us on them

Megaphone Magazine September 30,08:
Canwest sues Palestinian activists for parody

For putting out a Vancouver Sun parody issue in June 2007, members of the Palestine Media Collective are being sued by Canwest for trademark infringement. The lawsuit targets the unapproved use of the Vancouver Sun logo, which the satirists reproduced all-too accurately – but the case raises serious issues about free speech.

Last summer the papers, which were distributed around the Lower Mainland, took aim at Canwest for biased reporting on the on-going conflict in Israel and Palestine. Along with a number of daily and community papers across Canada, Canwest owns the Sun, the Province, the National Post, the Vancouver Courier and Global TV, which is run by the Asper family.

The parody, created by local artists Gordon Murray and Carel Moiseiwitch, confronted the public with questions about how the “truth” about this conflict is defined by newspaper editors and publishers. The papers were distributed on the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War and featured headlines such as, “Celebrating 40 Years of Civilising the West Bank” and “Study Shows Truth Biased Against Israel.”
In our media-savvy culture, readers are accustomed to ‘spin’ and buzzword reporting of complex issues. Words such as “terrorist” and “freedom fighter” can be interchanged, depending on the editor’s perspective. Canwest’s position on the Israel/Palestine issue has been made quite clear. In 2003, Canwest CEO Israel Asper (now deceased) was quoted in a Jerusalem paper stating, “In all of our newspapers… we have a very pro-Israeli position… we are the strongest supporter of Israel in Canada.”

All of which makes the creative effort by Murray and Moiseiwitch a relevant and effective way to promote debate about the media’s coverage of a controversial subject.

But if imitation is the best form of flattery, Canwest is not willing to accept the compliment. Instead of taking the joke in stride, the organization is pursuing an anti-free speech agenda in order to maintain their false footing on a manufactured moral high ground. Their response is troubling for a media corporation whose reputation depends on delivering a product with at least the appearance of objective balance in its coverage.

Ultimately, the Canwest media em¬pire’s bullying of a small rebel alliance of Vancouver artists, known as the Palestine Media Collective, is far from funny. The media corporation’s attempt to suppress ironic critique should concern anyone who values the democratic right to free speech. The creators maintain that the parody was the exercise of their Charter Rights to the freedom “of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.”

Whether it be the impersonation of presidents and celebrities on SaturdayNight Live, Andy Worhol’s use of Campbell Soup cans, or the satirical songs of Weird Al Yankovic, the imitation of cultural symbols is a common artistic practice. There is a long tradition of satire and ironic commentary through our cultural history, from Jonathan Swift’s ‘modest proposal,’ to George Carlin’s question “if crime fighters fight crime and firefighters fight fire – what do freedom fighters fight?” Satire challenges perceived reality by turning familiar cultural references and symbols (like trademarks) on their head.

Whatever one’s opinion of the conflict on the West Bank, in a city where all major newspapers are owned by the same Asper family business, it is fair to question whether we are getting all sides of the story. Ultimately, every media outlet should be open to critique, as that is the only way to ensure the greatest possible objectivity.

However well executed, this small parody presents no real challenge to Canwest’s formidable business interests. One cannot help wondering to what extent Canwest’s current reaction is fuelled by the critique itself. Ironically, the fact that Canwest has reacted so strongly to this little prank suggests that maybe the satirical message hit the mark.

To learn more about the parody and the law¬suit, check out SeriouslyFreeSpeech.com.

-30-

Despite the massive outpouring of protest from Downtown Eastside residents and activists, the city approved Concord Pacific’s 154-unit condo development at 58 W. Hastings two weeks ago. The development does not include any social or affordable housing.

When the new tenants take possession of their condos at the curiously titled Greenwich development, they are expected to be respectful and tolerant of their adopted community. At least, that is Concord Pacific’s response to the community opposition.

These future Downtown Eastside residents may not turn out to be the NIMBY vigilantes everyone expects. They may not be the same folks who vocally oppose health care programs for drug addicts, or desperately needed social housing. And they may not be the type to call the cops on someone because they look a bit scruffy.

There has even been talk providing something like sensitivity training for the potential Downtown Eastside condo owners, through which they will somehow unlearn the ways of entitlement and, instead, seek to live in mutual harmony with our most marginalized citizens.

While it may be well intentioned for Concord to market these units to the “risk oblivious”, those not oblivious to the risks of poverty, addiction and disease don’t give a damn. It doesn’t matter if these new neighbours think its “cool” to live in the gritty Downtown Eastside.

It should not surprise anyone that the proposed Concord development faces conflict from the community. While governments responsible for the crisis on our streets pass the buck back and forth, the Carnegie Community Action Project’s campaign is focused on intercepting that policy football and ending the game of not-my-problem politics. And this specific problem falls squarely into the lap of our city council.

It is the job of City Hall to exercise all its disposable powers to look out for the welfare of its citizens. There is much the city cannot do: provide income assistance, develop health care, and actually build housing. However, when developments like 58 W. Hastings are on the table, city politicians can – and should – take action.

The city zones for grocery stores, art lofts, office space, nightclubs, retail outlets, health clinics, detox centres, halfway houses, parking lots, and parkland. In exactly the same vein, municipal politicians have the power to make or break decisions based on neighbourhood housing needs.

Public policy-makers could choose to promote a diversity of housing so that everyone might work, play and live. Zoning considerations should include an evaluation of economic impacts. A tide of new money is flooding the market in low-income areas and without civic guidance and intervention, long-time tenants are overrun in favour of condo owners.

Regardless of whether or not the new owners of 58 W Hastings are nice (and there are no assurance of that), these people will occupy floor-to-space-ratio that displaces someone else. Their investment is not about the community, but about the moving market value of their unit – a vantage point from which ‘bums’ always look better when they are being run right out of town.

What comes next depends on whether Concord acts as the nice corporate citizen they advertise. While the city may have granted a development permit, the conditions remain unresolved and local residents still have the power to break this deal.

Why should it seem radical to demand some affordable housing within this new condo complex that will be in the heart of the city’s poorest neighbourhood? Especially since Concord is exploiting a real estate market that trades on the misery of people sleeping along its sidewalks. Indeed, it’s the obligation of any condo developer, and potential buyers, to give back to the community of which they – like it or not – will be part of.

Published in MEGAPHONE Magazine Issue 8 July 11 2008

When walking past the Woodward’s development, stop to take a look at the mural painted on the Abbott Street side. There, hidden within the images of community spirit and neighbourhood nostalgia, you’ll find a subversive, almost subliminal message, penned in black marker on red paint.

“Here is a prime example… Big business and industry rule gov’t policy. This building, Woodward’s, could have, should have, probably would have housed thousands of impoverished people…”

Developers, planners, and politicians approved the construction, now proceeding rapidly along the 100 block of W. Hastings. However, it was the people who forced the foundations of this new project – by protesting outside of Fama Holdings offices, deliberating at the Woodward’s Coop committee meetings, risking arrest to paint daisies on the newly-erected hording, and, finally, squatting on the sidewalk.

With its much-lamented closure, Woodward’s went from being the economic heart of the neighbourhood to its’ economic black hole. When the “W” returns to its proper heritage location in the sky, its red glow will not just sign-post the past, but will, for better or for worse, light the path to our city’s future.

As a department store, Woodward’s endures as a memory of perhaps simpler times. Offering floor after floor of affordable essentials, the store anchored other, spin-off retail opportunities along Hastings, opening markets ready to supply what the city’s working & middle classes wanted to buy.

Later, competitive pressures precipitated a wash for the family business. When the red sign went black, merchants closed up like dominoes along Hastings. Consumer traffic was sucked away, or underground, to new downtown and suburban malls.

The 1903 structure crumbled past 1993 - along with any chance timely investment would return to the neighbourhood. The land, however, remained valuable. For property speculators, the site represented potential worth that far exceeded any possible current use. For the next 15 years, Woodward’s sat empty, while tenants struggled to find homes between the decimal points of Vancouver’s narrowing vacancy rate.

The Downtown Eastside community made many attempts to reclaim the site for affordable housing – or at least to prevent projected revenue from being pocketed until some serious conditions were lifted.

As the story Woodward’s continues to unfold, it is indeed true that “thousands of impoverished people” will not be housed there. However, there are 125 welfare-rate units for current DTES residents, and 75 units (on 12 floors) for low-income families. Ultimately, Woodward’s stands as a compromise between capitalist forces hungry for profit and a community fighting for inclusion.

The same ideological conflict is currently claiming every block of Vancouver’s real estate battlefield, and the final stalemate is usually even more one-sided. Today, housing activists have an uphill battle in fighting for even a few non-market housing units in the Concord development kiddy corner to Woodward’s.

In exchange for a density bonus for condos, the Woodward’s social housing, vital to Downtown Eastside community, will also open in 2009.

As the artistic analysis along the Abbott Street hording acknowledges, we should all “*#!! big business!” Indeed, this conclusion arguably provides the purest – if not the most strategic - perspective in looking at how to negotiate the future of Vancouver.

If the Woodward’s compromise can be said to represent any kind of promise at all, it is that every current and future construction project should similarly be required to include a few more floors for low-income communities.

The black hole of Woodward’s is now being reversed into a supernova of market development and ever-expanding gentrification. Whether or not this star will light once again light Vancouver cityscape remains to be seen.

Published in MEGAPHONE Magazine Issue 7 June 27 2008

One issue not being argued about in the upcoming civic election is City Hall’s support for the life-saving work of InSite, Vancouver’s supervised injection site. Last month, as InSite’s future remained uncertain, both Peter Ladner and Gregor Robertson called on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to do the right thing, to renew the facilities legal exemption from Canada’s Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Their unified message reflected a refreshing level of maturity for politicians, often tempted to polarize issues in order to mobilize their respective voter base. Today, as both Ladner and Robertson begin to take positions on major civic issues, voters will not need to consider if Vancouver’s future mayor will work to confront the tragic consequences of addiction, but how each candidate plans to specifically address the issue.

Although the mayor will be chosen by residents across Vancouver, what will determine the results on November 15 will be each candidate’s plan for combating the problems in the Downtown Eastside. The comprehensive plan first presented by Philip Owen to address Vancouver’s drug problem would be a good initial step for both candidates to adopt.

Owen’s leadership in championing the Four Pillars Drug Strategy adds significantly to the discourse on addiction by focusing on solutions rather than stirring up controversy or placing blame. Owen’s Framework for Action eliminates the false belief that enforcement, treatment, prevention and harm reduction are mutually exclusive.

In fact, Vancouver has proven the exact opposite is true. The Four Pillars metaphor is made real with InSite with each pillar complementing the other, each being vital in supporting the multifaceted strategy needed to deal with this complex problem.

Owen’s strategy makes it clear that harm reduction does not come at the expense of treatment, enforcement, or prevention, but along side each.

Despite Stephen Harper’s attempts to score political points by dividing Canadians with fear and misunderstanding about safe injection sites, Vancouver politicians of all stripes have been overcoming their ideological positions and supporting InSite’s harm reduction strategies. This desire to fight for addition issues despite differing political viewpoints needs to become the norm, not the exception among our politicians.

This cohesive support is pivotal for holding on to our city’s priority to improve public safety and health, and for keeping this important issue out of the hands of the Harper government. Despite a large political backing for the safe injection site, the future actions of our new mayor, when confronted by the complicated challenges of the Downtown Eastside, will inevitably not please everyone.

As the opinions heat up through the summer, the good intentions of both contenders paving their campaign trails must be cemented with the courage of the convictions already exemplified by both candidates in their support of InSite.

Insite is certainly not the entire answer, but a vital piece of the puzzle now in place with the support of both Vision and NPA. Now the rest of the picture can be completed, putting in place the wide range of community supports necessary to make further progress.

This is where the candidates come in. How far are they willing to go to combat addition? What steps are they going to take? Are they going to address all the issues related to drug addition?

One issue that needs a fresh perspective is prevention of drug addition. Prevention must be far more than just an advertising campaign intended to scare parents, but focus on providing real education, and honest information. Prevention also includes many of the other concerns facing the people of Vancouver, including the need for expanded day care and improved affordable housing.

Other aspects of the solution may include innovations in addiction therapy that could both minimize harm and help move addicts closer to recovery. In Vancouver, the North American Opiate Medication Initiative (NAOMI), has studied the impacts of prescribing heroin to hard-core addicts who were repeatedly unsuccessful with methadone therapy.

The results will likely be published soon, but it’s widely speculated that the cohort of addicts going through the NAOMI program were able to stabilize their lives and achieve positive affects in reducing drug use. Similar studies in Europe have proven beneficial in eventually weaning heroin addicts off the drug.

Current Mayor Sam Sullivan’s Chronic Addiction Substitution Therapy (CAST) initiative proposes research into treating addiction to illegal drugs through prescription of pharmaceutical drugs, like morphine for opiate addicts, or Ritalin for stimulant addicts. Without Sullivan’s continued championing, the CAST initiative future becomes more uncertain. Hopefully Ladner and Robertson’s position on CAST will not simply be a reaction to political differences with the outgoing mayor.

In addition to more traditional strategies, other new ideas may also be helpful in combating the disease of addiction. There have been numerous scientific inquiries around the world into wide range of addiction treatment options, stimulant maintenance, and opiate replacement therapies, all of which are worthy of discussion and contemplation by our politicians.

We will fail to help the addicted of our city if we politicize decisions on the next step for Vancouver’s drug policy. No single campaign promise can assure voters Vancouver’s drug problem will be solved. What citizens must demand from civic leaders is consideration of all options, and choosing to rule nothing out in the pursuit of relief from the tragic reality of addiction.

Ladner and Robertson are so far on the right track by supporting Insite, and defending Vancouver’s future from Stephen Harper’s moral judgment. By joining together in support of a comprehensive plan to address addiction, the NPA and Vision can expand the debate in a positive direction. Arguing not about what the job is at hand, but rather who has the best plan to get the job done.

First Published on the Georgia Straight Online

Or so they say. But the question of how ‘they’ perceive progress can be confusing. This is especially true in a city like Vancouver, where every angle on our skyline is already crisscrossed by cranes elevating housing units ever-higher both in height - and cost.

For developers, speculating every potential square foot by square foot, the jackhammers of change continue to carve one possible outlook on progress in Vancouver.

For the Downtown Eastside, on the other hand, progress means gentrification. And already, a remarkable move of new gentry into the neighbourhood has noticeably affected its economy and culture.

For the majority of residents, who haven’t cast their money upon the architectural crap tables, the looming scaffolds cast long shadows that could obscure the light of a livable Vancouver future.

While citizens and civic leaders alike continue to cite homelessness among their concerns, the real options for dealing with this issue can be boiled down to two possible policy choices: homes or jails.

Still, there is the handy notion of the ‘mixed’ community, where both rich and poor might live in harmony. This is a popular position for politicians, whose strive to appease all elements in the debate.

However, the impacts of gentrification on a neighbourhood are subtly pervasive. As the closing offer on recent property flips rise, so does the price of a pint at the local pub. There’s been much discussion about what gentrification means and how it works, but the bottom line is that each small impact has real significance on a relatively small low-income neighbourhood. Consequently, long time residents are pushed out and replaced by new higher-spending neighbours.

For some, it seems that progress in the Downtown Eastside equates to little more than a bulldozer rolling over the rubble of Vancouver’s remaining SRO housing stock. Representing some of the more miserable square feet of accommodation Vancouver has to offer, these units are homes non-the-less for thousands of our city’s lowest-income residents.

While market-driven development existed already, the 2010 hallmark spotlights the current crisis in our streets. As the wishful excitement around the fast-approaching Winter Games is captured in those metal limbs hauling our city’s ambition into the atmosphere, the progress of wrecking ball revitalization seems to swing unrelentingly forward with every blip backward on our Olympic clock.

Even with the Mayoral race now opened up, change depends less on the political parties vying for office, than on the pressure mounting from the local community. While developers continue to arm both sides in the upcoming civic election, local residents are organising to ensure that perspectives on Vancouver’s housing situation include not only penthouse mountain views, but also the views of those peering out the rectangles shedding light into their basement suite, and those looking warily out of their transient tent flaps.

Being ‘against’ progress however is not a position anyone can espouse. Indeed, one can’t stand in the way of progress – but citizens can present Vancouver’s destiny in more just light. The question for our struggling community is how to redefine progress so that it is to the benefit all, not just the those with privileged with growing equity.

A city, particularly a world class city, must be bigger than just its buildings, as within every unit lives individuals each part of a culture existing in a diverse yet inter-dependent society. Not everyone in our city hopes to live in a glass tower, but rather works through each month in housing anxiety, uncertain about whether there will be any room for ordinary people in Vancouver’s rapidly changing future.

Ultimately, gentrification affects more than the SRO tenants worried about impending eviction. Across Vancouver, renters, regardless of means, ponder their future in housing stock already characterized by impermanence. While the bulk of the stock is already molding past its best-before date, any looming renovations slice both ways as fresh coats of paint commonly wash over rent-hikes and squeeze Vancouver residents further down the drain of housing affordability.

Published in MEGAPHONE Magazine Issue 6 June 13 2008

For a number of reasons I feel pretty damn lucky to be living in Co-operative housing and a resident of the Lore Krill Housing Cooperative especially.

One of the many benefits is the building’s roof top patios, with their community gardens complementing a perfect position looking out over each of the 360 degrees that make up an amazing panoramic view of the Downtown Eastside.

From seeing the sun rise over the Fraser River, to watching the rail yards and port organised in work, to noticing the snow collect over the North Shore Mountains, to spotting that clock lighting the time on a little City Hall shining on the southern horizon, each perspective is unique to this great city.

When I moved in though, there was long dark shadow cast from the West looming over where Abbott crossed Hastings when the sun disappeared, always too soon, behind the downtown towers of cold concrete and glass. Cutting into the early evening sky the unlit “W” towered burnt out, with its red finish slowly fading into black each night.

It was a different place after the City turned back on that red glow. For Co-op members it meant our roof was open later. How could folks not help but look up and gaze at what was gone for so long? While we stared, we were also shaking hands. We started saying “Hi” in the hallways, and happily sharing our common space.

Today, I can say for sure that it’s only the surface of the Downtown Eastside that might seam scary. Under every rough exterior is a warm heart, and behind each hardened face is a soft smile, waiting to laugh.

This morning our Co-op saw the most activity it ever had. As we passed fellow members in the stairwells and elevators, everyone exchanged similar knowing nods, understanding why we were all already awake, so early on a grey Saturday.

I was lucky enough to find a familiar spot, while everyone else found their favorite too. We were all neighbours, and although no one knew really how, we all had a feeling our neighbourhood was going change. As I leaned off the South tower looking West down Cordova, it was certainly change we saw.

While what we’ll find in the future is unclear, together we’ve collectively witnessed history. And today we celebrated change.

The future of British Columbia will be determined in the federal riding of Vancouver-Kingsway. While recall campaigns are building momentum, they will likely remain symbolic without such recourse possible federally. In a minority government however, by-elections can’t help looking just a bit impatient anyway, and soon, the urban, ethnic, working-class, voters of Kingway will have the chance to win a pivotal political victory through the defeat of born again conservative David Emerson.

Converting Emerson conservative was a power move. Winning government attracts a whole new list of friends and their cell numbers were already programmed in his phone, including BC Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell. Add the Olympics, international trade, and soft wood lumber- and you have the kind of power broker who’s more than just a bum in 1 of 308 seats, but a stake in the heart of the Federal Liberals’ whole BC organization. Some BC Liberal operatives working to keep together their coalition of the willing in Victoria might be out now shopping for new blue ties as they watch the Federal Liberals’ relevance diminish as the gravy stops pouring.

Harper’s playing for keeps and his political base knows the real objective. No one should make light of the Conservatives real accomplishment in corralling their respective interests around Canada’s cabinet table. And no one should sit back and rely on the old Reform survivalists going off message with predictable redneck remarks revealing homophobic, misogynist, or racist residue.

Instead, what will be radical, will be the discipline demonstrated in Harper’s democratic centralist structure by his true believers. Those grassroots pilgrims determined one day to dominate the nation’s discourse with some fire and brimstone, are now content in breaking their faith, and confident trusting an historical context which contemplates our culture being one day redeemed just the way they like it - whether we like it or not.

Emerson’s appointment to cabinet rests the Conservatives’ best chance for assimilating BC’s political class, and solidifying a base of support among elites who can no longer in good conscience support the Federal Liberals, with them now having only a marginal impact on their profit margins. Already, the Vancouver Board of Trade has come out in support of the cabinet choice, acknowledging it as a clear signal that Harper is here to do business.

Defeating the Conservatives in Vancouver-Kingsway now becomes crucial to prevent the Conservative organization from entrenching its presence in the city (already witnessed in the defeat of Liberal Christie Clark by conservative backed Sam Sullivan for the NPA Mayoral nomination.)

There’s more than just partisanship behind the beleif that a New Democrat should be the one holding the knife for this particular hit. It’s just supposition on my part, but I have a feeling the Liberal organization in Vancouver-Kingsway might be bit demoralized, and in disarray. With the fact that the Federal Liberal Party nationally still has a long way to go to cross their credibility gap, as well as having an unresolved leadership question, it’s fair game for the NDP to call dibs on the anyone-but-Emerson vote for this one.

If such is the case, then mounting anti-conservative opposition in Vancouver presents an opportunity for New Democrats to talk to Federal Liberals concerned about the Tory incursion in their city, and offer the candidate to stop it.

Consider the campaign begun. On Saturday February 11, hundreds packed into an East Vancouver High School to express what was described to me as a visceral anger over Emerson’s betrayal of his constituents. Hosted by the three NDP MLA’s who represent corners of Vancouver-Kingsway provincially, the event opened a new front in the struggle. While votes counted in an minority government tally varying degrees of compromise, the Harper/Campbell/Emerson trio will be busy working the backrooms of power changing the ideological fabric of our society.

With no room for Fed Lib voters in this brave new world around us, this emerging resistance may prove to be the catalyst in reconfiguring the molecular structure of BC’s political spectrum. If the conditions are right, the next Federal Election (to occur before the next provincial E-day) could be the charge needed to galvanize convergence of a new provincial center-left coalition, broken from the bonds holding on to the middle of the BC Liberal universe.

Gary Onstad is a man you can trust. Co-founding COPE in 1968 he was trusted then by community and labour activists to help realize the vision of a progressive civic party that fought for Vancouver’s poor and working-class residents. As a COPE School Board Trustee through the 80s, Gary was trusted by voters again and again to work with principle and perseverance to protect public education against Socred restraint. In 1993, Gary was trusted to write COPE’s history book and worked with John Church, Ben Swankey, and Elaine Decker to write the 230 page Working for Vancouver record of COPE’s first proud 25 years. And in 2002, when COPE ran the highest resourced campaign ever, Gary was the one trusted with the money as the campaign’s financial agent.

Most recently, while the political movement he worked to support for most of his life was tearing itself apart because of disagreement amongst COPE’s council caucus members, Gary stepped up as the party’s external co-chair. Again he was trusted to do what’s best for the organization, along with a mandate to build unity among the city’s progressive forces.

Of course, those efforts for unity failed, and the NPA have returned a majority on Parks Board, School Board, and City Council. What happened? Is a good question to be taken seriously. What didn’t happen though has now prompted Gary to speak out, and (as Allen Garr reported in the Feb 4 Vancouver Courier) has resigned from the COPE executive in protest.

In his letter to the executive explaining his reasons, he begins making clear that his departure is not meant to hurt, admitting that “COPE cannot be hurt anymore than it already has been.” Even after being undermined, disrespected, and ignored by his own council candidates, Gary stuck it out “with patience” because of his unquestionable loyalty, not to any individual, but to the organisation which he believed in, even when those within it no longer believed in him.

Gary was once honoured with the authority to write COPE’s history in order to inform future organizers fighting for progressive change. At 70 years old, Gary’s contribution to politics in Vancouver had so far been essential throughout COPE’s existence in ensuring narrow differences did not jeopardize the larger project.

His patience lasted until he read that COPE council candidates blamed their defeat on the fact they did not run a mayoral candidate. With an analysis so desperately obvious, those that prevented co-operation between campaigns will apparently resort to any spin to argue away responsibility. What they continue to lose though is the opportunity to learn from their mistakes.

I don’t envy whoever replaces Gary Onstad as COPE Co-chair. The partisan rats’ nest of civic politics in Vancouver appears as hopeless as ever. Everyone involved is suspect of ulterior motive or hidden agenda, and all those who may one day get involved will have their assumptions based on whichever revisionist historical foundation was provided them first.

Whoever fills Gary’s position though would be wise to read his letter. It might be the only advice they can really trust.

To: exec@cope.bc.ca
Subject: My Resignation
Date: Mon, Jan 30, 2006, 6:49 PM

Dear Donalda:

I have considered resigning from the COPE Executive on at least three
occasions. On each occasion, I consulted with some members who talked me
out of resigning because they felt the “timing” would “hurt COPE”. At this
point in history, I don’t feel COPE can be hurt anymore than it already has
been. The three previous occasions were:

1. After the July Wise Hall General Meeting when the Unity proposal of the
Negotiation Team, Labour and our Executive was rejected.

2. After reading in the press during the election campaign that COPE’s
revised Unity proposal was being rejected by 4/5ths of our Councillors who
went out of their way in the media to undermine Unity with Jim Green and
Vision.

3. After receiving a vitriolic email the day after the election from
ex-Councillor Louis to the Executive entitled “Post-Mortem With Rigor” in
which the following descriptors about Vancouver civic politics were used:
“thugs, gangsters, apparatchiks-in-training, bullying, callous, stupid,
goon, sabotage, power-hungry politicos crazy with hubris, extortionists,
ham-fistedly carried out through blackmail”. The email also accused our
Executive of negotiating with the “Vision extortionists”. The language in
the email is supposed to be describing Vancouver politics, 2005.

So I have hung in until now. With patience.

On my return from Toronto last week, I read a news item by Mike Howell in
the Courier, January 11, 2006. Former COPE councillors are quoted as
saying
that COPE was “turfed” because it did not run a Mayoralty candidate in the
election. This analysis of what has transpired over the last years
indicates sadly that most of our Councillors just don’t get it. At no
point
do I hear our Classic Councillors taking personal responsibility for:

a) the split on Council

b) the loss of the winnable Wards Referendum

c) their own defeat

d) the defeat of our incumbents and new candidates on the Park and
School Board

e) the exit of hundreds of COPE members, particularly young people

I resign in order to protest about the inability of our COPE Councillors
(Ellen Woodsworth excepted) to take personal or collective responsibility
for the above.

If there is to be any hope of renewal of COPE, I would suggest for
starters:

–move Executive meetings out of the Lee Building to locations around the
city

–replace the Classics cheerleaders on staff with staff who believe in
Unity

–replace old Executives like me (take note Councillors) with young people

–attempt to meet with those young people who have left and ask them how
COPE should renew

Central to those starters, of course, should be an honest effort to reach
some kind of Unity with Vision under the guidance of the VDLC.

Many thanks to the Executive members, general members, labour leaders, and
union members who supported Unity.

For those who missed the 2006 State of the Union address, turns out everything is just hunky-doree. So just chill out, peace and prosperity on a post-petroleoum planet is impending.

So now with Earth taken care of and the state of his union strong, George W. Bush’s vision doesn’t stop on the Texas horizon but reaches out deep into the heavens as the hope of the American people refuses to be contained in our atmosphere, and cannot be held back by our gravitational pull.

Don’t take my word for it… ladies and gentleman, the President of the United States.