Stealing Democracy Part XII: More Revelations On Quebec, and Bill C-23

As more incidents of voter suppression in Quebec come to the surface, the picture starts to become a little more clear.  Yesterday, we learned about a Green Party candidate who has been denied registration as a voter.

The issue comes down to the interpretation of "domiciled":

The debate over who can and can’t vote in Quebec stems from different interpretations of the domicile rule, which requires all electors to have been domiciled in Quebec for six months. 

Stéphane Beaulac, a professor in the faculty of law at the Université de Montréal, explains the domicile rule is based on intention. 

“The difference between residing somewhere and being domicile somewhere is that to be domicile, you need to be a resident, but have the intention of making it the centre of your life, of where you live.” 

Beaulac said that a person can have more than one residence, but only one domicile. He said it’s up to Quebec revision officers to make that distinction.

C-24 In Conjunction With C-23 As Instruments Of Voter Suppression

There has been a lot of attention on Bill C-23 the last week or so, and in particular the parts of it which appear to be tools that can be used for voter suppression.

In discussing the Voter ID requirements of Bill C-23, I became very concerned that this government could well be introducing other legislation which could act in concert with Bill C-23 to suppress the ability of opposition groups to be heard.

Sure enough, Bill C-24 contains some interesting and troubling clauses which dramatically broaden the ability of the government to revoke citizenship.  The proposed section 10(2) reads as follows:

(2) The Minister may revoke a person’s citizenship if the person, before or after the coming into force of this subsection and while the person was a citizen,(a) was convicted under section 47 of the Criminal Code of treason and sentenced to imprisonment for life or was convicted of high treason under that section;(b) was convicted of a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code — or an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a terrorism offence as defined in that section — and sentenced to at least five years of imprisonment;(c) was convicted of an offence under any of sections 73 to 76 of the National Defence Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life because the person acted traitorously;(d) was convicted of an offence under section 78 of the National Defence Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life;(e) was convicted of an offence under section 130 of the National Defence Act in respect of an act or omission that is punishable under section 47 of theCriminal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life;(f) was convicted under the National Defence Act of a terrorism offence as defined in subsection 2(1) of that Act and sentenced to at least five years of imprisonment;(g) was convicted of an offence described in section 16 or 17 of the Security of Information Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life; or(h) was convicted of an offence under section 130 of the National Defence Act in respect of an act or omission that is punishable under section 16 or 17 of the Security of Information Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

The reference to Canada's Treason laws is a little surprising here.  Perhaps more interesting is the reference to "Terrorism" in S10(2)(b), especially in the context of this government's willingness to claim that opposition groups are "terrorists".  What I don't see in here is anything significant which stays the government's hand.  Instead, it gives the government, and in particular the Minister, excessive powers to act to strip people of their citizenship.  I am not at all convinced that the government cannot apply these same clauses to more than just those who possess citizenship in another country.

10.4 (1) Subsections 10(2) and 10.1(2) do not operate so as to authorize any decision, action or declaration that conflicts with any international human rights instrument regarding statelessness to which Canada is signatory.(2) If an instrument referred to in subsection (1) prohibits the deprivation of citizenship that would render a person stateless, a person who claims that subsection 10(2) or 10.1(2) would operate in the manner described in subsection (1) must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the person is not a citizen of any country of which the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe the person is a citizen.

Take note of the burden of proof requirement in 10.4(2).  This creates a nasty little situation where the person being stripped of citizenship must attempt to prove a negative.  Generally speaking, proving a negative is rhetorically and practically impossible - even with the "on the balance of probabilities" language inserted in the clause.

Bill C-24 creates a situation where anybody who holds dual citizenship is implicitly subject to an additional level of scrutiny in their activities in this country.  Engage with an environmental lobby group?  Better hope that the government doesn't decide that it's a "terrorist organization".

This is an evil little bit of legislation.  The implicit threat it carries is that the government will go after a citizen's right to engage in lawful protest by declaring dissident groups "terrorist" and then using this mechanism to withdraw their citizenship.

What does it mean with respect to C-23?  It means that this government is about to embark on a program of suppressing dissent by having opposition groups that dare criticize its actions declared "terrorists", or possibly even going as far as trying to declare that they were engaging in "treason" of some sort.

The implications are clear enough, the threats are obvious.

Bill C-23: Part VI: The Theft Of Democracy - Muzzling The Chief Electoral Officer

Wading through C-23 is feeling more and more like trying to pick one's way through a minefield.  Every step, you half expect to find something that is going to go "click" ... followed by a very loud bang.

Today, I bring you what the Conservatives are doing to the ability of Elections Canada to evaluate what is happening in our elections and take steps to make things work better.  (Hint:  It isn't good for Canada)

At present, Section 18 of the Canada Elections Act reads as follows:

18. (1) The Chief Electoral Officer may im- plement public education and information pro- grams to make the electoral process better known to the public, particularly to those per- sons and groups most likely to experience diffi- culties in exercising their democratic rights. 

(2) The Chief Electoral Officer may, using any media or other means that he or she consid- ers appropriate, provide the public, both inside and outside Canada, with information relating to Canada’s electoral process, the democratic right to vote and how to be a candidate. 

(3) The Chief Electoral Officer may estab- lish programs to disseminate information out- side Canada concerning how to vote under Part 11. 

18.1 The Chief Electoral Officer may carry out studies on voting, including studies respect- ing alternative voting means, and may devise and test an electronic voting process for future use in a general election or a by-election. Such a process may not be used for an official vote without the prior approval of the committees of the Senate and of the House of Commons that normally consider electoral matters.

The amendments to S18 in C-23 read as follows:

On Russell Brand's Interview

I heard Brand's interview late last week, and I've been stewing on it ever since.  

On a lot of topics, I have to say that I agree with Brand's frustration.  The existing power structures are not healthy - in fact I would argue that they have been subverted by a series of forces and factors over a very long time.  

Yes, there are enormous problems with environmental destruction, income inequality and political power distribution in general.  I agree with Russell Brand on these principals - these issues deserve our attention, and to be addressed on the political stage.

To some extent the early signs of the population recognizing what has evolved, and how broken it has become.  The "Occupy" movement is one example of a broad-based recognition of the links between money and power.  In Canada, the Idle No More movement has rightly brought a unique focus on the treatment of First Nations in Canada.  

Where Russell Brand lost me (and it happens quite early in the interview) was in his justification for not voting:

It's not that I'm not voting out of apathy, I'm not voting out of absolute indifference, and weariness, and exhaustion from the lies, treachery, deceit of the political class that has been going on for generations now and has now reached a fever pitch, where we have a disenfranchised, disillusioned, despondent underclass that [is] not being represented by that political system, so voting for it is tacit complicity with that system.

First of all, I have a fundamental problem with Brand's approach here.  He is essentially saying "I won't vote unless somebody changes things to something I like".  That is pushing the responsibility for the change outward and away from him.  It is one thing to say "things have to change", and have some ideas as to what shape you want things to take, quite another to take the stance that Brand has taken.

Second, I call out Brand's "standoff" stance for making the ever critical mistake of choosing not to use all of the tools available to him.  No democracy I am familiar with tries to factor for the opinions of those who do not vote.  Given the nature of Brand's grievances, a failure to vote is all the worse for his position - it all but guarantees that the "keys to power" are handed straight to those that would do the most damage in his eyes.

We have seen this happen quite clearly over the decades in Alberta since Peter Lougheed stepped aside.  Alberta has one of the worst voter turnout rates in the country - largely because the internal power structures have been so effective at dismissing inconvenient opposing opinions, and generally putting in place politicians who are (just) smart enough to step away from implementing the most destructive policies (Klein tried repeatedly to put in place the pieces to privatize Health Care in this province, but never fully implemented it because of the public resistance to it).

In many respects, this is the "boil the frog" approach to issues.  Take a long range approach and very carefully undermine things in ways that are not immediately obvious.  When the right crisis occurs, the public will accept the desired change as "necessary".

While I can agree with Brand that there seems to be a degree of "futility" in trying to vote against the power structure, it is utterly essential to vote.  You may end up voting for someone/something that is still distasteful to you (I've done it more than a few times), but symbolically it remains important because it is one of the mechanisms available to challenge the power structure that you object to.  It is not "being complicit in the system" as Brand accuses it of being, but rather using one of an arsenal of weapons to confront them on their own ground.

If voting is inadequate, then another option is to stand for office yourself.  Be the change that you want to see.  Stand for what you believe is right.  Certainly in Canada and the UK, there is no legislative impediment to doing so, and no legal consequences.  Again, this is using one of the tools of the system, against itself.  It can be a long, hard struggle to be heard.  In Canada, I have to give the Green Party and its leader Elizabeth May a lot of credit for the hard work that has been put in trying to become recognized and legitimate in the minds of Canadian voters - but they have come a long ways from their start in the early 1980s.

When we look to the United States, I will say that there is an exceptional problem evolving in the form of overt voter suppression laws.  In a number of states, Voter Id laws, in conjunction with a series of amendments to laws related to the acquisition of appropriate identification documents have created an environment where a significant number of otherwise legal voters are unable to vote because they cannot acquire the appropriate documentation.  This is a very serious problem, and one which may require drastic action to correct.

Brand seems to think that revolution is near, if not imminent.  I am not so sure of that.  Protests such as Occupy have done more to make the general public more aware of what is happening behind closed doors.  I do not think that they have gotten anywhere near mobilizing the collective mass of population to take up arms in revolt.  As much as I have railed against the rise of Corporate Feudalism on this blog, I for one am not about to demand armed revolt either.  Protests on the streets have little impact on those whose power base is found in the boardrooms of our nations.

In Calgary, we got a lovely little taste of that when a video recording of a Real Estate Developer's conference session was leaked to the media.  Make no mistake about it, the people behind that organization, and the Manning Centre, don't give one whit about groups on the street.  It doesn't even enter their consciousness.  What got their attention was when in 2010, their candidate for Mayor - Ric McIvor - got roundly trounced by Naheed Nenshi.  They then spent the next couple of years trying to put together a counter-strategy to undermine a Mayor that apparently isn't sufficiently compliant to their wishes - to the extent of spending over $1 Million to "train" candidates through the Manning Centre.

While Brand might want "revolution", that is very short-sighted of him.  First of all, revolution will create more shadows in which undesirable power structures can evolve and seize power - and those powers can often be as bad or worse than what is to be overthrown.  We should not ignore that reality.  The best disinfectant for corruption is light, not more shadows.  Additionally, Brand's call for revolution overlooks the fact that a new power structure has emerged in the world that renders the nation-state impotent.  The multi-national corporation is able to supersede or subvert nation level laws.  This has been the case for decades, but it has only come to light as a significant political power since the late 1980s, as Neoliberal policies enabled economic "globalization" and corporations started moving work to countries where labour was cheap.

Do things need to be changed in the Western democracies?  Absolutely.  I think that the changes that are needed require people to see the would-be puppet masters for what they are, and then to take steps to undermine them.  At the level of the Nation-State, that can mean more rigorous accountability and legal structures which weaken the ability of the multi-national corporations to subvert the powers of national governments.  At a higher level, the world needs to develop a coherent legal / governmental structure that protects the citizens of all nations from the predations of multi-national power.  I do not believe that the world is ready for that yet though.  There are enormous cultural and logistical barriers yet to be overcome.  Structures like the EU to a certain extent reflect what I believe the long term direction will be, but they are far from a complete implementation which will successfully overcome the psychopathy of corporate interests.

RoboFraud Ruling

Late yesterday, the Federal Court handed down its ruling on the 2011 Robocall Voter Suppression tactics that played out in several ridings.

Electoral fraud occurred during the last federal election, a federal court judge ruled on Thursday, but there is no proof that it affected the outcomes in six ridings at issue, so the elections will not be overturned.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Federal+judge+confirms+election+fraud+2011+vote/8427519/story.html#ixzz2UDRApUl0

While I understand that the judge is ruling in essence that the degree of fraud that took place in 2011 wasn't sufficient to justify overturning the results of the election in those ridings, I have to disagree with his conclusions.

First, I think that the ruling overlooks the consequences of voter suppression tactics for Canada's democracy.

Fundamentally, it calls into question the validity of the results of the election not just in the ridings where these games were played, but across the country.  Fraud, no matter the degree, is an explicit and intentional abuse of the electoral system itself.  To prevaricate about "the degree" to which a party engaged in fraud during an election is basically giving the party in question a license to continue using those tactics.  This calls into question the validity of any future elections with that party involved.

Second, the awareness that fraud took place in the last election tells those who vote against that party that their votes will be marginalized even further.  That is a guaranteed way to encourage more voters to simply stay at home - mostly on the basis of "why bother - it's all rigged anyhow".  I cannot blame them when a years-long court battle over known electoral fraud and misdirection ends up with a ruling that is a "split down the middle".

Federal Court Judge Richard Mosley ruled that the calls “struck at the integrity of the electoral process by attempting to dissuade voters from casting ballots for their preferred candidates. This form of ‘voter suppression,’ was, until the 41st General Election, largely unknown in this country.” 

The evidence points to “a concerted campaign by persons who had access to a database of voter information maintained by a political party,” Mosley writes, but says there was no allegation that any of the candidates in the six ridings were responsible for the campaign. 

“I find that electoral fraud occurred during the 41st General Election but I am not satisfied that it has been established that the fraud affected the outcomes in the subject ridings and I decline to exercise my discretion to annul the results in those districts.”

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Federal+judge+confirms+election+fraud+2011+vote/8427519/story.html#ixzz2UDUioi1Y

Frankly, I don't give a damn whether any of the candidates started the campaign of voter suppression or not.  The fact that the party obviously provided access to their database of voter information is enough in my opinion to call the entire thing into question.  Corruption is corruption.  I don't care if it starts with the individual candidate or some committee in the party campaign war room.  Fraud at either end is still fraud.  The guilty party should be held accountable for its actions.

More to the point, Canadians have a right to expect that their elections are free and fair.  Attempting to persuade voters of the platforms of various parties and candidates is fair ball.  Attempting to discourage or outright prevent voters from voting is NOT.

“In reaching this conclusion, I make no finding that the Conservative Party of Canada or any CPC candidates or RMG and RackNine Inc., were directly involved in any campaign to mislead voters,” he ruled. 

“I am satisfied, however, that the most likely source of the information used to make the misleading calls was the CIMS database maintained and controlled by the CPC, accessed for that purpose by a person or persons currently unknown to this court.”

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Federal+judge+confirms+election+fraud+2011+vote/8427519/story.html#ixzz2UDWKbAlF

Whether the judge realizes it or not, he has essentially given the green light to further voter fraud next election.  What he has said boils down to a rather juvenile "It doesn't matter what you do, just don't get caught".  I've heard teenagers use this kind of logic to justify some pretty destructive acts ... and then they get caught.

There should be enormous consequences for this kind of violation for all parties involved.  If the Conservatives provided access to their CIMS database for this purpose, they should be held accountable.  PERIOD.  I don't care if it was the party which did it "officially" or if some agent of the party did it "under the table" - it doesn't matter.  If the party hasn't got adequate access controls on their database, they need to fix that; if they don't have adequate controls over who gets access to that data, that's their problem too.  Ultimately, the party has fought tooth-and-nail against this, meanwhile it's been painfully clear that one of their operatives decided it would be a good idea.  The party - and its leadership - set the tone which led someone to think that electoral fraud was acceptable behaviour.  It should be held accountable.   If you can nail it down to the individuals who perpetrated this, so much the better - hold them to the fire as well.

The courts have dropped the ball on this one.

In a related note, I would point out that the recent Alberta election had the Wildrose Party abusing the robocall mechanism as part of their campaign.  At least they are being held accountable for this.  Granted, WRP hasn't been accused of electoral fraud here.

The MSM Wakes Up A Bit

Someone at the Globe and Mail wakes up enough to start asking if the Con$ are engaging in voter suppression.

What we don’t know is whether there is an ulterior motive to Conservative Leader Stephen Harper’s incessant claims that, unless he wins a Tory majority, the Liberals will form a coalition with the NDP supported by the Bloc Québécois. Canadians objected strongly to such a proposal in 2008, which is why all three opposition parties deny having any such plans this time.

The Conservatives might be calculating that, even if the coalition bogeyman doesn’t win voters over to their side, the prospect might discourage some Liberal supporters from voting at all–a second-best result.

This may be a conspiracy too far. In all likelihood, no party is engaged in an overt campaign to depress voter turnout. But both the Liberals and the Conservatives may be hoping that, if they can mobilize their vote while discouraging voters

It might be conspiracy ... but Harper's pattern to date has been one of surprisingly long range, destructive plans. (anyone else forget Harper's little book on disrupting parliamentary committees?, abuse of prorogation of parliament and other nastiness...) I wouldn't put anything past him myself.