|
|
#740 - 05/15/08 06:11 AM
Public sector unions' campaign
|
Karin Litzcke
journeyman
Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 69
Loc: Vancouver, BC
|
In today's Sun there is a full page ad by a whole raft of BC public sector unions including the BCTF. They are denouncing "the BC government's new election rules" as an "unprecedented attack on freedom of speech in our province." They go on to explain that these rules "severely restrict the ability of any organization to speak out on behalf of seniors, students, children, patients, resource communities, working families, the vulnerable or the environment." "They impose severe limits on advertising and communications on any public issue... until after the May 2009 election."
Note the phrase, "any organization."
Yet the ad's headline reads "Gordon CAMPBELL wants YOU to just SHUT UP." The ad is accompanied by a photo of an individual with a taped mouth. And the subhead is "Campbell's new election rules censor, silence and intimidate anyone concerned about his government's policies."
Note the word "anyone."
For me, having been threatened with a defamation lawsuit by the BCTF for writing an article that failed to flatter the BCTF, this ad represents a breathtaking level of hypocrisy. But it's also so patently intended to be misleading - that is, to confuse the limitation of organizational freedom of speech with that of individual freedom of speech - that one can't help but approve of the legislation - sight unseen - rather than join these organizations in their apparent outrage.
In fact, if we are really to be given a provincial election without being battered by advertising in which the public sector unions try to tell us what to think and to vote in their interests rather than our own, I'll be thanking my lucky stars. Of course if the legislation limits my own freedom of speech, I'll be outraged myself, but... call me an optimist... this ad doesn't lead me to fear that.
I suppose it is possible that someday, by accident, these organizations and I will see eye to eye on something - but somehow I doubt this is the item!
But then, I am an individual, not Borg.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#750 - 05/21/08 11:54 AM
Re: Public sector unions' campaign
[Re: Katherine Wagner]
|
Katherine Wagner
member
Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 155
Loc: British Columbia
|
No one can accuse John Martin of being left wing. Here is what he has to say about the gag law.
Gag law insults citizens
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#751 - 05/21/08 02:20 PM
Re: Public sector unions' campaign
[Re: Katherine Wagner]
|
Karin Litzcke
journeyman
Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 69
Loc: Vancouver, BC
|
What does not seem to factor into the commentary is that those being gagged by this law have been holding gags over the rest of our mouths for decades. If the law gags the gagger, is it still a gag law?
The dialogue on education is so effectively controlled by these third party organizations that it is impossible for individual points of view to get either credibility or airtime. Parents and others think that they are articulating their own points of view but they are only parroting or opposing the organizational views - being either sheep or goats. And actually, the new law probably won't change that fact. The media functions as little more than a press agent for these unions; most news stories about bureaucracy and public policy, in education and elsewhere, are either responses to union press releases or include the unions' viewpoint as if it were expert commentary, and its prominence both shapes the dialogue and renders other views politically incorrect. Ever hear a talk show about education that didn't include the union? Or that wasn't on an issue that the union has a position about? That apparent conduit to media won't shut down as a result of this law - public policy discussions in the media will still be filtered through the lens of union opinion. And people like us, who want to discuss experiences that individuals are actually having in areas of public policy, will continue to be irrelevant - or threatened, as per Heather's latest announcement about the site.
So while the intent of the law strikes me as being more anti-gag than gag, I don't think it will hand control over to individual members of the public. I also don't think that focussing on election time captures the places or ways that these organizations do the most damage.
Even the fact that we are discussing this as a "gag law" and lining up as pro/anti is to limit our discussion to a framework created by the unions.
Why not frame it our own way... for example, how would you structure public policy dialogue to best reflect individual experience? Or something to that effect.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#755 - 05/22/08 06:54 PM
Re: Public sector unions' campaign
[Re: Katherine Wagner]
|
Karin Litzcke
journeyman
Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 69
Loc: Vancouver, BC
|
I also believe a variety of viewpoints are reflected in the media.
Katherine, I beg to differ again, I'm afraid. Advertisers control what viewpoints are expressed in the media. It is an indirect and sometimes subtle form of control, but it works - it kept information about the health effects of smoking out of circulation for many years, if I recall correctly.
The fact that unions are big advertisers very likely affects what is printed about unions and about education specifically. Consider what the gag ad was worth. I don't think it's an accident that no views opposing that ad have appeared in the media - at least not that I've seen.
I was told by one local media outlet a few years ago that the BCTF would not advertise with them if they printed my work. And consider that, although there are reporters who know about our site, no one has written about what we're doing.
Not all parents think alike and just because a parents view - expressed publicly - may line up with this group or that group does not mean they do not hold the view honestly and after careful consideration....or not, that is their right in our society.
I entirely respect anyone's right to have opposing views to mine but when massive recruitment campaigns precede the acquisition of those views I am afraid I remain skeptical of their authenticity. Furthermore, when those views incorporate an element of hatred, as most anti-FSA views do of the Fraser Institute and often of the government itself, then I consider it an obligation to question them (I have no particular affiliation with either group but a constitutional aversion to hatred). Of course everyone has the right to succumb to propaganda. But not to pass it on.
Diversity of opinion and the right to express that diversity is a hallmark of democracy. I do not believe this is an issue with clear political delineations within a spectrum of democratic belief systems.
My benchmark for whether a democratic balance exists is how views which depart from the existing paradigm are treated. A democracy is something that has to be consciously protected all the time on all fronts, and to do so requires a fully conscious scrutiny of all complaints [edit: and of all claims of democratic legitimacy]. I therefore don't object to the dialogue at all... but wait, there is no dialogue. I seem to be all alone in opposition.
The media's unanimous screeching does not qualify in my mind as being defensive of democracy. Could it be that the tactic of imposing spending limits will exert a downward pressure on advertising rates? After all, the effect of the legislation can be entirely neutralized if advertising rates drop so that the usual amount of advertising can be done within those spending limits. I'd invite the media to put its money where its mouth is.
And since that would put advertising within reach of more groups and even some individuals, that would be more democratic, and would render media outlets less constrained to editorialize within the boundaries of certain viewpoints. Were that the case, I could bear the unions' ads with equanimity.
Edited by Karin Litzcke (05/22/08 10:59 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#758 - 05/23/08 11:34 AM
Re: Public sector unions' campaign
[Re: Karin Litzcke]
|
Katherine Wagner
member
Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 155
Loc: British Columbia
|
I feel there are two (at least) separate issues here.
The first is the enactment of a law which unilaterally limits pre-election advertising for a period of five months - regardless of who is doing the advertising.
The second is the power and influence of unions.
The issue of union influence is a complicated one because essentially we all have the right to organize and have a common voice.
Unions have just been very successful at it, in part because of other laws I don't agree with. It is those laws that need addressing (in my opinion) rather than trying to treat the symptoms (in this case with a sweeping limit on free speech).
Two that come to mind. Mandatory membership and tax deductions for dues beyond what is required to negotiate contracts and interact directly with the employer.
On the latter, I am not suggesting unions can't set whatever dues they want, I am suggesting there needs to be a narrower scope of what can be collected tax free because, in effect, Canadians are picking up part of the tab.
When I look at the limits imposed on charities for spending on anything which is "political" - ie. trying to influence gov't, I wonder if a similar limit for the portion of union dues which are tax free would be appropriate.
I am not all that familiar with how the tax free status works right now - I know there isn't any tax deducted at source but I am not sure if the unions pay tax. So, perhaps I am wrong and union dues are actually taxed at some point.
If someone knows, please post.
The media discussion is also, to my mind, a much broader one. What Karin has posted is essentially what I hear from supporters of state run public radio and tv. I am not sure the reality has fit the ideal.
I do, however, believe technology - particularly the internet - is proving to be a great leveler of influence. I think we are just beginning to see the potential. (Ask young people where they get the majority of their news and information? Traditional media are not high on the list).
Katherine
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#759 - 05/23/08 06:10 PM
Re: Public sector unions' campaign
[Re: Katherine Wagner]
|
Karin Litzcke
journeyman
Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 69
Loc: Vancouver, BC
|
That's a perfectly logical breakdown and I can find many items in it to agree with and learn from. Bringing in the issue of so-called public broadcasters adds an interesting element. The tax aspect is new territory for me, but as I am involved in another type of organization that enjoys tax exemption and pushes the boundaries on just how justified that is, namely co-operatives, I see the point.
I suspect if we addressed all those flawed foundational issues, no election advertising rules would be necessary. However, on the whole I think some rules are necessary... if only to allow us to observe the behaviour of organizations in making them and responding to them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#760 - 05/24/08 05:29 AM
Re: Public sector unions' campaign
[Re: Karin Litzcke]
|
Dawna
newbie
Registered: 10/18/07
Posts: 46
|
http://www.caj.ca./
Hi, I was told about this yesterday and thought that you would be interested Karin. Click on the link and it will tell you all about it. Especially now that the "gag law" is around the corner. These journalists might shed some light on the matter and it would be interesting to find out their points of view.
You know, it's funny that we didn't get an injunction on our case, but we were sued for defamation. They silence you one way or another. I am just sitting back and waiting until I go public about everything, until then, I am waiting until some of my irons are out of the fire.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#761 - 05/25/08 08:11 AM
Re: Public sector unions' campaign
[Re: Dawna]
|
Karin Litzcke
journeyman
Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 69
Loc: Vancouver, BC
|
Was it the article on editorial independence that you meant on that page, or something else? This one is promising in that it does name the problems.
http://www.caj.ca./principles/papers/
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote from Andrew Nikiforuk's "If learning is so natural, why am I in school?"
"Barbara Bateman is one of the continent's leading authorities on "academic child abuse," the "use of practices that cause unnecessary failure in foundation skills and knowledge areas. When school boards ignore the research that identifies how to teach virtually all children, they engage in abuse."
|
|
|
The Schools We Need
