New legislation the work of paid lobbyists
As Canadians are clearly about 85% to 90% against the PCs new anti-pot and and anti-privacy bills, these must have been created by influential lobbyists representing the interests of mega corporations.
If ever there were a time for Canada's environmental movement (eg Green Party) and social justice block (NDP) to UNITE into one party for progressive Canadians, THIS is it!!!!!!!
If the New Democratic Party and the Green Party were to merge into the Green Democratic Party of Canada, it is suggested that the new entity would sweep Quebec, BC and the GTA, and likely earn a majority government. Discuss among yourselves, and in the Comments section below.
NEW Flag of Earth
Earth Flag, modified from original design by James Cadle
Environment and Social Justice - NDP
Popular Posts
-
With the United for Global Change movement gathering momentum and set to demonstrate in over 850 cities and 70 plus countries this Saturday... -
Decide tactics locally, visualize strategy federally Personal Tactical Voting in Canada If the candidate of your party is believed to have a... -
State funeral for NDP Leader Jack Layton, Saturday 2 pm, Roy Thomson Hall / David Pecault Square A procession will take Layton’s caske... -
Pierre Trudeau brought home and updated Canada's Constitution, and also gave us the essential Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms : ... -
Congratulations to all freedom fighters in Libya! May your days ahead be filled with wisdom and joy, compassion and enlightenment. Le...
Showing posts with label green party and ndp merger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label green party and ndp merger. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Monday, November 7, 2011
Occupy Canada: Q&A for NDP, Green Party
With Occupy Canada showing the way to Unity, here are questions that NDP and Green Party of Canada members may desire to ask themselves:
Do you believe that a merger of the NDP and the Green Party in Canada makes sense ideologically and politically?
Do you feel that a unified party could win the next federal election in Canada?
What do you think are the major obstacles to a union of Canada's two progressive parties?
Do you think a merger could be completed within the next four years (eg before next federal election)?
Is there a specific policy of the “other” progressive party that you disagree with and believe needs to be altered?
What do you believe are the keys to Canada's success as a livable nation?
What do you believe is Canada's greatest strength?
Do you believe in traditional parliamentary representation (first past the post...) or do you think Canada may benefit from some form of proportional representation?
How do you view Canada's relationship with the USA?
Would you consider transforming Canada into a bilingual, secular democratic republic, or would you prefer to retain the Monarchy?
What do you feel is the key factor promoting Canadian unity?
Do you believe that a merger of the NDP and the Green Party in Canada makes sense ideologically and politically?
Do you feel that a unified party could win the next federal election in Canada?
What do you think are the major obstacles to a union of Canada's two progressive parties?
Do you think a merger could be completed within the next four years (eg before next federal election)?
Is there a specific policy of the “other” progressive party that you disagree with and believe needs to be altered?
What do you believe are the keys to Canada's success as a livable nation?
What do you believe is Canada's greatest strength?
Do you believe in traditional parliamentary representation (first past the post...) or do you think Canada may benefit from some form of proportional representation?
How do you view Canada's relationship with the USA?
Would you consider transforming Canada into a bilingual, secular democratic republic, or would you prefer to retain the Monarchy?
What do you feel is the key factor promoting Canadian unity?
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Elizabeth May outlines potential risks of cellphones, Wi-Fi
During May 2011, in response to a firestorm of flames over Elizabeth May's Twitter comments, she released this well-researched and presented argument that the issue does indeed require serious attention.
By Elizabeth May on 28 July 2011 - 12:01am
It has been an interesting day. While doing my work on constituency matters, I tried to keep at bay a growing furor over why I had tweeted about the safety of electromagnetic radiation and Wi-Fi. I haven’t been attacked with such nastiness in ages. (I used to be used to it. It was almost refreshing.) The easiest thing to do on twitter, would, I suppose, be to wave a white flag and say “just kidding.” Instead, I think the controversy has created a good teaching moment.
When I was first attacked and lambasted for expressing concern about various forms of pollution and human health, I was young and the attackers were brutal. I was worried about things like Agent Orange. Health Canada wasn’t. I was concerned about lead in gas, but it was hard to get the government to act. I worked to get certain pesticides banned, but they were “safe” right up to the day they were banned.
So, for friends and foes alike on Twitter, I think a fuller explanation for my views than can fit in a tweet is required.
First, a few clear caveats to keep the issue in proportion:
The health risks of electromagnetic radiation from cell phones, cell phone towers and Wi-Fi have not become the Green Party’s top priority.
For those who tweeted that other issues are more important, no argument.
Poverty is a more important determinant of health.
Active lifestyle and nutrition are also more important.
The pharmaceutical industry and our lax testing is more important.
Climate change is a more important priority for all of us.
Nevertheless, I was not speaking without a careful review of the background on this issue which I would like to share (please forgive the length of this blog as I will be posting links to important documents.)
The Green Party has passed the following members-based resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE GREEN PARTY OF CANADA DEMAND THAT HEALTH CANADA CREATE ENFORCEABLE, BIOLOGICALLY- BASED REGULATIONS, THAT WOULD LIMIT HUMAN EXPOSURE TO RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION TO A PRECAUTIONARY LIMIT OF 0.1 uW/cm2 (or 0.614 V/m ) FOR CUMULATIVE OUTDOOR EXPOSURE, AS RECOMMENDED IN THE “BIOINITIATIVE REPORT” OF 2007. (www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm)
This is not to say the science is essentially “settled,” as it is on climate change. There is no scientific consensus on EMF and health. But, it is equally not possible to make the claims many of Twitter have made today that Wi-Fi and cell phones are all proven “safe.”
There are studies on both sides of the issue. They fall into two general categories – epidemiological studies on humans and animal studies.
Epidemiological studies (studying the human population exposed to a substance or activity and then working to assess whether a health impact is linked to that substance or behaviour) are inherently fraught with difficulties in proof. There are always issues of bias (not the same as suggesting researchers are biased, but that the patient’s recall may be flawed), and there are confounding factors (such as other things in the subjects’ environment that could have caused the health problem). Causal links come slowly and over decades in some cases to build up a weight of evidence. One study, either way is never conclusive.
Animal studies have their own limitations. Rats and humans are different. Exposure rates used in animal studies will exceed (often substantially) an approximation of what humans may be exposed to.
I have been paying close attention to the issue since the first peer-reviewed medical study of Dr. Lennart Hardell in Sweden. He found an association between cell phone use and brain cancer. I paid attention because I knew Dr. Hardell’s name, his reputation and his work. He was one of the first researchers to find an association between phenoxy herbicides (Agent Orange) and cancer.
I paid attention to an editorial in The Lancet, the Journal of the British Medical Society, over ten years ago (which I cannot now find on Google, but which I have hard copy in files back in Ottawa). It warned that, under the precautionary principle, children and adolescents should not be exposed to cell phones and that exposure to EMF should be kept to a minimum. It said young people were more vulnerable -- not only to cancer but to mental confusion after being exposed to EMF.
In 2008, the European Parliament took action to bring in stricter limits for cell phone and Wi-Fi use for children. The following is from The Independent (Geoffrey Lean, “Mobile phone use 'raises children's risk of brain cancer fivefold',” September 21, 2008.):
“Last week the European Parliament voted by 522 to 16 to urge ministers across Europe to bring in stricter limits for exposure to radiation from mobile and cordless phones, Wi-fi and other devices, partly because children are especially vulnerable to them. They are more at risk because their brains and nervous systems are still developing and because – since their heads are smaller and their skulls are thinner – the radiation penetrates deeper into their brains.
David Carpenter, dean of the School of Public Health at the State University of NewYork – who also attended the conference – said: "Children are spending significant time on mobile phones. We may be facing a public health crisis in an epidemic of brain cancers as a result of mobile phone use."
In 2000 and 2005, two official inquiries under Sir William Stewart, a former government chief scientist, recommended the use of mobile phones by children should be "discouraged" and "minimised".”
Why did I say the evidence is mounting?
Because of two recent and important reviews and events.
One is the May 6, 2011 Resolution passed by the Council of Europe. http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc11/EDOC12608.pdf
The Council of Europe Resolution bemoans the fact that earlier calls for the use of the precautionary principle in relation to exposure to EMF (such as the 2008 resolution cited above) have been ignored and that children and young people, in particular, are being exposed to increasing levels of EMF. The children and young people are described as a “particularly vulnerable group.”
Please go to the text of the full resolution to review the Council’s detailed call to restrict exposures.
The second major event was the recent decision which I posted earlier on Twitter by the World Health Organization to list EMF as a Class 2B human carcinogen. The immediate twitter reaction was to latch onto the fact that it was not conclusive. I know it is not conclusive, but you have to read the study that was conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Thirty scientists from 14 countries reviewed a large number of human and animal studies. It was published in The Lancet on line on June 22, 2011. (see this link for the full study http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(11)70147-4/fulltext)
Here is an excerpt to give you the feeling of the weighing of competing studies. This was a rigorous review:
“Although both the INTERPHONE study and the Swedish pooled analysis are susceptible to bias—due to recall error and selection for participation—the Working Group concluded that the findings could not be dismissed as reflecting bias alone, and that a causal interpretation between mobile phone RF-EMF exposure and glioma is possible. A similar conclusion was drawn from these two studies for acoustic neuroma, although the case numbers were substantially smaller than for glioma. Additionally, a study from Japan11 found some evidence of an increased risk for acoustic neuroma associated with ipsilateral mobile phone use.”
(Glioma is a form of brain cancer. The INTERPHONE study has been controversial as it was industry funded, but it needs to be considered. The debate has been from two primary cancer research groups -- Hardell’s work and INTERPHONE’s)
I will attach an older review from the European Environment Agency in 2007, but it is useful due to a list of citations and references. Not all of the references say there is a problem. As I hope is now clear, I am not saying we know for sure that Wi-Fi, cell phones and cell phone towers are health hazards. What is important to appreciate is that a significant number of serious medical researchers, none of them wearing tinfoil hats, are concerned that the human population is being subjected to an enormous biological experiment.
As for the theory re pollinators, going back to review the current state of information, the evidence is weaker. There is one study from India and a presentation from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, briefing to Congress expressing concerns, May 10, 2007.
Our stance is simple and responsible. Exercise the precautionary principle. A risk of a health problem requires a cautious approach until the science is settled.
For me personally, that translates into using my blackberry, but not carrying it in my pocket. I do not hold it up against my head. I prefer land lines. Do I occasionally use cell phones? Sure. Do I want high speed internet in my house? Yes, and I have a cable. Am I happy to latch onto a signal in the airport by Wi-Fi? You bet.
It is a matter of knowing there are unanswered questions and taking reasonable precautions. If you have Wi-Fi in your home, turn it off when you are sleeping. Locate the router away from where your kids are sleeping. Urge your kids to text more than talk with the phone to their head.
Elizabeth May article on cellphones, radiation, cancer, wi-fi
By Elizabeth May on 28 July 2011 - 12:01am
It has been an interesting day. While doing my work on constituency matters, I tried to keep at bay a growing furor over why I had tweeted about the safety of electromagnetic radiation and Wi-Fi. I haven’t been attacked with such nastiness in ages. (I used to be used to it. It was almost refreshing.) The easiest thing to do on twitter, would, I suppose, be to wave a white flag and say “just kidding.” Instead, I think the controversy has created a good teaching moment.
When I was first attacked and lambasted for expressing concern about various forms of pollution and human health, I was young and the attackers were brutal. I was worried about things like Agent Orange. Health Canada wasn’t. I was concerned about lead in gas, but it was hard to get the government to act. I worked to get certain pesticides banned, but they were “safe” right up to the day they were banned.
So, for friends and foes alike on Twitter, I think a fuller explanation for my views than can fit in a tweet is required.
First, a few clear caveats to keep the issue in proportion:
The health risks of electromagnetic radiation from cell phones, cell phone towers and Wi-Fi have not become the Green Party’s top priority.
For those who tweeted that other issues are more important, no argument.
Poverty is a more important determinant of health.
Active lifestyle and nutrition are also more important.
The pharmaceutical industry and our lax testing is more important.
Climate change is a more important priority for all of us.
Nevertheless, I was not speaking without a careful review of the background on this issue which I would like to share (please forgive the length of this blog as I will be posting links to important documents.)
The Green Party has passed the following members-based resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE GREEN PARTY OF CANADA DEMAND THAT HEALTH CANADA CREATE ENFORCEABLE, BIOLOGICALLY- BASED REGULATIONS, THAT WOULD LIMIT HUMAN EXPOSURE TO RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION TO A PRECAUTIONARY LIMIT OF 0.1 uW/cm2 (or 0.614 V/m ) FOR CUMULATIVE OUTDOOR EXPOSURE, AS RECOMMENDED IN THE “BIOINITIATIVE REPORT” OF 2007. (www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm)
This is not to say the science is essentially “settled,” as it is on climate change. There is no scientific consensus on EMF and health. But, it is equally not possible to make the claims many of Twitter have made today that Wi-Fi and cell phones are all proven “safe.”
There are studies on both sides of the issue. They fall into two general categories – epidemiological studies on humans and animal studies.
Epidemiological studies (studying the human population exposed to a substance or activity and then working to assess whether a health impact is linked to that substance or behaviour) are inherently fraught with difficulties in proof. There are always issues of bias (not the same as suggesting researchers are biased, but that the patient’s recall may be flawed), and there are confounding factors (such as other things in the subjects’ environment that could have caused the health problem). Causal links come slowly and over decades in some cases to build up a weight of evidence. One study, either way is never conclusive.
Animal studies have their own limitations. Rats and humans are different. Exposure rates used in animal studies will exceed (often substantially) an approximation of what humans may be exposed to.
I have been paying close attention to the issue since the first peer-reviewed medical study of Dr. Lennart Hardell in Sweden. He found an association between cell phone use and brain cancer. I paid attention because I knew Dr. Hardell’s name, his reputation and his work. He was one of the first researchers to find an association between phenoxy herbicides (Agent Orange) and cancer.
I paid attention to an editorial in The Lancet, the Journal of the British Medical Society, over ten years ago (which I cannot now find on Google, but which I have hard copy in files back in Ottawa). It warned that, under the precautionary principle, children and adolescents should not be exposed to cell phones and that exposure to EMF should be kept to a minimum. It said young people were more vulnerable -- not only to cancer but to mental confusion after being exposed to EMF.
In 2008, the European Parliament took action to bring in stricter limits for cell phone and Wi-Fi use for children. The following is from The Independent (Geoffrey Lean, “Mobile phone use 'raises children's risk of brain cancer fivefold',” September 21, 2008.):
“Last week the European Parliament voted by 522 to 16 to urge ministers across Europe to bring in stricter limits for exposure to radiation from mobile and cordless phones, Wi-fi and other devices, partly because children are especially vulnerable to them. They are more at risk because their brains and nervous systems are still developing and because – since their heads are smaller and their skulls are thinner – the radiation penetrates deeper into their brains.
David Carpenter, dean of the School of Public Health at the State University of NewYork – who also attended the conference – said: "Children are spending significant time on mobile phones. We may be facing a public health crisis in an epidemic of brain cancers as a result of mobile phone use."
In 2000 and 2005, two official inquiries under Sir William Stewart, a former government chief scientist, recommended the use of mobile phones by children should be "discouraged" and "minimised".”
Why did I say the evidence is mounting?
Because of two recent and important reviews and events.
One is the May 6, 2011 Resolution passed by the Council of Europe. http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc11/EDOC12608.pdf
The Council of Europe Resolution bemoans the fact that earlier calls for the use of the precautionary principle in relation to exposure to EMF (such as the 2008 resolution cited above) have been ignored and that children and young people, in particular, are being exposed to increasing levels of EMF. The children and young people are described as a “particularly vulnerable group.”
Please go to the text of the full resolution to review the Council’s detailed call to restrict exposures.
The second major event was the recent decision which I posted earlier on Twitter by the World Health Organization to list EMF as a Class 2B human carcinogen. The immediate twitter reaction was to latch onto the fact that it was not conclusive. I know it is not conclusive, but you have to read the study that was conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Thirty scientists from 14 countries reviewed a large number of human and animal studies. It was published in The Lancet on line on June 22, 2011. (see this link for the full study http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(11)70147-4/fulltext)
Here is an excerpt to give you the feeling of the weighing of competing studies. This was a rigorous review:
“Although both the INTERPHONE study and the Swedish pooled analysis are susceptible to bias—due to recall error and selection for participation—the Working Group concluded that the findings could not be dismissed as reflecting bias alone, and that a causal interpretation between mobile phone RF-EMF exposure and glioma is possible. A similar conclusion was drawn from these two studies for acoustic neuroma, although the case numbers were substantially smaller than for glioma. Additionally, a study from Japan11 found some evidence of an increased risk for acoustic neuroma associated with ipsilateral mobile phone use.”
(Glioma is a form of brain cancer. The INTERPHONE study has been controversial as it was industry funded, but it needs to be considered. The debate has been from two primary cancer research groups -- Hardell’s work and INTERPHONE’s)
I will attach an older review from the European Environment Agency in 2007, but it is useful due to a list of citations and references. Not all of the references say there is a problem. As I hope is now clear, I am not saying we know for sure that Wi-Fi, cell phones and cell phone towers are health hazards. What is important to appreciate is that a significant number of serious medical researchers, none of them wearing tinfoil hats, are concerned that the human population is being subjected to an enormous biological experiment.
As for the theory re pollinators, going back to review the current state of information, the evidence is weaker. There is one study from India and a presentation from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, briefing to Congress expressing concerns, May 10, 2007.
Our stance is simple and responsible. Exercise the precautionary principle. A risk of a health problem requires a cautious approach until the science is settled.
For me personally, that translates into using my blackberry, but not carrying it in my pocket. I do not hold it up against my head. I prefer land lines. Do I occasionally use cell phones? Sure. Do I want high speed internet in my house? Yes, and I have a cable. Am I happy to latch onto a signal in the airport by Wi-Fi? You bet.
It is a matter of knowing there are unanswered questions and taking reasonable precautions. If you have Wi-Fi in your home, turn it off when you are sleeping. Locate the router away from where your kids are sleeping. Urge your kids to text more than talk with the phone to their head.
Elizabeth May article on cellphones, radiation, cancer, wi-fi
Monday, June 20, 2011
Liberals / NDP merger a non-starter; NDP-Greens union means victory
I don't know where the Liberal Party of Canada / NDP merger talk originated, however it is likely a hangover from Iggy's demoralizing lack of leadership, and all such verbosity will fade as Young Trudeau takes centre stage for the Libs.
The truly progressive vote in Canada is split between the environmentally inclined social democrats the Green Party, and the social democrat environmentalists known as the NDP. You can argue the fine points but the realpolitik means that if we continue to compete against one another, we will not become the government in this most blessed of nations.
We have people working to unify progressive forces in Vancouver and Toronto, and would love to add PEI, Quebec and all of Canada to the movement for unity and victory. What do readers think, should we unify the provincial parties first, and then the national groups, or should Ottawa take the leadership role and make the first move?
Either way, when it comes to a vote at party membership level, I am extremely confident that the resolutions will pass overwhelmingly, creating the Green Democratic Party of Canada, our country's next governing party.
The truly progressive vote in Canada is split between the environmentally inclined social democrats the Green Party, and the social democrat environmentalists known as the NDP. You can argue the fine points but the realpolitik means that if we continue to compete against one another, we will not become the government in this most blessed of nations.
We have people working to unify progressive forces in Vancouver and Toronto, and would love to add PEI, Quebec and all of Canada to the movement for unity and victory. What do readers think, should we unify the provincial parties first, and then the national groups, or should Ottawa take the leadership role and make the first move?
Either way, when it comes to a vote at party membership level, I am extremely confident that the resolutions will pass overwhelmingly, creating the Green Democratic Party of Canada, our country's next governing party.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Time for Layton and May to have a chat
NDP and Greens see Justin Trudeau on horizon
With the son of Pierre Elliott Trudeau set to lead the federal Liberal Party of Canada out of electoral wilderness, there will no longer be a Dion or Ignatieff to kick around. As a way of consolidating momentum and ensuring that there is plenty of time for a fair and equitable union of the New Democratic Party of Canada and the Green Party of Canada (creating the Green Democratic Party of Canada), followed by an equal or greater amount of time to prepare for an election and ascension to a position of governance, it would be ideal if merger talks could begin this summer, at the national and provincial levels.
If you like losing, consider yourself nothing more than a gadfly in the political process, and enjoy being governed by Conservatives, please ignore the wisdom in this post.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Canada 2011 Election: Greens and NDP Tactical voting strategy
Decide tactics locally, visualize strategy federally
Personal Tactical Voting in Canada
If the candidate of your party is believed to have a reasonable chance of winning or if you cannot support the policies of the candidate of the other party, then vote for your party's candidate.
If both candidates are perceived as worthy, and the candidate of the other party is deemed to have a much better chance than your own party's candidate, it may be best for the Green Democratic Party for you to vote tactically, so that we can begin the union of progressive forces with a strong voice in the Canadian Parliament.
Remember, when young people and other conscious folk decide to move Canada forward yet again, nothing can hold back the tide!
Canadian Provincial and National Strategy
In future elections, for areas where the two parties (NDP and Green Party) have agreed to merge but the actual merger date has not yet passed, it would be wise for the combined entity to not run against incumbents, for this is the base we need to build upon.
As legal and timing considerations may prevent implementation across provinces and nationally as soon as we'd all like, trailing candidates must not be discouraged from openly supporting competitive candidates of the partner party, as everyone needs to look ahead and see what can be if we will it to be.
Progressives of Canada unite!
Joe Trainor
TalkPlusAction
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)