicted that nearly 400 of those arrested would be proven, in fact, accountable for their actions.
In one part of the city world leaders gathered to discuss contemporary world issues...
...little did they know of what was unfolding in the streets of Toronto.
The Integrated Security Unit (ISU) has recently received much criticism from not only protester and journalists but Canadian citizens who did not even attend the protests, but believe the actions of the police to be unjust. Many civil liberties groups, such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), have responded to this event with strong allegations. Blair promised the an internal review of the police which is expected to analyze the ruthless tactics of the Toronto law enforcement. The CCLA is ordering for a public inquiry into the response of the police, as they describe the actions of the Torontopolice force to be “disproportionate”, “arbitrary” and “excessive”. In addition to the CCLA, Amnesty International Canada also criticized the heavy police presence and called for an independent review of the police.
After viewing the G20 footage in the classroom, it is my opinion that the police presence was far too heavy, the arrests were excessive and several of the tactics used by the Toronto Police force in response to the protesters was ethically unjust and executed in a highly inappropriate manor. I commend organizations such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and Amnesty International Canada for their involvement and analysis of the events which occurred over the weekend of June 26th, 2010 in regards to police tactics.
It is my belief that all of the basic rights instituted by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be recognized and upheld when analysing the events of the G-20 summit as it is my opinion that a successful, democratic society would barely function without these rights listed in the charter. The charter protects the freedoms that are considered fundamental in our democratic society. These basic rights include freedom of opinion, thought, belief, expression, of the press, of the conscience, of religion, freedom of association and freedom of peaceful assembly. It is the job of the CCLA and other organizations of its kind to promote, protect and preserve the rights and freedoms in the charter, and that has been its ongoing goal since its establishment in 1964. The CCLA has been outspoken on some of the most important Canadian issues affecting these fundamental rights, such as censorship, hate speech, religion in schools, and, relating predominately to the case of the G-20, the right to peacefully protest. It is my hope that with the assistance of organizations such as the CCLA, the events which occurred during the G-20 summit between the law enforcement and the civilians will be revised and drastic measures will be taken in the future to limit the future occurrence of and from the mistakes made during this instance.
The University of Toronto has released a survey regarding the G20 summit. To access it, click the link below and take a glance at the questions posed by one of the schools Political Science professors.
Prison Industrial Complex (PIC), similar to the Military Industrial Complex, referrs to the rapid growth of the US inmate population due to the political influence of private companies and businesses that supply government prison agencies with goods and services, such as corporations which contract prison labour, construction companies, surveillance technology vendors, and lobby groups that represent them. The PIC has been described by activists to pertetuate the opinion that a “quick fix” to social problems including homelessness, unemployment, drug addiction, mental illness, and illiteracy can be reached through imprisonment.
The PIC promotes the contruction of prisons with the use of inmate labor, motivated by profit instead of the sole punishement and rehabilitation of criminals and decreasing crime rates. Various people, who generally fear or condemn undue use of power by the government when relating to law enforcement, consider that the amount of incarcerated individuals has facilitated monetary gain for those who have sought after the expansion of prisonas an industry.
In order to understand why the United States account for 33% of the world’s inmate population, despite it’s standing as a mere 4% of the total world population, I believe that the study of US history is necessary. This is a graph illustrating the increase of incarcerated American’s between the years 1920- 2006.As you can see, an extreme increase in the American inmate population occurred around 1980 and continues to this day. In fact, an increase of 17.2% has occurred since 2000.
Today, documents state that the United States have the highest global incarceration rate. As of June 2009, the United States were recorded to incarcerate 748 inmates for every 100, 000 residents. In other words, nearly 0.75% of the US population. In addition, the USA has the highest documented prison and jail population in the world. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics submits that in 2009 over 7 million Americans --one in every 32 adults -- were on probation, in jail, prison or on parole.
It appears that in comparrison to any other developed country, justice is harshest in the USA. Criminologists state that the system has three great flaws. Firstly, an excess of citizens are imprisoned for an excessive length of time. Secondly, acts which need not be criminilized are criminilized. Thirdly, federal laws are unclear to citzens; sometimes they cannot determine whether they have broken them.
So the question remains, why does the US account for over ¼ of the world’s inmate population? Based on the links provided and my own research, I have come to the conclusion that a corrolation between the increase in the US inmate population and the excessive use of power in large part by the government exists and has been increasing on an exponential level since the 1980’s.
In my final remarks, I'll state that I am in accordance with philosophers Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham when I state that the government should act in the best interests of the people, and limits must be established on the government and it's ability to punish it's citizens.
Julian Assange, founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, has recently received much attention for the actions of his organization.Global attitudes differ as to the acceptance of his behaviour. While, those who are “pro-WikiLeaks” believe in the public’s “rights to freedom of information expression and truth”, others maintain strongly opposed to his “unlawful” approach to obtaining and releasing information which could possibly be more harm than good.
The extraordinary new facet of media production and dissemination facilitated by founder and Editor-in-Chief, of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, has received much international attention; forms of both acceptance and rejection have occurred.This non-profit organization has received both support and disapproval for its methods of accessing government documents which are said to be of both anonymous and credible background, and for publishing these sources as a new practice news media for the entirety of the world’s population to access. Global attitudes differ as to the organizations actions. While there are those who are “pro-WikiLeaks” who believe in the public’s “rights to freedom of information, expression and truth”, others maintain strongly opposed to his “unlawful” approach to obtaining and releasing information of a previously confidential nature, as this information could possibly do more harm than good.
After hearing the ideas presented by both pro and anti WikiLeaks perspectives at http://www.thedohadebates.com/debates/player.asp?d=90, in addition to further research, I have briefly compiled the information pertaining to both arguments.
There are numerous reasons as to why individuals have decided to support Assange and his organization. Some of the advantages of his organization are as follows:
·Anti-war movement; those who have been following his news have taken a strong and unrelenting attitude against war
·Empowering citizens to think, act and make decisions for themselves, instead of immediately lending their support to their leaders
·Increased accountability for leaders
·Ability for citizens to avoid the information provided by the mainstream media as misinformation frequently tends to occur within its broadcasts as it is strongly influenced by the government
·Fear of the government causes citizens to broaden their perspective of the “news” and seek comfort in the reports of anonymous journalists and news reporters refuting mainstream media
There are also a variety of reasons as to why individuals disapprove of Assange and his organization. Some of the disadvantages of his organization are as follows:
·Some of the information released may only represent one perspective or may be incomplete in additional to potentially false information held by the government
·Some of the information could jeopardize the security of individuals on an international scale
·Could cause governments to be overthrown and chaos to occur
With that said, my stance on WikiLeaks is undecided. I currently suggest that although there are many advantages to this organizations attempt to provide citizens with an alternative form of media which distributes information which they have the right to access, there are a number of detriments which could arise as a result of this and they must be considered. I am afraid that the flaws of this organization may outweigh the advantages, and although I am completely in support of offering alternatives of mainstream media, there must be some precautions taken in order to ensure that the safety and privacy of humans are not overlooked.
