The Filter Bubble: How Did You Get Here?

Once in a while I catch a glimpse of someone else's Facebook News Feed page and I am always surprised to see the content. Based on the fact that I regularly write about social justice issues on this blog it won't come as a surprise that I use Facebook to gather and disseminate politically relevant stories and information. Thus, my News Feed is full of political links. I easily forget that the internet experiences of other people are often very different from my own. The daily images and info that people find in their Facebook account will reflect their interests and activities and those of their network - which may not include feminist theory, political activism and world news.

Despite knowing that Facebook was tailoring its content to the individuals, I assumed that to some extent this practice was limited to advertising and news preferences. A Democracy Now interview with Eli Pariser about his new book, The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You, disrupted my view of how individual internet experiences differ. It also caused me to question how useful my attempts to "protect" myself were. I use an advertisement blocking application which helps filter out most of the crap companies are trying to use to sell things to me.

But I hadn't been aware of the extent of the internet filters and the virtual bubble that I could be in. After watching the interview with Pariser, I reflected on a recent experience doing research for this blog. I was trying to search for information on climate change deniers for a post and my Google searches were fruitless. Why wasn't I able to find information that conflicted with my beliefs? Google was likely trying to appease me and give me what I wanted to see.

Here is a TED Talk given by Pariser:

Pariser gives the example of doing a Google search with keywords such as "Egypt" and the different results one might get. On the Filter Bubble website, they also offer several examples. I decided to try this out myself:

This example leads me to why I think the filter bubble is dangerous for social justice oriented people and the people that tag their tweets with #p2 and #p2ca. The filter bubble is very divisive and results in people only accessing information that fits with their worldview. Without an understanding of what diverse groups of people are posting, tweeting, and blogging about, we will have a more difficult time communicating, cooperating and collaborating. And ultimately, I think that working together is the only thing that will move people forward.

Whether or not you are concerned about the social implications of the filter bubble, you are probably worried about how it might affect you personally. Well, you can "pop your filter bubble" using the clear instructions list 10 Things You Can Do from The Filter Bubble website.

Finally, take a moment to think: How did you get to this website? Let me know in the comments!

Not Feminist, eh?

There are many words I consider part of my identity, including feminist. It is a very loaded term. Since I was a young girl I knew that I was all for equal rights, but I shied away from being called a feminist, as many girls do, because of the stereotypes associated with the word. In this post I'm going to write about being called a feminist, denying you're a feminist, and introduce the website Not Feminist, eh?

Only in university did I embrace the term feminism (with its multiple and fluid definitions). In a Media and Feminist Studies course we started the semester with a whirlwind reading of Where the Girls Are: Growing up Female with the Mass Media by Susan Douglas. The whole book is a great read and especially relevant to anyone who was a girl in Canada or the US anytime in the second half of the 20^th century.

Chapter 12, titled "I’m not a Feminist, but…", resonated with me because only a couple of years before reading this I was definitely making statements about equality that began with that expression. The chapter discusses why women in younger generations have tended to distance themselves from the term. Often, women don't understand its meaning or don't want to be labelled as a feminist because of the negative connotations and the stereotypes associated with feminism. In class we addressed media representations of feminism as everything from dangerous to dead, and the myths that feminism is no longer needed, either because of its failure or because of its success.

Post-feminist theories help us understand how feminism is perceived in the Global North. In her book Gender and the Media, Rosalind Gill writes:

I want to argue that postfeminism [sic] is best understood not as an epistemological perspective, nor as a historical shift, and not (simply) as a backlash, in which its meanings are pre-specified. Rather, postfeminism should be conceived of as a sensibility, and postfeminist media culture should be our critical object the phenomenon which analysts must inquire into and interrogate. This approach does not require a static notion of authentic feminism as a comparison point, but instead is informed by postmodernist and constructionist perspectives and seeks to examine what is distinctive about contemporary articulations of gender in the media (254-255)

Post-feminism should be conceived as a sensibility… Today’s media culture has a distinctive postfeminist sensibility organized around choice, empowerment, self-surveillance, and sexual difference, and articulated in an ironic and knowing register in which feminism is simultaneously taken for granted and repudiated (271).

In her article "Post-feminism and Popular Culture", Angela McRobbie writes:

Post-feminism positively draws on and invokes feminism as that which can be taken into account, to suggest that equality is achieved, in order to install a whole repertoire of new meanings which emphasize that it is no longer needed, it is a spent force (215).

A couple of weeks ago I came across the website www.notracistbut.com, a recent project that makes racism more visible and calls into question whether we live in a post-racial society. www.whitewhine.com, another site with a somewhat problematic name, but similar purpose, calls attention to so-called “first world problems” – essentially problems that aren’t serious and generally only afflict affluent people in the Global North.

I read about the source of Not Racist, But… content and discovered OpenBook. Curious, I typed “feminism,” “feminists,” and “not feminist but” into the search engine, and Not Feminist, eh? was born.

The website highlights status updates that use “I’m not a feminist, but” to express a feminist perspective while avoiding the feminist label. It also compiles statements that express negative sentiments towards feminism, blame feminists for  specific or general problems in the world, or perpetuate stereotypes about feminists.

 

Stereotypes about feminists are problematic because they erase the differences of a diverse group of women. Furthermore, it's problematic to view all of these stereotypes as negative – is being masculine, pro-choice, or not shaving your legs a bad thing? No, of course not. So let's just keep that in mind.

There is a joke about feminists changing light bulbs that apparently went viral recently. The punch line varies but mostly claims that feminists “can’t change anything.”

This "answer" intrigues me because it hints that feminism is indeed relevant and needed, but that there is resistance to equality and change, and therefore attempts to ridicule feminists for (and discourage them from) trying to change the status quo. Post-feminism, anyone?

Not Feminist, eh?

Raping and Pillaging: Different Levels of IMF Exploitation

The rapid news cycle that we experience daily means that Dominique Strauss-Kahn (apparently aka DSK) and his alleged sexual attack on a hotel attendant in New York is no longer in the headlines. But the power that Strauss-Kahn represents and the enduring injustice of rape are still present in the world and are intrinsically connected.

DSK embodies power in a variety of ways: He is a white, heteronormative man from the Global North (France). He is university educated, and has held arguably (debatably?) respectable professional titles such as politician, economist and lawyer. Despite being part of the French Socialist Party, he has enjoyed the wealth and privileges that accompany these identities (presumably he was paid well by the International Monetary Fund (IMF)).

His identity carries so much social capital because of the complex relationships between entrenched hierarchies of race, class, gender, sex, sexual orientation, citizenship status, etc. And the power inequalities that favour men over women contribute to our global culture of rape. Many other power relations are implicated in this violent sexual interaction: he was European and she was African, he was rich and she was working for him in a service job.

At the international level, DSK has been a representative of the IMF, which has arguably used the power of the Global North to its advantage.

by Ted Rall, via AAEC

I just started reading "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," a biographical account of modern American empire by John Perkins. The comic above points to the figurative "raping and pillaging" of the world's resources by the elite of the world. In the Preface (I said I only just started...), Perkins describes some of the world's current predicaments, such as inequality, war and poverty. He offers an explanation for these issues:

Some would blame our current problems on an organized conspiracy. I wish it were so simple. Members of a conspiracy can be rooted out and brought to justice. This system, however, is fueled [sic] by something far more dangerous than conspiracy. It is driven not by a small band of men but by a concept that has become accepted as gospel: the idea that all economic growth benefits humankind and that the greater the growth, the more widespread the benefits. This belief also has a corollary: that those people who excel at stoking the fires of economic growth should be exalted and rewarded, while those born at the fringes are available for exploitation.

The concept is, of course, erroneous.

Exploitation, of course, takes many forms: economic, labour, and sexual, to name a few.

P.S. While editing this, I was listening to KPFA free speech radio (online) and unexpectedly heard a discussion about the DSK scandal. I encourage you to listen to their analysis. They also mention a change.org petition demanding justice in this case. You can access it here.

Women's Magazine: Memorial Day with Empathy
May 30, 2011 at 1:00pm

Click to listen (or download)

The Woman who Brought Down Gilles Duceppe

So the Globe has run an article featuring the Conservative who defeated Michael Ignatieff. It's an interesting read I suppose, but the person I'm really dying to hear about is Hélène Laverdière.

RE: Ignatieff. Maclean's covers it better than I can. His campaign was running out of steam that it never had to begin with. His loss was partly due to vote splitting which was a huge factor in Conservatives taking over Toronto. The news that he was losing his seat was shocking to me, but when CTV broke the news that Gilles Duceppe had been defeated in his own riding, my mind was completely blown.

I think it's safe to say that the NDP surge predicted by pollsters was met with hesitant enthusiasm/skepticism for more than a few reasons. First of all, the methodology of polling is imperfect. Moreover, learning of an NDP surge in Quebec could motivate voters in different directions (I do think it motivated Conservative voters for one thing). Not only that, but the NDP only held one seat in Quebec before this election, so I think it's safe to say they had a ways to go.

But boy, did they go there.

By the time I got down to watching election results, it was about 10:30 EST. So the first thing that flashed across my screen was the NDP declared as Official Opposition. This was one of my predicted election outcomes and I'm super excited to see what Jack Layton does from here.

Next up: Gilles Duceppe defeated.

Wait.

WHAT?!

It's one thing to say that Quebec is experiencing an orange surge. It's another thing entirely to bring down the once popular leader of the dominant party in Quebec for 20 years. Now my understanding is that Quebeckers voted, by and large, for the man and by extension the party, rather than the local candidate.

But in any case, I would really like us all to back off from Ruth Ellen Brosseau for a minute, and take a second look at Hélène Laverdière
Of all the seats in Quebec that could have been considered up for grabs in the 2011 election, arguably hers would not have been. However, the NDP found a damn good placeholder if they weren't expecting to win this seat. 

A previously unknown name in politics, Laverdière has worked as a foreign service officer for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, working in various cities around the world.

She has a PhD in sociology from the University of Bath in England.

She speaks English, French, Spanish, and a little bit of Chinese. 

Post election, she stated that, "I did not run against Gilles Duceppe, but for the NDP."

And best of all, she won by over 5,000 votes! Amazing. I already love and admire this woman. Her win, to me, proves that Canadians should feel proud to vote for whichever candidate or party they truly feel deserves to win. The underdog CAN come from behind!

Now if only Stephen Harper had been brought down in HIS riding, then we'd be laughing all the way to the bank.

ETA: The Globe and Mail did eventually run a feature on other new MPs including Helene Laverdiere - you can read it here.

A 'Slash and Burn' Approach: Stephen Harper's Razing of Canada's Social Programs

The list below is a compilation of organizations and programs that have been cancelled, or had funding cut/reduced during the time Harper has been Prime Minister of Canada. This list has been floating around the internet for a while and I planned on posting it before the election. I think it is just as relevant following the election because we know who will be governing Canada for the next four years and we know what they are capable of. So this is a reminder of what has happened under the Harper government.

It is also a warning of what can happen in Ottawa - especially if the leaders that are paid by Canadian citizens to represent us are not held accountable. And who is going to hold them accountable? It'll have to be the electorate and the activists and the average citizens. It will also have to be the marginalized and their allies. Those of us with privilege - whether Whiteness, fluency in English or French, hetero-normative identity, university education or computer literacy - have a responsibility to recognize our social capital and use it to improve our society.

I do not take credit for compiling the list. I found several versions of the list, so I combined and cross-referenced them to avoid repetition. I also added the location of the organization and its website when relevant/possible. If you know who deserves credit for the list, and/or if you know of any organization or program that should (or shouldn't) be on this list, let me know in the comments!

Note: Obviously, the government cannot fund everything and my point is not that the government should fund everything. While I do think there were ideological motives behind the funding decisions, I admit that some cuts made were reasonable (especially in 2006). This CBC News page offers analysis of the cuts that reveals that some funding was unused and outdated (I didn't bother adding most of those to the list below).

To provide some perspective, I've categorized these organizations to help show what types of programs have lost funding. This is not scientific, but I did try to be consistent. Since most organizations address more than one issue ('cuz you know, all forms of oppression or marginalization are connected), the numbers probably won't add up.

 Women --- Social Justice --- Immigrants/Marginalized Communities --- Policy Research/Legal Issues --- General Community Services --- Education --- First Nations --- International Development ---
 Children/Child Care --- Employment --- Anti-racism/Multiculturalism ---
 Climate/Environment --- Health Care --- Internet Access 

Legend:  Yellow (<5)   Orange (5-10)   Pink (11-15)   Purple (15<) 

Now, onto the list. Under Harper's Regime (2006-2011) the following has occurred:

ORGANIZATIONS
Numerous community organizations, agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), research bodies and programs have been cancelled, or had their funding cut or dramatically decreased:

A
Aboriginal Healing Foundation
Action travail des femmes (Quebec)
Alberta Network of Immigrant Women
Alternatives (Quebec)
Association féminine d’éducation et d’action sociale (AFEAS) (Quebec)

B
Bloor Information and Life Skills Centre (Toronto, ON)
Brampton Neighbourhood Services (Ontario)

C
Canadian Arab Federation
Canadian Child Care Federation
Canadian Council for International Co-operation
Canadian Council on Learning
Canadian Council on Social Development
Canadian Heritage Centre for Research and Information on Canada
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) Office of Democratic Governance
Canadian Labour Business Centre
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Canada Policy Research Networks
Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women
Canada School of Public Service
International Programs - Canadian Teachers' Federation
Canadian Volunteerism Initiative
Centre de documentation sur l’éducation des adultes et la condition feminine (Quebec)
Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA)
Centre for Spanish Speaking Peoples (Toronto, ON)
Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada 
Childcare Resource and Research Unit
Climate Action Network
Community Access Program
Community Action Resource Centre (CARC) (Toronto, ON)
Conseil d’intervention pour l’accès des femmes au travail (CIAFT)
Court Challenges Program (except language rights and legacy cases)
Court Commission of Canada

D
Davenport-Perth Neighbourhood Centre (Toronto, ON)
Democracy Council
Democracy Unit - Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT)
 
E
Elspeth Heyworth Centre for Women
Environment: Youth International Internship Program 
Eritrean Canadian Community Centre of Metropolitan Toronto
Ethiopian Association in the Greater Toronto Area and Surrounding Regions
 
F
Feminists for Just and Equitable Public Policy (FemJEPP) (Nova Scotia)
First Nations Child and Family Caring Society
First Nations and Inuit Tobacco Control Program (Health Canada)
Forum of Federations
 
G
Global Environmental Monitoring System
 
H
Health Canada - Policy Research Program
Health Canada - Medical Marijuana Research Program

I
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services (Peel)
International Planned Parenthood Federation
Immigrants Settlement and Adaptation Program (ISAP) - Afghan Association of Ontario (Toronto, ON) 
 
K
KAIROS (of the infamous Bev Oda scandal)

L
Law Commission of Canada

M
Mada Al-Carmel Arab Centre
Marie Stopes International
MATCH International
Museum Assistance Program - Canadian Heritage
 
N
National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL)
Native Women’s Association of Canada
Natural Resources Canada - Enhancing Resilience in a Changing Climate (ERCC) 
New Brunswick Coalition for Pay Equity
Northwood Neighbourhood Services (Toronto, ON)
 
O
Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses (OAITH)
Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care
Ottawa Chinese Community Services Centre

P
Pride Toronto
 
R
Réseau des Tables régionales de groupes de femmes du Québec
Riverdale Women’s Centre in Toronto
Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee

S
Sierra Club of British Columbia
Sisters in Spirit - NWAC
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
South Asian Women’s Centre
SpeciaLink
Statistics Canada Long-Form Census
Status of Women

T
Technology Partnerships Canada (TPC) - Industrial Technologies Canada
Tropicana Community Services

W
Womanspace Resource Centre (Alberta)
Women’s Innovative Justice Initiative (Nova Scotia)
Women’s Legal Action and Education Fund
Workplace Equity/Employment Equity Program
 
Y
York South-Weston Community Services Centre (Toronto, ON)
Youth Employment Strategy Programs - Service Canada



P.S. To read about what others have said/done about the cuts and see the lists I cross-referenced, check out these sites: Rewind the Cuts, April Reign, mirabile dictu, JJ World Adventures and Rabble

Canada: What Does Our Democracy Look Like?

I am voting this election. And I hope that if you’re eligible to vote that you will too.

But I know that my vote is relatively benign because I am voting in a safe Liberal riding. Don’t get me wrong: I’m very grateful that I’m not in a safe Conservative riding. But still, it is mildly disheartening to know that my vote doesn’t really count. I know that voting is only one way to participate in a democracy. In fact, it is really a small part of it and takes place much less frequently in some other nations. I have increasingly put effort into other actions over the past few years, like calling and writing to my Member of Parliament (MP), party leaders, ministers, and the Prime Minister (PM) himself, to tell them what matters to me.

Some Canadians live in ridings in which there is a close race between the candidates and can make a big difference by casting their vote this election. Sites like 17votes and Project Democracy demonstrate how as few as 17 votes can decide who wins a riding. So, you should all go VOTE! But ultimately, my vote won’t change anything in my riding. My vote can help one of the political parties receive funding in the future (unless Harper scraps that law in his quest for autarchy). I’ve considered some strategic voting initiatives such as Vote Pair and Vote Swap, but since I need to mail in my special ballot, I am running out of time to find a match. In sum, I've realized that simply casting a vote on election day is not enough and I've been considering others ways to be democratically engaged.

I’ve been thinking about what our democracy looks like and have decided that we need to change. One change that is desperately needed in order to ensure more votes count: electoral reform! There are organizations working towards this goal, such as Fair Vote Canada. We should all learn more about the issue, then get involved and support them in order to make more of our votes count. Electoral reform would also help combat so-called “voter apathy”. Here’s a new approach to the idea of apathy:

In this TEDTalk, Meslin presents a compelling explanation for “apathy”, claiming that inaction is often due to multiple obstacles and barriers in society.

While electoral reform is important, we need to rethink what is happening between election campaigns. Canadians need to see voting as only a part of democracy and need to take action in other ways. We need to call our MPs, email our party leaders and contact relevant ministers. We need to protest, sign petitions and write to our newspapers regarding issues that matter to us and our neighbours. There are numerous other ways to get involved on a local level, such as joining neighbourhood associations, participating in community events and your municipal government, and engaging in your community. While these are all great ways to get involved, for the purpose of this post, I'm focusing specifically on federal politics.

Social media is the tool that youth (among other Canadians) are currently using to express themselves. We are using the internet to to spark change, spread information, support organizations and encourage each other. Among other initiatives: vote mobs, songs, tweets, emails, blogs, YouTube, websites, and comics. It’s all pretty awesome.

Leadnow’s Declaration of Change showed that Canadians are interested in getting involved. Participants indicated a desire for more direct avenues to participate in our democracy:

• Create an open government plan to increase transparency and accountability

• Initiate a citizen-led process for a referendum on electoral reform

• Make it easier for people to participate directly in government decision-making

So yes, the movement to get out the vote on May 2 is important. But what if Canadians also called and wrote to their MPs? What if we did this not just before, but also AFTER the election. What if we wrote to our local newspapers as a way to share our opinions with others in our communities? It’s probably much easier for politicians like Stephen Harper when the electorate doesn’t offer many loud and/or united voices. So, let’s make it difficult. Social media is only the first step (albeit a significant one). 
We need to engage with people outside of our relatively progressive and informed youth/student community. We need to make this mainstream.

Intellectual Noam Chomsky has been critical of the expression “speak truth to power” and I think his reasoning should inform the movement to improve our democracy in Canada.

Chomsky elaborated in a 2010 interview in response to the questions: "Finally, why have you criticised the formula 'to speak truth to power,' which was used by the late Edward Said to describe the role of intellectuals?"

That's actually a Quaker slogan, and I like the Quakers and I do a lot of things with them, but I don't agree with the slogan. First of all, you don't have to speak truth to power, because they know it already. And secondly, you don't speak truth to anybody, that's too arrogant. What you do is join with people and try to find the truth, so you listen to them and tell them what you think and so on, and you try to encourage people to think for themselves.

The ones you are concerned with are the victims, not the powerful, so the slogan ought to be to engage with the powerless and help them and help yourself to find the truth. It's not an easy slogan to formulate in five words, but I think it's the right one.

So while we can call out corporations and politicians, we need to speak to people. We should definitely tell politicians what to do since they work for the electorate. But we need to speak to, and learn from, each other. We especially need to engage with those Canadians who aren’t likely to read posts about #cndpoli or be tweeting about the #elxn41.

As I finish writing this post, I’ve found a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Predictably this event appeared in my Facebook News Feed: I Pledge to Talk ShitHarperDid.com. (For those who are unfamiliar with this site, check out this post from last week or go straight to the source). The event calls for participants to not only tweet and post about politics (specifically Harper’s transgressions), but to actually TALK about it in real life. Below is text directly from the event:

We've already gone viral on the internet, now it's time to go viral on the original internet, IE. real life.

✔STEP.1

Pledge that every day between now and May.2nd you will tell a friend, family member or stranger one thing Stephen Harper has done, which you consider to be unacceptable.

✔STEP.2

Tell us about conversations you've had by sharing your experience on the event wall.

✔STEP.3

Invite your friends to this event!

✔STEP.4*

VOTE! Fri. Apr.22 / Sat.Apr.23 / Mon.Apr.25 / Mon.May.2

We should all do this all the time! Let’s talk about Harper. Let’s also talk about Ignatieff, Layton, May and Duceppe. Let’s talk about our local MPs, electoral reform, climate change and war. Let’s be part of more than a voter movement: let’s take part in some extra-ordinary direct democracy!

And for your viewing enjoyment, the latest video from ShitHarperDid.com:

"Stephen Harper is an Evil Astronaut" reminds us why we’re currently holding an election.

* There is still time to vote by special ballot (inside or outside Canada).

Everybody's Suddenly Talking about the Youth Vote

In the same way you can tell that Conservatives don't think they can win in my riding, it seems clear to me that political parties in general don't expect youth voters to turn out.

On one hand, we get accused of being apathetic (in fact I accuse myself). But on the other hand, I hope that politicians will find that youth voters are going to vote this year. I really have a good feeling about it. I know that's no Nanos poll accurate within 1.9 percentage points and I'm not advocating myself as a political forecaster. And I may be biased by being slightly older this time around. But it seems as though the people around me who are in my age group are more politically interested than in the last few elections.

I've been talking politics a LOT with a lot of different people. I've been seeing other people around me - mainly in the form of distant Facebook acquaintances - do the same. Yesterday I had an intense political conversation while drinking beer in a park on the way to a bar. I had another completely different conversation about politics IN the bar, with some guy I didn't really know! Both conversations were heated and intense and totally awesome. On top of that, the girl I was with took an Olivia Chow sign from a lawn (wow I'm really incriminating myself in this post aren't I?) and we got tons of hollers! The bouncer seemed to be concerned about whether he should let us reprobates into the bar given the legal implications of sign poaching. But eventually he said "As long as you're not voting Conservative" and waved us on. 

Not to mention we've got these vote mob thingys happening.

Even media outlets have started taking notice.

It gives me hope.

2011 has been a crazy year so far. People all over the world are creating political change. In a way, Canadians are deeply entrenched in a dysfunctional political system as well. Don't get me wrong, I seriously respect that I am extremely fortunate to live in a democracy - it's the best we've got. But we could still be doing a lot better.

Two years ago we saw our neighbours to the south elect Obama. I continue to be an insane Obama fangirl, although the U.S. are definitely still struggling in a rough patch. And okay, we don't have an Obama figure of our own but what we do have is choice! We don't just have to pick the lesser of two evils - it's more likely that there is a party with at least some policies we like (even if we're seeing a lot more politics than policy in this election). 

Further, youth tend to be less set in their ways – and therefore more open-minded to the choices that a multiple party system provides. At this point in the campaign, I’m still open to voting Liberal, Green, or NDP. Any of those parties could woo me. I would like to talk more about the campaign promises that are geared towards us and whether they hold weight or not (it would be a good educational opportunity for me), but to me it's clear that we are an afterthought. And hey, maybe this election we'll have an abysmal 30% turnout again, and politicians and politicos will continue to ignore young voters.

This brings me back to my original point, and yes I know it took a while to get here. I'm sure you could list a variety of reasons why parties don't appeal to young voters as much as say, all of this insane hoopla ha about immigrant votes and middle-class votes. I mean, Harper's just being realistic, for one. But they're wrong to ignore us because I'm undecided in this election, and I don't think I'm alone. 

The way I see it is that we can create change by proving that we are an engaged and intelligent electorate. Maybe not this election round, because the platforms have been released. But if we get out there and vote this year, politicians will be more likely to take our views more seriously the next time around! 

Then again, if we turn out and vote, who knows what our influence could be! Who knows, maybe we could still turn the tide in this election.

People our age are literally dying worldwide to gain the rights we take for granted. So people. Specifically young people. I'm serious here. Get out there, get informed, and vote!

We can make our voices be heard. We can, and we should, VOTE!

---

ShitHarperDid.com: "There are better options this election"

This website is going viral and we're going to do out part to spread the word. 

You may have already seen some videos that are not of celebrities promoting the website on YouTube. I appreciated the Canadian celebrity name-dropping (yeah, Rita MacNeil!). Also, there's a cute dog in the Ryan Gosling one.

Shit Harper Did offers quotes and tidbits of information about Harper's policy decisions. It also links to a news source for each piece of info, offering a form of internet citation and an opportunity to read up on anything that catches your eye.

Something that caught our attention, but wasn't necessarily surprising, was this quote:

We also have no history of colonialism. So we have all of the things that many people admire about the great powers but none of the things that threaten or bother them.
(Harper at the 2009 G20)

Well, actually Mr. Harper, there were people living on "Canadian" soil when the Europeans got here. And, white Canadians benefited from British colonialism throughout our history. Just thought you should know.

Either way, at the bottom of the site, they remind Canadians that: 

"There are better options this election."

Agreed.

P.S. www.shitharperdid.com has this amazing sketch of Harper with a kitten.

Adorable? Creepy? You tell me.

Why I Dislike Harper: A Walk Down Memory Lane with Stephen Harper’s Conservatives

I don’t like Stephen Harper. But why, you ask?

Ever since the 2006 federal election, I have been creeped out by Stephen Harper’s attempts to smile and I know I’m not the only one. Aside from suspicions about his diet of babies and/or kittens, or the rumour that he is a robot (both literally AND figuratively) with a thirst for oil, I really don’t think that Harper is a good representative for Canada.

I hope that Canadians won’t forget the things Harper and his minority governments have said and done. I also hope that the youth will show up to vote on May 2nd and elect Members of Parliament (MPs) from parties that represent our values. In my opinion, Harper has been systemically attacking and/or ignoring things that many Canadians value (such as equality for women and same-sex couples, and climate change). Regardless of his creepy smile and robotic demeanor, I don’t like Harper’s policies or approaches to pretty much anything. Here’s a reminder of what Harper represents:

Harper is anti-same sex marriage

Harper proposed re-opening the debate on same sex marriage after being elected in 2006. The legislation legalizing same-sex marriage passed in 2006 and the debate was not re-opened. Score one for equality.

Here is a short clip of Stephen Harper speaking at a heteropatriarchal rally:

Harper shows disregard for democracy

Harper and his party have not only shown contempt for parliament. Over the past five years, and even in the current election campaign, the anti-democratic sentiment has been prevalent. Harper has prorogued parliament twice, and more recently has further limited the media’s access to him, allowing only a handful of questions from journalists. And in 1984 fashion, people have been denied access/removed from Harper’s campaign events because they were on lists related to their private activities. Additionally, the conservative smear campaign of coalitions is just ridiculous; he just doesn’t want to cooperate. Although no coalition exists between Canadian political parties, coalitions are totally legitimate forms of government.  Ever heard of Europe?

from Impolitical

Harper is not green

The Conservatives have been systematic in their avoidance of committing to environmental action. This is not very surprising considering their ties to the oil-producing province of Alberta. By not purchasing carbon off-sets for their campaign travel, they are not even pretending to care. Still, the fact is they barely acknowledge anything related to the environment in their platform, just as they barely acknowledge Copenhagen (except when Obama was involved). Finally, in 2007, Harper claimed that the “Kyoto [Accord] is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations."

Harper dislikes socialism

Despite having led our notoriously socialist country for five years, Harper said in 2005 that he believed that “all taxes are bad.” So according to Harper, redistribution of wealth, which aims to ensure access to health care and other services for all Canadians, is bad? Well, Harper did say that “Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it.” Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff are both warning Canadians that Harper’s budget does NOT include funding for health care past 2014. Isn’t universal health care a source of pride for Canadians? When did socialism become a bad thing?

Harper doesn’t like women

There have been a number of anti-women policy changes and legislation introduced during Harper’s reign, including (but not limited to): cutting funding to the Status of Women and eliminating women’s right to pay equity. You can read more about the systematic attack on women in this great post from The F Word.

Harper doesn’t want marijuana legalized

Awkward performance of a Beatles song about getting high aside, Harper’s Conservatives are the only major party which “strongly agrees” that possession of marijuana should be a criminal offence. This is obviously not the most important issue, but it reflects the values of this party. Less people in jail for smoking a joint, taking power away from drug cartels, eventually being able to regulate and tax marijuana: these are possibilities with all of the other parties.

Militarizing Canada

Additionally, Harper seems to subscribe to the FOX News style fear mongering typically associated with the Right in the USA, such as the Tea Party. The Conservative platform clearly expressed their worldview and their vision for Canada. There are many more issues that trouble me about the Conservative party. According to them, Canadians should be more afraid of both terrorists and of each other. We should re-implement terrorism legislation and counter-terrorism legislation. Also, we need to build $10 billion worth of mega-prisons. We should further militarize Canada, at home (G20, anyone?) and abroad (billions on fighter jets).

Declaration for Change

Recently, Canadians have contributed their opinions to a people powered movement for political change in Canada. Lead Now compiled the top priorities of thousands of participants into a single Declaration for Change which is summarized on their website as a “call for political cooperation to build a stronger democracy that protects our environment, creates economic opportunity while increasing equality, and guarantees that everyone receives the care they need.”

Although Canadian society is certainly not perfect, I believe that many Canadians fundamentally desire to have an accepting, diverse, peaceful nation. I seriously doubt that Stephen Harper is going to lead Canada towards any of the goals stated in the Declaration of Change. I encourage all Canadians to read the non-partisan declaration and sign it if you think it represents what you want for Canada.

I’ll concede that the Conservative platform for the 2011 election includes “Invest in renewable energy, energy efficiency and home retrofits.” The only other objective that the Conservatives have seriously pursued in the past was to “Create an open government plan to increase transparency and accountability.” They’ve had several shots at openness. And they’ve consistently missed.