An Open Letter to the City of Ottawa

I recently wrote a letter to the author of a City of Ottawa white paper that I deemed encouraged development of the city's greenbelt - a ring of green space that dinstinguishes the "old city" from the terribly planned former suburban municipalities of the now amalgamated metropolis. Needless to say, it was not received well, and despite a carefully worded apology I provided following the initial letter, I got no feedback on the content of either letters. What follows is only the first letter I wrote, since it was quite long, but let me reiterate the general message of the second letter:

I don't presume to make an authoritative claim as to the cause (though I have my suspicions), but the city of Ottawa has been, and is, poorly planned from the standpoint of sustainable development. The city has encouraged low-density suburban sprawl, a continuation of the capital-attraction strategies of the old suburban muncipalities. This has led to a whole host of problems, such as budgetary deficits on the account of snow removal, inability to maintain the downtown core landscape, and considerable shortcomings in the maintenance and reproduction of the city's rental housing stock, to name only a meagre few.

Anyway, let me get right to the meat:

I am thoroughly unimpressed with your one-sided white paper that - though it presents the semblance of some balance - favours development of the greenbelt. Many of the arguments you presented in favour of developing the greenbelt are either factually inaccurate, or have another side to them which are not considered in the arguments against developing the greenbelt.

1. Destroying the greenbelt in whole or part will actually have a negative impact on air quality, since the current greenspace acts as giant sink for exhaust fumes, convertering carbon dioxide into breathable oxygen. Hence, reducing a major absorption source of air pollution will undoubtedly result in its increase. This could easily transform Ottawa from a large city with excellent air quality to a much smaller (and less attractive) Toronto. Instead of biting the hand that feeds us, we should be working to improve this feature of our city's landscape. One suggestion to amplify the positive effect of the greenbelt on our city's environment would be to look into certain climate-sensitive trees or shrubs that absorb carbon dioxide with high efficiency and begin planting them in the 'unused' scrubland.

2. It is also highly dubious whether or not destroying the greenbelt will reduce vehicle trips and subsequently emissions. New residential development would mean that public transit to the downtown core would be more effective than from former municipalities such as Kanata or Nepean - providing that these future residents do not simply find employment outside of "acceptable" public transit commute zones (e.g.: that new residents in proposed zone "1" do not find employment in Orleans or Riverside South). Thus, while new residential development in the greenbelt areas would be more efficient than simply promoting urban sprawl in Stittsvile or South Nepean (as is currently happening) it is by no means "sustainable". Non-residential development (excepting some mixed zoning) again would do very little, unless the city were to propose some kind of highly complicated property tax credit rewarding residents who work near their homes.

So the whole 'environmental' argument for developing the greenbelt is a fabrication. Economically it might make sense, in the sense that with the city's current planning model, it will have to provide services increasingly further out in the hinterlands, thereby significantly raising budgetary costs, but there is nothing environmentally sustainable about destroying green space well within city bounds. This is something, as I'm sure you have discovered continually at planning conferences, that other cities are dying to have.

Your principle framing of the purpose of the greenbelt is also highly misleading. Its purpose was never primarily to preserve a rural identity - this was always the secondary function of the Gréber plan. Rather, its primary aim was to limit urban sprawl, to make the city beautiful, something we have failed in miserably in the subsequent decades. The rural identity was a corollary that never made its way into the minds of the people (and I grew up on the inside edge of the greenbelt in the 1980s and 90s) largely in part to the opposing message that the city and the local media have been striving towards: Ottawa as a 'big, serious, city'.

I am not an urban planner, a geographer, or an environmentalist, nor am I necessarily against limited, strategic and thoughtful development of certain parts of the greenbelt. But any plan that proposes this must be balanced with competent urban planning and a political will that encourages high density development in interior regions of the city and places much higher demands and restrictions on developers eager to make the biggest profit possible via suburban housing. Because of the past ineptitude of politicians and city officials, we have failed the spirit of the greenbelt. It is absolutely unfair to deal the death blow to the plan simply because we are unable and unwilling to take our city's future more seriously, because we feel it is expedient to pass the buck as past generations have done.

You can read the white paper in question at the following link where you can, as a resident of the Ottawa area, or simply as an interested advocate of responsible, environmentally sustainable urban planning, contact the author and the city's representative on the issue.
http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/papers/greenbelt_white_paper/index_en.html

The Cloak and Dagger of Mario Dumont

When Mario Dumont was swept to power in 2007 as the leader of the opposition, few questioned his political support. Indeed, in true populist form, Dumont appeared to garner support from all quarters of the Quebec electorate. Outsiders dependent on English-language press reports outlining Dumont's policy stances were led to believe that he was the herald of a renewed era in 'democratic' Quebec politics, a new face that would change the tired discourse in the nation of Quebec. In my naivety and impetuousness, I too jumped on the bandwagon prior to the election to some extent, expressing my interest in the political appeal of his candidacy, though I never publicly or privately supported him. It seems now, looking back (though surely not to those who follow Quebec politics more closely than I do), that we were all duped - that the larger than life media profile of Mario Dumont grossly misrepresented his policy positions.

I remember talking to a friend who was living in Monreal prior to the election - someone I trust, with more or less progressive credentials. I was both shocked and tantalized when he told me he hoped Dumont would win the election. I had been following the campaign from a distance to that point, and had been impressed with the way Mario Dumont had been handling himself. Yet I was uncomfortably aware that Dumont didn't appear as a left-leaning candidate, despite the efforts of MacLean's to shade him thusly. So, snapping back to my diligent self, I reviewed just where Dumont stood, and my hopes and dreams were shattered. Union busting, fiscal 'conservatism' (read: tax cuts for the rich), racist immigration policy, only a short list defining just where Dumont stands. Add to this Dumont's recent comments on the 'riots' of Montreal, and perhaps we see the budding of a young fascist.

The problem I have with Dumont's deception is that, like with my friend, it gained wide credence among Quebec youth. It is true that increasingly I see young people sadly manipulated in their political and economic views by their desire to feel 'important, practical, and knowledgeable', in the same way that the great 'counterculture' campaigns - developed equally in corporate boardrooms and suburban garages - prey on kids desire to be 'cool'. But the success of the ADQ cannot be attributed to the hapless pandering of a minority of youth to the ideals of a class whose ranks they can only hope to join in some distant dystopian future. Rather, the ADQ has dragged in genuinely good-hearted and interested, if misguided, political participants with the false promise of a new kind of politics. What they have delivered is deceit, apathy, and the entrenchment of reactionary politics for a province that once claimed to be a leader in progressing Canada.

This experience has taught me a lesson, though I'm not entirely sure if I've truly learned it yet: rhetoric and representation are only half of the great progressive political equation - the balance is policy. In other words, what is spewed out of the mouths of candidates may go far in renewing political interest in otherwise apathetic voters, but it must be met by tangible policies that support that rhetoric. This is a lesson my friends in the United States desperately need to ensure they have learned as the campaigning comes down to the wire. On the democratic side, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are pulling a little of the ol' ADQ 1-2. Clinton representing her policies in an unfaithful manner, Obama ensuring his rhetoric speaks louder than his policy proscriptions. On the Republican side, that well-known party of fear-mongering, expect John McCain to pull every populist trick (including claiming that the Democrats are populist) to connive his way into office.

Hate Speech, the Rule of Law, and Human Rights Commissions

Some time ago, I saw an episode of TVO's The Agenda on "Free Speech and Human Rights Commissions" which spurred me to write a comment, mainly in response to other comments posted shortly after the show aired. You can see a list of these comments, as well as a blog posting by the producer which got them started here. I never got around to posting my comment, mainly because I couldn't condense what I wanted to say into TVO's character limit, because I figured my comments would do much more harm than good, and simply because I was too riled up to think things through. I've decided to post those edited comments here, now that a little time has passed allowing me to gain some critical distance:


First off, I wish I had caught the first showing of this Agenda episode, as it sure seems to have attracted quite a lot of reactionary and quixotic defences of Canadian liberalism. As a product of said liberalism, through and through, but with enough sense and awareness to be considerate of the lived experiences of many others who are not, I thought I would make a comment regarding the "justice" of hate speech laws as enforced by human rights tribunals. Free speech is a vacuous concept to begin with. Though this argument is likely beyond the reach of the less pensive and more assertive, there has never been a word or concept that I have learned that did not ultimately come from someone else. To say that our speech is "free" is misguided, since we always speak within the necessarily restrictive context of our knowledge, and our language. If speech is not some abstract concept, some ideal to be garnered from upon high or to be internally extracted, but rather a socially embedded practice of negotiating relationships between individuals, it needs to be wielded with the conscious understanding of the impact that it may have upon those relationships. To claim that racist tracts, or any other form of hate speech, are fully protected by the law of "free" speech, is to raise that specific individual freedom above the freedom of the harmed group in the hierarchy of values.

The problem lies in the fact that group identities are not separate from individual identities in many cases. This point comes home to me consistently when Canadians attack American nationalism. Most do not have the intent of putting down the individuals that their attacks will ultimately be disseminated to; that they have this effect and that those people view them as attacks is pointed. Group identities do have deep meaning for people who identify with that group, and generalized attacks on one's race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, ability, etc. can have the same effect as when one is subjected to libel. This is especially the case when this form of 'libel' is so rampant that it translates into tangible structural discrimination from job markets, services or political opportunity, as was (and is) the case for many visible minorities in North America.

I am not a lawyer, but I study the law enough to have a working definition of "the rule of law" handily memorized. Gerald Frug, a noted Harvard law professor, claims that its primary function is to protect against the 'arbitrary exercise of power'. This may take the form of the usual suspects that come to mind (governments, corporate entities, interest groups, etc.), but what about when that entity is an entire culture? Indeed, Human Rights Commissions have been designed primarily with this latter construct in mind - when 'libel' is so widespread that everyone believes it, the victim of it has nowhere to turn for 'equal treatment before and under the law". Thus, to claim that these laws place a certain group of people 'above the law' completely obscures the unequal positions of various groups in society. It is the dirty secret of liberal societies that claim that everyone is equal, and yet refuse to ensure that this will be the case at the substantive level.

It is also disingenuous to claim that these commissions allow for the politically-motivated manipulation of "free" speech, if one also argues that there is some kind of apolitical set of laws we can enforce, as Ezra Levant claims. That the most ardent defenders of this line of thinking are white, male, and usually so absorbed in their own world view that they are deeply intolerant of alternatives (despite their claims to liberalism) is testimony to the interests that anti-hate speech laws threaten to challenge. Those hardcore believers in the "rule of law" should welcome the introduction of any law that further limits the scope of the arbitrary exercise of power. Instead, they are also the ones who most vociferously oppose it, since it challenges their own personal "enclaves of opportunity".

But one can ask a more simple question: if everyone agrees that racism et. al. are bad things, as all but the most extreme do publicly, then why should they fear laws or commissions that limit the public exercise of this hate speech? No one wants to use these words, or make these arguments, and if these commissions are able to engage with the concept of culture that liberal legal traditions with their bias on the individual are incapable of (or refuse to), then power should actually be exercised less arbitrarily. But in fact, hate speech is constantly being exercised and perpetuated by people all around the world - by members of groups with substantive power against those without it - and therein lies the reason why people like Ezra Levant fear these commissions so much. The cloak of "free" speech is convenient for preserving power relations, since they ensure that oppressive culture can be perpetuated through public discourse. This form of arbitrary power, or its exercise, may not be as easy to conceptualize as the individual, but its effects are equally debilitating for those whom if afflicts.


Now dormant on the Agenda's website, this debate must rage on. I am not against free speech in any way, but since I do believe in society and community (as tangible entities in conjuction with the individual), I also believe that the speaker must weigh just what effect their words will have - both directly and indirectly - more broadly. We all wield power with the words we speak, and we need to think to what ends we want to direct that power. As a member of the academy, I can muster considerable power and authority on some topics when I don my professional credentials. But because of this, I also realize that I have a lot of power to give up to others. As always, this issue, ultimately, must not be a debate about free speech, but a debate over who's values are reflected in public discourse and institutions.

Death of a Campaign

At the risk of revealing my obsession with the presidential primary season in the U.S., I'd like to draw attention to the collapse of Hillary Clinton's campaign. This race has certainly been a difficult one to pin down - for all observers I think. But as of last night I am able to make a projection (cue the cheesy CNN sound clip): Barack Obama will win the democratic primary, I repeat, Barack Obama will win the democratic nomination.

I didn't come to this conclusion by looking at the delegate numbers, or speculative assertions about super delegates, and certainly not by examining the poll numbers. Rather, it was by half-jokingly applying Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's "Five Stages of Grief" to the Clinton campaign. Let me enumerate each stage with a brief example.

1. Denial: Up until four or five months ago, Barack Obama was not on the pundit radar. When I first heard him speak some year and a half ago, I knew he would go places in U.S. politics, but I did not expect it to be so soon, or even so far. To use that disparaging term, he was not even the 'dark horse' in the democratic party. But when that quickly changed and the delegate numbers started coming in, Clinton acted, with her characteristic sense of entitlement, as if Obama was merely a fly that would buzz itself out in a short time. As recently as Super Tuesday, she believed, or at least portrayed the belief that Obama was not a force to be reckoned with.

2. Anger: Quickly after her first defeat, the Clinton machine became angry - who is this usurper of my rightful ascent to power? The slurs began to fly, most recently with the pre-Texas round of negativity. One might even frame her shedding of a tear prior to New Hampshire as a sign of internal anger that this just wasn't fair. She had big plans, good policies, a vision that deserves to be implemented. How could this happen?

3. Bargaining: When Obama passed her in total expected delegate count, advisors began deserting her campaign, and time was running out, she began to bargain. Just as one bargains with time to spare them from death, with considerable hubris, Hillary and Bill began proposing fantastical possibilities of a joint-ticket - with Obama on the second line. Obama, and the party leadership, quickly sped her along the road to the next stage when they flatly rejected such a proposal.

4. Depression: Most recently, Hillary has begun apologizing for all of the mistakes she made along the way. One could interpret this as an acceptance of loss, though this has not come formally or publicly yet. Rather, I see it as a kind of self-pitying that things could have been better and different, but they're not. It is impossible to predict these kind of things, but I expect Hillary to campaign with significantly less vigour then before.

5. Acceptance: I believe this is still yet to come, perhaps after the Pennsylvania primary, but of course, if may come sooner - or later.

This is hardly a faithful interpretation of the model, and I do it thoroughly from a lay perspective. Alternative analyses are certainly possible, and welcome. However, putting aside this lack of scientific rigour for a moment, this outline demonstrates one thing: that Hillary responded to her slow defeat the way someone does to something that they actually 'have' - a partner, a job, their own mortality. In true dynastic form, Clinton 'grieves' over something that she shouldn't presume to have had, but feels is her divine right. I'm not one to buy into the popular, sweeping assertions about politics in any country, in this case, the 'Bush-Clinton dynasty' argument. Still, if in the mind of Hillary, she viewed herself as the rightful 'heir' to the presidency, American politics has been saved from a dangerous turn towards further elitism.

Promise, Precaution and Preparedness: Obama and the Democratic Primary

I like Barack Obama - he appeals to my elitist demand for a candidate that can speak eloquently, and convey relatively complex ideas in an inspiring and forceful manner. As a believer in the power of discourse, this is a central quality that we should be looking for in any leader. He also, I believe, is unique in the history of modern U.S. politics in that his campaign rhetoric is rooted in grassroots organization. Yes, his platform consists of variations on a common theme - easy fix solutions provided by a Washington political class. But his speeches clearly foreshadow an era of renewed community organization and activism that America so desperately needs. This is not surprising, given his occupational biography, but the fact that this message seems to resonate so well with voters is. In an era of political apathy, of short-termism, of the paternal state or corporation advocating some kind of mild social responsibility, the long-dormant core of American culture is returning with renewed vigor.

All of his merits, as far as I'm concerned, make Barack Obama deserving of the democratic nomination, and ultimately the presidency of the United States. Experience in the well-oiled machine of Washington politics is non-essential, and the kinds of political tactics that a true outsider - a community activist - could bring to the White House might actually blind Washington lobbyists and career politicians in a stupor that should match their mentalities.

But watching his speech tonight made my detested inclination towards strategy kick in. As older generations seize power based on their age and rely on the hackneyed rhetoric of their parents, the recent trend has been towards cyclical politics, culture and (hopefully) economics. If we can accurately relate current politics to those of the past, where does Obama fit in? Is history likely to repeat itself?

One name stands out in comparison with Barack Obama - Jimmy Carter. In 1976, Jimmy Carter ran on a record quite similar to Barack Obama. He appealed to a dissatisfied electorate reeling from the malaise of Nixon and Ford and promised that, as an outsider to Washington, he would reform the dirty politics of the day. This is nothing new now, but at the time it struck a cord with voters, and they delivered a humble Baptist, naval lieutenant and peanut farmer the Democratic nomination, and ultimately the presidency. Carter's presidency is now well known - rising oil prices, stagflation, and ultimately the Iranian hostage crisis. He left office with a 25% approval rating, paving the way for Reagan (with a similar message and background) to seize the presidency in 1980.

One only needs to watch a few of Obama's speech to note some interesting similarities: the call for honesty, the cleanup of Washington, the "first" status (Carter was the first "deep" South candidate to win his party's nomination in over a hundred years). These comparisons to me are a moot point however. What interests (and worries) me is, given that Obama is in front runner status in my eyes for the presidency, will his story turn out like that of Carter?

The crisis that global warming presents looms large - any leader will have to deal with either the vomitous reactions of industry to regulation, or increasing environmental crises: neither will be popular. The price of oil has risen above $100 USD again, and shows no sign of declining precipitously. This will present a problem for any president tasked with crafting an energy policy for the 21st century. Certain foreign policy issues are likely to erupt, irrespective of the belligerence of American intent: Russia, Cuba, Pakistan, and many others that I am too tired to think about. Any way you cut it, the next five years are in no way 'Golden Years' for any candidate.

So my conclusion is honestly more of a question, echoing that of the last post. If Obama wins the nomination and the presidency, will he fumble like Carter? Personally, I think Barack Obama is a much more formidable candidate and person than Carter ever was. History constantly provides cues as to how we might act, and if any politician is to act on them, it will be Obama. While Carter is passionate and 'rational', I would not call him shrewd. Obama, on the other hand, seems to have much more than meets the eye. This belief may be the result of over-exposure to Obama and not to Carter, but still - there is something of the Spirit of 68' about Obama.

My concern should not be a sign that I am skeptical of Obama as a candidate - I always think it is beneficial to push the discourse as far towards humanity as possible when time allows - but rather it should be a signal indicating the need for preparation for America and the world. We must be prepared to utilize Obama the vessel, in America and elsewhere, if he wins the presidency, to achieve ends that will benefit all.

A Frank (not Ronald) Discussion of the Republican Primary Debates

The best thing anyone can do is pay close attention to something they have a general disdain for, and consider it, not with an 'objective' eye, but with the exclusion of the aspects that are most frustrating for them. For me, the California Republican debate fit that bill quite well, mostly because of the radical disconnect between the consciously crafted rhetoric of the Republican candidates and the utterly destructive consequences of Republican policies on the American working poor, to say nothing of the millions worldwide that have suffered at their hands over the years. So (recalling that I have waived any claims of objectivity) with the debates as my focal point, let me offer an alternative analysis to what will certainly be a massive spectacle in the coming 24 hours.

Putting everything aside, in my opinion, the big winner in this debate was Huckabee - when he had the opportunity to speak, he delivered a clear, concise and even passionate response. Both he and Paul, perhaps from their vantage points as the "future Republican nominee drop outs", gave heated and concerned responses to questions asked of them, or seized their own space to present points from their platforms. McCain was obviously the big loser in these debates, and as I write this, I will concurr with Amy Holmes' pointed comment on CNN's aftershow that he appeared "surly". To take that further, I saw his performance resembling that of a cocky candidate, drunk on the fruits of his endorsements. Nevertheless, CNN, eager to back "power", no matter its stripe, was quick to remedy his less than stellar performance in the aftermath of the debate.

Which brings me to a major point of contention with these debates. Both Huckabee and Paul at some point in the night mentioned that they would like to speak about the issues, rather than - in the words of Huckabee - be an "umpire at a ballgame". Unfortunately, neither of them ever got a chance to really "swing a few" themselves, with no thanks to the questioners. But an even bigger issue was the entire questioning format. With no rules, CNN was at the helm to dictate what kind of debate this would be. Their decision: bring out the talkshow. CNN consistently would ask questions of either McCain or Romney, and after hearing their response, instead of letting the other give their own response to the question, would ask them to respond to their competitors point. This is a practice that blatantly obscures the issues. Instead, it encouraged (even forced) the candidates into the kind of absurd futility of character attacks that the media thrives upon. I can say, from the perspective of someone who fights tooth and nail against the policies that Republican candidates generally advance, that I honestly felt bad for all of them tonight.

But beyond the format questions, the main point that stuck out to me was really the disjuncture about what the Republican party is really all about. Listening to the diverse narratives of all the candidates and the back and forth name-calling of being out of synch with the party, I was left wondering: what does the Republican party really stand for? I heard Huckabee talk about the fundamental equality of all life, no matter what or where it was, alongside Romney criticize any claim of potential legitimacy for non-"Americans" to a right to live a life they choose. I heard McCain talk about a military class that needs to be upheld above all else, alongside Ron Paul talk about an ideal of freedom, rooted in the "everyman", that is the core of the country's pride and success. These different - and often contradictory - political and moral values leave one wondering what the cohesive glue of the party really is now. Why, for one, continue to link the party to Ronald Reagan? Should he really be the main referent for the party?

This, more than anything, signalled to me the demise of Republican leadership in the next election - and I have consistently predicted a McCain victory in both the primary and the presidential contest since 2006. If the Republican party hopes to have any shot at winning a general election, they need to have a consistent strategy that either solidifies their base, or transcends it. As times change and the Reagan personality fades into black, and he is remembered for the policies that he really stood for, the party will need to rethink just who they stand for. My hopes are that they fail to do this, so that Americans will at least get a good decade of marginal economic benefits (living wage anyone?), and an entrenchment of a much more egalitarian political culture.

But I defer to you - how did you view the California debate? What about this Reagan legacy? Is the party as fractured as people claim?

Just Egg or the Whole Pie? American Media and the Colombian Hostage Situation

In an incident rarely so conspicuous, the mainstream American media was caught with egg on its face with regards to Venezuela.

The background: Chavez has been involved in hostage negotiation with Colombia's FARC for some time now. The belligerent government of Uribe has clearly demonstrated it has no interest in opening a dialogue with the FARC over the years, and would rather engage in spectacular telenovela style politics and military intervention in order to maintain its tenuous hold over the Colombian electorate, even while it shoves both hands into the public cookie jar. Since the Venezuelan government is obviously to the left of Uribe, and closer in ideological leanings to the FARC than the Colombian government, they offered to act as a more sympathetic intermediary that might be able to relate to the FARC, something that the traditional Colombian political parties had refused to do since La Violencia.

After long talks, a handover of some of the FARC hostages was scheduled over the New Year, but failed to materialize. The FARC cited Colombian military activity in the region where the handover was supposed to take place, and refused to meet. The major American media outlets, and consequently unthinking conservative and liberal bloggers, trumpeted this delay - one CNN article put it - as demonstrating the "limits" of the Chavez government. They recognized everything that I have here, and yet still chose to frame this incident in the most curious way that they did. To me, this either shows their complete ineptitude in understanding the South American dynamic, their blatant ideological leanings, or most likely, both.

Today, two hostages were freed with the help of Chavez. The most recent CNN article on the topic says nothing of Chavez's past "failures", though it does include a quote by one freed hostage, Clara Rojas, who thanked Chavez for "returning [her]... to life". How embarrassing it must be to conclude irrationally and prematurely that Chavez had failed, that somehow his integrity as the president of Venezuela had been challenged by his failure to succeed in work that he was effectively doing pro bono, only to find that he did succeed. There is nothing more satisfying when editorials by the elite masquerading as 'objective' news stories are exposed for what they really are. This happens continually with regards to Venezuela, for despite all of his faults, Chavez is an institutional socialist that has certainly learned from the mistakes of his predecessors. Rarely, however, does it happen so neatly.