Political Reform or Political Secession?

The following was originally published on the site:
http://nl-outsidethebox.blogspot.com/
and has been re-published here with the consent of the author. The commentary is presented in its complete form however some minor editing has been done for clarity only and does not impact the intent or meaning of the piece.

The people of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador have long said they need more representation in Ottawa. This is a fact, and it is even truer in the Labrador portion of the province. Simply put Labrador needs more political representation at both levels of government! Not because of the population, but because of the sheer vastness, remoteness and inaccessibility of the region.

The work done there to date is a credit to those MHA’s and MLA’s who have served this area in the past, as well as those to come in the future, if the province chooses to remain a part of Canada. Newfoundland and Labrador is approximately 6 times larger than the other Maritime Provinces combined, yet it only has 7 members of parliament. The Labrador area, which is nearly 3 times as large as the island portion, has only one.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to further divide our already divided province, rather I wish to highlight the need for reform within Canada and the province. Our Confederation is in dire need of an overhaul.

Perhaps a formula which factors in both geography and population should be used to determine fair and equal representation. This would ease the burden on those MHA’s and MLA’s who have large geographical constituencies.

If Canada isn’t willing to recognize and change this injustice then the very least our province should do is give up one of the island’s representatives to better enable Labrador members to cope. Any additional costs involved could be recouped by abolishing the Lieutenant Governor’s position which serves no purpose other than to remind us of our colonial roots. We would be better off if we cut those roots and grew a new tree starting with a sprig for Labrador in the form of another MHA. The Lieutenant Governor’s house would make a fitting Premier’s residence (Presidents residence for the Republic of NL?)

Since additional seats were added in Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador’s representation has become even less effective in Ottawa and if the current process for defining ridings continues, the province will lose even more representation in the years to come, due to out migration. I propose splitting Labrador into two separate ridings one in the West and one in the East. We could go further by adding representatives, even token none voting representatives, for each of our Native communities/Cultures which would allow them to have a real voice in the House of Commons / House of Assembly.

The ball is in your court Canada! You wanted us to join so badly in 1949, what are you willing to do to keep us here now that our eyes have been opened to exactly what Confederation means, at least in NL?

I wouldn’t expect government and big business to go along with this proposed change but the people of Canada, with a sense of fair play and justice just might.

I don’t think any of these proposals are unreasonable or off the wall, but rather they are something that a lot of the other provinces would probably agree with and want to be a part of.

By Todd & Greg Byrne
For more on this topic and others visit Greg’s site at:
http://nl-outsidethebox.blogspot.com/

Newfoundland and Labrador Ponders Replacing its Provincial Flag

Recently a grassroots movement has been underway in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador to replace the existing provincial flag, adopted in 1980, with one that has been unofficially flown in the province since the 1800’s.

In 1980, the province adopted its current standard. A collage of geometric patterns loosely based on the old Union Jack and containing multiple symbols purported to represent the culture of the province. The flag, designed by well known local artist Christopher Pratt, was the product of the provincial legislature who commissioned the piece and presented it officially on June 6, 1980 to less than resounding reviews from the general public.

Since the flag has been in existence, it has been the topic of debate in coffee houses and at kitchen tables. Some have come to accept it as their flag, but many others in the province appear to prefer a more traditional flag, containing three Green, White and Pink vertical bars. (often referred to in reverse order of colour).

This older standard was never officially adopted as a provincial flag in the province, however it has been flown by some for decades and in recent years has begun to make such a major comeback that many are now referring to it as the “unofficial NL flag”.

Everywhere one looks from St. John’s to Port Aux Basques from St. Anthony to Harbour Breton the Pink, White and Green (or Green, White and Pink) can be seen flying outside houses and shop fronts, from backyard decks and boat decks. License plates bear the image as do rings, t-shirts and baseball caps. Recently Canadian Idol runner up Rex Goudie appeared on the show sporting a t-shirt proudly displaying the flag.

The simple banner that has grown in the hearts of Newfoundlanders in all corners of the island has a somewhat mysterious history. There are many stories of how it originally came into being. The most widely accepted is that during the annual seal hunts of the early 1800's disputes often erupted between the 10,000 or so English (protestant) and Irish (catholic) sealers. During these times, competition was frequently accompanied by religious animosity and a prominent display of opposing flags.

It is believed that a delegation representing the government and leaders of both communities sought the council of Bishop Fleming, who was respected by all. Tradition has it that after pondering the problem, the bishop asked that the pink flag and the green flag of the two factions be brought to him. Then joining them with a white handkerchief, which he said represented the white of peace from the flag of St. Andrew, he handed it to the assembled group and said, "Go in Peace."

Over the years support for this ancient standard has ebbed and flowed with the political and social happenings of the day and although it has been gaining steadily in popularity for the past decade, it wasn’t until the so called “flag flap” during recent negotiations between the federal and provincial governments over offshore royalties that the concept of replacing the current provincial flag began to gel.


According to a recent article, when approached for comment on the movement to replace the flag he had designed, local artist Christopher Pratt appeared unworried. According to the piece Mr. Pratt stated that he simply developed the current flag as requested by government and that it did not come from his heart. He went on to say that he would not be upset if the flag was replaced.

These candid comments by Mr. Pratt seem to blend well with an overriding sentiment in the province that flags are not something that can be legislated by government. They must have meaning and come from the heart. As one person stated recently, “a flag has to grow from the bottom up, not be pushed on you from the top down.”

Sales of the unofficial flag have been booming at retail outlets and flag shops around the province in the past year and recently a student at Memorial University in St. John’s took it upon himself to help move the cause to the forefront. He began by erecting a 15 foot version of the flag on the hills overlooking the entry point to the main port in the provincial capitol. Then, upon seeing the reaction this invoked, started an online petition to enact the new flag as the provincial standard.

Currently the flag is still flying over the city of St. John’s and both it and the petition have made local news services and been the topic of discussion in online chat rooms and talk radio programs. A quick check of the signatures on the petition shows that it has begun to pick up momentum and it is even rumored that Premier Danny Williams has commented that he is open to the idea of presenting it before the provincial legislature should enough support be gained on the issue.

No official comment has been made on the issue and it is not known what reaction the movement will have at the federal level. Neither is it clear what the reaction will be from the majority of residents in the Labrador portion of the province, which itself has an unofficial flag that is dear to the hearts of many in that portion of the province.

At this point in time the movement is in its early stages. Only time will tell exactly how much of an issue it will truly become.

If you would like to know more about the Pink, White and Green standard, to sign the petition or simply to learn more about public sentiment on the issue, you can do so at:

http://activelink.ca/pinkwhitegreen/

For an opportunity to win a Pink, White & Green (or Green, White & Pink) flag of your own, check out our contest by scrolling down to the related article on this page.

C'mon now ...what's in a word?

The following was originally published on the web site: The Modern Feudal Serf . It has been reproduced here in its entirety. I believe it says a lot about the state of Canada today and I hope you find it as interesting and thought provoking as I did.

Enjoy,
Patriot


C'mon now ...what's in a word?

Answer: Way too much at times!

Step into a court room and a 'word' can mean the difference between success or failure. Read the history of the BNA Act and a single word made the difference between economic freedom and carrying a tax burden far exceeding that of a medieval serf! In everyday Canadian life, certain words have created a mindset that is contrary to the essence of a democracy ... at the centre of those words is 'govern' ...and following are all the extensions, variations and metaphors of that word, and most importantly the subliminal effect of it!
Another word to pay attention to is "democracy" ...we talk about it, and we even go through some motions ...but we don't live it!

Lets begin by defining what we are supposed to be -- a "democracy".

Definition: Democracy is literally "rule by the people" and "the democratic method" is the institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions that realizes the common good by making the people itself decide issues through the election of individuals who are to assemble in order to carry out its will." Period, full stop.

So clearly, by long-standing, accepted definition, a 'democracy' is a society where the people (collectively) are the rulers of their own land and therefore the will of the people is what 'governs' that land. As such, that arrangement is not complicated or vague, and it makes complete, logical sense. Generally, it's what the average person honestly believes to be the case!

How do we exercise and voice our collective will -- our collective governance of our own country? We do it by electing people to represent our collective will every so often through the elective process. The elective process amounts (simply) to a 'job interview' that lasts several weeks. Those seeking the job come before us and tell us why they are the best choice for the vacant job and why we should employ them on a short term contract (the period between elections). At the ballot box we convene to make a collective decision as to who that contract employee will be. Democracy at work!

So far this makes a lot of sense, is logical and is a rational way to manage the affairs of a large geographic area inhabited by a large number of people ...except for one problem. What problem? The problem we have is that those who begged for jobs at the podium are under absolutely no obligation to pay any attention at all to what their 'employers' want! The proof of this lays in Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Justice, E.A. Marshall's decision concerning docket number 9012000725 on the 10th of December 1990. Citizens brought suit against their MP for his failure to represent their wishes. In Justice Marshall’s decision he said:

“ I know of no legal duty on an elected representative at any level of government to consult with his constituents or determine their views. While such an obligation may generally be considered desirable, there is no legal requirement.”

This applies to all of us, no matter what province we reside in! Did we, the people, give permission to have our wishes ignored by the politicians we hire? NO. Did the politicians give themselves that prerogative? YES. Does this sound like democracy? NO. And this brings us to the use of the word "govern" and all the other words that go along with it!

To think of ourselves as "governed" implies acceptance of subservience on our part, and suggests 'superiority' on the part of those elected to "govern". The mindset is the complete opposite of what the real 'power structure' is in an actual 'democracy'. In a democracy we hire (elect) individuals to 'manage' certain of our affairs on our behalf ...period. In effect such elected people are merely the custodians of our will ...not our masters, betters or superiors ...that would be too feudal. The biggest problem (with this ingrained perception) lays with those elected individuals who have abused the moral trust their offices properly and rightfully include.

We in Canada, although touting ourselves as an enlightened democracy, have bought into paying homage to a foreign monarch, giving free (and free-spending) reign to that monarch’s representative in Canada (The Governor General – note the authority implied with both “governor” and “general”) and this has trickled down to a pompous elected ‘elite’ who deem themselves our masters!

In a democracy the elected do the bidding of the electors to manage necessary infrastructure essential to the country. This is not the reality in Canada as politicians over generations take a host of liberties, experiment with their own flavour of ‘social engineering’ and lately treat ill-gotten tax dollars as if that money is their personal pocket change! These examples are tips of icebergs but represent the backward and destructive power structure in Canada that disguises itself as a democracy and smooth talks the population into believing so. The reality is that every few years we do nothing less than ‘elect’ feudal dictators and give up our natural right to a voice in our own affairs!

Some questions to ask yourself and each other …and think about next time you are inclined to just accept things as they are:

· Who owns Canada ..the people or the politicians?

· Who asked politicians to re-subject Canadians to British rule?

· Who gave politicians permission to vote themselves gold-plated pensions and perks?

· What right do politicians have to tell you that you’re not free to purchase medical attention with your own money?

· Who told politicians to write a Charter of Rights on our behalf?

· Who told politicians it was OK to tax people to ridiculous levels?

· Who told politicians it was OK to turn issuance of money in Canada over to private banking concerns?

· Who told politicians it was OK to indebt generations of Canadians in order to fund political promises and social engineering experiments?

· Who told politicians to go easy on criminals and pay more attention to criminal rights than victim rights?

· Who told politicians to make a sex offender registry with no retroactive teeth? (Oh yes, that was Chretien …probably because his step son would have been on the list?)

· Who told politicians to do most of what they have assumed they can do because they assume themselves our masters?

The Answer: It wasn’t us!

Do we get any say in how this country is run?