Comment 100745

By Joshua (registered) | Posted April 30, 2014 at 22:50:53

With the recent repeal of the more difficult clauses of C-23, is the legislation more palatable to the voting public? Part of the problem is that we deal in such large, abstracted terms, such as the voting public, that we cannot consider what these terms do to political discourse. We can see the effects of such legislation on the ground, or envision what those effects could be, at the very least, but the movement of parliamentary democracy is, of necessity, very slow: discussion, deliberation, debate all take time and a rushed annual general meeting leaves some scratching their heads and others frustrated.

As scrap's comments indicate, it is an echo of Christopher Lasch's work and idea that neither the language of left, right, nor centre politics matter anymore; all are pushing some measure of capitalist acquiescence, some amelioration of the waged economy. None is pushing on the ideas that more vehicles on the road increase pedestrian deaths (at least the Liberal Party of Canada is addressing public transit issues in a meaningful fashion, as their purported budget indicates); none is pushing on the ideas that more vehicles add pollution of all kinds, whether aural, visual, or of the commons (be it air, earth, or water), to our city and its least. No one political party is envisioning a different path; for example, a settlement of treaty rights and land claims, some clear movement toward the restoration of the Haldimand Tract of six miles on either side of the Grand River from mouth to end, swallowing Kitchener and Cambridge whole. What I see in the mornings is hundreds of lone-driver vehicles along Fennell Avenue East at Warren and Hoover Avenues and empty buses. I climb on the 'bus.

Comment edited by Joshua on 2014-04-30 22:51:43

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds