Category: civil liberties
CBRM’s war on young people — a different view
Grad student, cultural activist, and entrepreneur Mike Targett writes:
I appreciate a lot of Jay Macneil’s general complaint. I’ve made similar ones about decision-makers not trying hard enough to make this place more livable, and even actively trying to make it less livable. I can even be pretty cynical about council at times. Maybe that cynicism is what made me think twice about this vote, since Morgan the populist voted with Kim Deveaux the radical. Curious.
Did Morgan vote for what he knew would be the popular sentiment (“All he wanted to do was dance!”) despite testimony from the Chief of Police that the dances were phenomenally unsafe? But that’s not all council voted on. There were two motions put forward on Tuesday, and it’s the second one that MacNeil ignores in his rant:
- Councillor Derek Mombourquette brought the motion to council to ban the dances, not because he hates young people (he practically is one), but because the Chief of Police told him the dances were a danger to the kids who attend and the police could no longer ensure their safety. I suspect that, after this police testimony, council probably couldn’t continue to allow the dances at municipally-owned buildings, as such, without being liable for what goes on. (Maybe why the schools stopped holding the dances in the first place.)
- Council then agreed to put resources into a committee made up of police, schools, decision-makers, and kids themselves, to come up with a way to create a safe environment for kids to have fun. (Or, I suppose, more realistically: ways to provide a reasonably safe environment.)
So if you take [1] and [2] together, council didn’t really ‘ban’ dances at this venue, they only suspended the dances until those dances can be made safe(r) for the kids who attend.
The schools, on the other hand, seem to believe the dances themselves were the problem… rather than alcohol, drugs, and violence being the problem. The schools seem to have said, ‘Ban dances, problem solved.’
All the schools solved was their own problem of liability. Whereas, if we give council the benefit of the doubt (I can’t believe I’m saying that), what they’re really saying is that the problem goes beyond the dances themselves, and that creating a safe and fun atmosphere for kids is the responsibility of the community (and should be a priority of the community).
So the community — especially the “people in this community who spend their entire day trying to find ways to inspire and engage the youth of their community” — should get behind the new committee [2] instead of blaming council for doing what they (likely) had to [1].
CBRM Council’s war on young people
Sydney radio newsman Jay MacNeil is attracting hundreds of comments, “likes,” and shares on his Facebook video denouncing CBRM council’s 10-2 vote to ban teen dances from civic facilities.
You’re making it hard. You’re just making it hard. There are people in this community who spend their entire day trying to find ways to inspire and engage the youth of their community, and around your council table there are a bunch people who find ways—on a shockingly recurring basis—to disengage youth.
View the whole rant here.
H/T: Jancie Fuller via Leah Noble
How CUPE turned me against first contract legislation
I might have been in favor of the NDP Government’s first-contract legislation if I hadn’t seen what the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) did to a progressive non-profit organization in New Glasgow this fall.
Founded in 1968 by volunteers and family members, New Glasgow’s Summer Street Industries supplies a variety of vocational services to 150 intellectually handicapped men and women in New Glasgow. It enjoys a stellar reputation for caring and respectful treatment of the people it assists.
If the Dexter Government’s first contract legislation had been in force this year, those very qualities would have been sabotaged, perhaps fatally. The story is a depressing example of how far some unions can stray from the progressive social roots of their own movement.
No doubt Summer Street managers made some missteps in their handling of staff relations issues. Two years ago, this led CUPE to a successful certification drive. The negotiations that followed centered on two broad sets of issues: money and workplace rules. Talks dragged on for almost two years, so on the surface, it looked like a case that would have benefited from mandatory first-contract arbitration.
Summer Street was seriously outgunned in the negotiations. The non-profit organization’s managers had no experience with labour contracts. CUPE is Canada’s largest union with more than 600,000 members and a huge war chest. It assigned a veteran negotiator, a man who had concluded scores of collective agreements. He was very good at his job, and over the months, he gradually wore SSI down on monetary issues. One by one, the union achieved virtually all its money demands.
But the CUPE man knew nothing about people with disabilities, and he had no understanding of, or interest in, what being respectful of such people means in day to day practice. CUPE wanted to impose rigid union rules on SSI’s operations, basing hiring, promotion, and work assignments entirely on union seniority.
Many intellectually disabled adults in Nova Scotia have suffered abuse at some point in their lives. They may have been ridiculed, marginalized, ostracized, tormented by bullies, and in many cases, sexually abused.
The rigid rules CUPE demanded would have denied SSI the right to insist that a timid middle-aged woman with a history of sexual abuse be assigned to the care of a female employee with whom she had developed a rapport. Instead, a less tactful male employee could have insisted on the “right” to work with such a client—regardless of the client’s wishes.
SSI wanted a preamble stating that all contract provisions would be informed by an ethic of respect for clients. It wanted to continue its practice of including clients on all hiring boards. It wanted the unfettered right to assign staff according to the best interests of the clients.
The CUPE rep insisted no mention of clients had any place in the collective agreement. As he put it, clients had no more place in the contract than students would a teachers’s contract—a telling analogy, if ever there was one. The week before a strike deadline, the union ran an Orwellian advertising campaign portraying its efforts to deny disabled clients a voice in own their care as “issues of workplace democracy.”
Then, suddenly, just 24 hours before the strike deadline, the union abandoned its position on the non-monetary issues. SSI got most of the language it wanted around respect for clients. I suspect the union members at SSI—who, after all, are just as respectful of men and women with disabilities as their management counterparts—told the union they had no interest in forcing a strike in support of unhelpful union rules.
With the help of a very capable provincial mediator, union and management reached a tentative agreement at 4 a.m. on the morning of the strike deadline. This agreement broke down when the Department of Community Services refused to fund one last small monetary concession achieved by the union. The Dexter government reversed course a few hours later, and the strike was settled.
But what if CUPE had had the right to send those non-monetary issues to an arbitrator? There’s no question it would have done so, and that could have led to arbitrator—likely a lawyer, and possibly one with no more understanding of disability issues than CUPE—to issue a ruling that would have made SSI a very different place for the marginalized men and women who depend on it.
In 2009, CUPE appealed the Cape Breton Victoria District School Board’s dismissal of Harold Douglas Delaney, a middle-aged janitor who was having sex with a 15-year-old student. Arbitrator Susan Ashley overturned Delaney’s dismissal on grounds the sex was consensual, the girl was above the legal age of consent, she was not a student at the school where the janitor worked, and the sex happened while the man was “off-duty.” Ashley did impose a three-month suspension because Delaney had handed out school pens and garbage bags without authorization.
Freebie pens worthy of punishment; sex with a student no problem. That’s what can happen when you force an arbitrator to decide matters of common sense and common decency according to the letter of the law.
The Dexter Government has presented no evidence that collective bargaining is not working in Nova Scotia. In fact, it works well, and the NDP should back away from this unwarranted gift to its union base.
[Disclosure: During the contract negotiations, I provided communications advice to Summer Street Industries on a pro bono basis.]
Silver Don: How a progressive mayor might have handled OccupyNS
On his Green Interview website, Silver Donald Cameron imagines how an innovative, creative mayor might have responded to OccupyNS: He starts by quoting the late Allan O’Brien, mayor of Halifax from 1966 to 1971.
The Mayor has very little actual power – but he has the power to bring people together, to encourage action on matters that he considers important. He has the power to influence the public agenda. He has access to the press. And if you use those powers strategically, you can accomplish quite a bit.”
Cameron muses:
Imagine if Peter Kelly had that kind of awareness, that sense of direction, when he looked out the window in the middle of October. Imagine if he’d gone down there with his eyes and ears open. Who are you? Where do you come from? What do you do? When I asked those questions, I found I was talking with some very interesting people. An education graduate from St. Francis Xavier University who was playing a mad scientist in a children’s theatre. A sustainability consultant. A young boutique farmer. A Mi’maq veteran. A postal worker. A filmmaker.
Silver Donald Cameron at the Remembrance Day eviction
Okay (the Mayor might have said), let’s not talk too much about things that are clearly national or provincial. What are the things that municipal governments actually can affect? Food? Maybe we need an innovative urban agriculture policy. What do you think such a policy might look like? Homelessness? Let me get a couple of property developers and someone from the province down here, and let’s brainstorm a little. Tell me about youth unemployment. Say that again, will you – there’s an organization in Winnipeg called Build that trains street people to do energy refits? Fascinating. Let’s get someone from Winnipeg down here to talk about that. How can I reach them? (Answer )…
What if the Mayor had treated the occupiers respectfully, as though they were actually citizens whose voices deserved to be heard, whose ideas might have merit, whose concerns might reflect the concerns of other citizens? What if the city had welcomed the arrival of new ideas, new insights, a passionate commitment to a better future? What if the Mayor had paused to reflect that the young people among them were not aliens or monsters – or bums or dregs or scum, as they have been called by adult commentators who should know better? These are our own children, brought up in Dartmouth and Moser River, Blandford and Fairview. What if the Mayor had contemplated the possibility that those young people probably are the future?
What if the Mayor had acted not as a short-sighted enforcer of petty bylaws, but as the wise, patient leader of a functioning community?
If he had acted like that, Peter Kelly would have taught the occupiers that civic engagement actually works, that change is possible, that older people can and do welcome the energy of youth in the quest for a better tomorrow. Instead, he taught them the exact opposite – that their concerns are not of interest, that their involvement in politics is not welcome, that civic leaders cannot be trusted, that violence is just fine as long as it’s the police who start the brawl.
If Peter Kelly had found a fresh, positive way to engage with Occupy Nova Scotia, the news would have gone around the world – just as the news of the eviction has gone around the world. Other cities that are also trying to figure out what to do next would have taken note. Halifax would have looked like the thoughtful, creative community that it is. And Peter Kelly would have been a hero, a prime contender for higher political office had he chosen to pursue that.
Like I said, history just tossed Kelly the political opportunity of a lifetime. He blew it. And we are all diminished by his failure.
The prematurely old lady of Argyl— er, Armdale
Sounding old before her time, Marilla Stephenson follows up the Chronicle-Herald’s ringing endorsement of the status quo with a ringing endorsement of middle class sensibilities. The protesters just had to go. They just had to. There had been an overdose in Vancouver or something. Enough is enough.
To this we respond:
Dear Marilla:
You walk into a room
With a piece of paper in your hand.
You see somebody naked,
And you say, “Who is that man.”
You try so hard,
But you just don’t understand.
Do you, Mrs. Stephenson?
With apologies to Robert Allen Zimmerman.
Cartoonist Bruce MacKinnon, on the other hand, gets it right.
A sympathetic reporter’s honest account of OccupyNS problems
Lots of reaction to HRMs forcible eviction of the Occupy Nova Scotia protesters. The best piece of actual reporting comes from a blog post by Bethany Horne, news curator for the recently launched indie website Openfile Halifax. A recent King’s grad with a progressive sensibility, Horne didn’t flinch from describing some of the incipient problems at the encampment:
[I]f the events of November 11 hadn’t happened, I’m not sure how much longer the gathering would’ve lasted. At the November 9 general assembly, tensions were high. The camp’s reputation for accepting anyone, giving them shelter, food and a makeshift community was attracting more people who needed help than people who were able to offer it. People who are homeless used the facilities at the camp: the medical supplies, the food, the kitchen, the common “hang-out” area. People are homeless in Canada for many reasons, but there is usually an addiction in their past or present, or a mental health issue. Homeless youth are usually fleeing the addictions or abuse in whatever house they escaped from.
This community of needy people became a sometimes violent place. There were clashes. The healthiest residents, from luckier backgrounds, who were there because of strong political convictions, were being attacked, a lot of times by the residents of the camp who were frequently in need of help. Either the healthy help-givers were not helping the help-needers enough, or they had made some mistakes that tend to happen when you’re overworked and only human. On Tuesday night, many Occupiers had been sick, throwing up in their tents. Sanitation had become an issue. Too many people eating, not enough people doing dishes, or not doing them well enough. Some people had been threatened, verbally or with weapons, and due to weariness some key political organizers had taken to spending more time away from the camp than at it.
In effect, Utopia was already being saddled with the ‘problem people’ our general society has major challenges assimilating. They had to host the rejects we sweep under the rug into jails, homeless shelters and the foster system all over the country.
and
That retreat away from the square and to the park had already affected the morale of the camp in more ways than was acknowledged to the press. The space was bigger, and camp had been allowed to spread out more. Divisions that already existed were allowed to geographically materialize. The centre of camp life was the paved square at the head of the park, facing the busiest pedestrian corner in the city. The living quarters of the Occupy camp sprawled South, down a narrow and long green space bordered by a much quieter street, residential towers, and a hospital. The deeper into the camp you went, the further away from the public. That’s where kids went to do drugs, and where it felt a little dangerous walking past sunset.
Predictably, many OccupyNS critics took this honest reporting to mean Horne supported the eviction, which she obviously did not. But she had the gumption to report problems on the side of the issue that drew her sympathies, and for that, good on her. The Chronicle-Herald and others could learn from this example of integrity.
Anyone but the incumbents
Contrarian reader Dana Doiron writes:
I remember listening to Peter Kelly giving early warning that the occupiers would have to leave the Grand Parade to accommodate Remembrance Day and seasonal activities. He spoke of respect for the rights of the occupiers and the importance of dialogue on issues confronting us collectively. I was impressed with his search to accommodate the occupiers elsewhere and then with the assistance provided to relocate them to Victoria Park.
I visited the assembly at Victoria Park and was pleased to see the civil interaction with other Haligonians and, particularly, with police officers.
I also heard the Mayor of Montreal speak last week about the difference between the Arab spring and Montreal where the respect the rights of individuals to gather to address common problems would trump inconvenience and appearances. I was proud that Halifax and Montreal at least, were united in civility and mindful of priorities.
That went down the drain on Friday. The fact that the vote to evict was unanimous will probably make it easier at election time: almost anyone but the incumbents.
Councillor Watts sides with Kelly — update
HRM District 14 Councillor Jennifer Watts has issued an apology for her role in Saturday’s forcible eviction of Occupy Nova Scotia. She still believes the parks bylaw trumps Charter guarantees of free speech and the right to assemble peacefully, but she now regrets the Remembrance Day timing and the failure to explore alternative resolution methods. Her silence on those issues, “was a serious error in judgment on my part for which I sincerely apologize.” Full text here.
Bluenosed Babbitts speak
The Halifax Chronicle-Herald and AllNovaScotia.com, ranking arbiters of mainstream opinion in Nova Scotia, lent editorial support Monday to Mayor Peter Kelly’s forcible police removal of peaceful Occupy Nova Scotia protesters.
The Herald, in a bracing throwback to its days as the fusty Old Lady of Argyle, approved the eviction in every detail: violence, secrecy, sneakiness, double-dealing, rights-violation, and even Remembrance Day timing. AllNS tried to have it both ways. A commentary* by former-Managing-Editor-turned-United-Church-minister Kevin Cox quibbled with Kelly’s timing and secretive decision-making, but endorsed His Worship’s position that a vague and rarely enforced municipal bylaw should trump Sections 2. (b), (c), and (d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In a letter AllNS published this morning, Halifax Filmmaker John Wesley Chisholm pointed out that Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi had reached the opposite conclusion, “saying the Charter of Rights prevented the city from arbitrarily forcing out the protesters — even if they’re breaking a city bylaw.”
Halifax officials, Chisholm wrote, took a big gamble with taxpayers’ money, risking hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions on a possible court defence of
the notion that these protesters’ use of tents to camp out in a public park was so egregious, so outstandingly shocking to our community’s values, of such a danger to public safety, so offensive to our public interests, that it justified a police action to deny their rights and freedoms to assembly and protest under the federal law on which our civil society is based..
Even by the smug standards of Halifax’s establishment media, this was a shabby performance.
*Access to AllNS is by paid subscription, and its flash-based web structure makes it impossible to post accurate links.
HRM’s abuse of power — feedback
Lots of reader mail on HRM’s use of force to evict Occupy Nova Scotia protesters camped out on the grassy strip known as Victoria Park. To start with, Juanita Mckenzie (writing on Facebook):
I think it was very distasteful to do this on Remembrance Day… I think the Halifax powers that be should be ashamed of themselves. If our youth don’t protest for their future what is the future going to have for them. I’m sorry I may not know exactly all the facts of the Protesters, but they were respectful of the veterans. They should have been given at least that respect back. The Powers that Be knew when they were talking to the protesters that they were planning their attack, and that is totally disgraceful and dishonest bargaining in my books. Shame on Mayor Kelly and his thugs.
C. Llyod disagreed:
The HRM did absolutely the right thing – evicting these campers – they were tolerated for too long. Let’s see now if they can actually act like protesters – or maybe go one step further and act responsibly and contribute to society, get a job, a useful education or even run for mayor.
So did Mark Pearl:
Disappointed to read today’s commentary. You fail to consider all users of public space. Protesting is one thing and camping is another.
John Chesal struck a common theme among those who upset over Mayor Kelly’s action:
What galls me most about this sorry situation is the duplicity shown by the Mayor in “negotiating” with the protestors. He led them to believe they would be permitted to protest, if they would leave Grand Parade in time for Remembrance Day ceremonies. To their credit, they agreed. It now seems the Mayor had no interest in allowing the protest to continue, he just wanted to move them to a less prominent place, so he could sneak up behind them with his police force and do what he’d intended all along. This guy has no honour. His word means nothing. We now see the kind of treatment people can expect when dealing with this snivelling backstabber. It’s no wonder he holds council meetings in secret. That way, he can keep his electorate from seeing him as he really is.
A journalist friend sounds the same note:
I was glad to see Dan Arsenault press the mayor on the question of whether or not he had tricked the Occupy folks by getting them to leave the Grand Parade for the Remembrance Day ceremonies. Kelly stuck to his key message, namely that Council had made the decision Tuesday night. I presume that means “I let them think they could come back, but Council made me renege.”
Given that no one reported such a decision after Council’s Tuesday meeting, it must have been made in camera. Section 19 of Halifax’s charter allows secret meetings on matters of “public security” or to “give direction to staff.” The topics discussed are to be made public, but not the details. Public security is not defined. I also note that the Occupy people were arrested for obstruction of justice rather than violation of a bylaw.
So. It seems to me that if the demonstrators are to held accountable for violating a bylaw, His Worship and company should be accountable for their devious approach to public business.
Or is it just me?
It’s not just him. Roberta Clair writes:
Bravo Contrarian. Thank you for this article, it’s a nice start to my day.
Jay McNeil, writing on Facebook
I think the entire think has been botched from the get-go.
It was a sad day when the veterans had to go sit in a tent to negotiate with the protesters about them leaving for the Remembrance Day Service. The negotiation was great to see, but I think the protesters could have shown some more respect and met somewhere else. And I think it’s a sad day when veterans who fought to keep us free watch a peaceful assembly end in violence and arrests. The failure for officials to deal with this properly isn’t just upsetting for those who were protesting, and those who supported them. It’s disappointing, I’m sure, to the soldiers who were willing to give their lives, if need be, so that things could be done differently here.
Another journalist friend on Facebook:
Actually, one of the most inspiring elements of the story, if you ask me, was the relationship that developed between the veterans and the protesters. From the very beginning, the head of the Legion was commenting to the media about what well spoken, and (in her words) well brought up young people the activists were. The veterans offered to meet them in that tent as a sign of good will. That was their choice, and I not only respect that, I honour it. Yesterday, the protesters asked if they could lay a wreath at the service. They were given the honor of doing so… and accompanied by a veteran who volunteered to walk up with them.
