Category: Uncategorized

What’s up, all? Since I haven’t been here, I’ve been a little of over there and a little of over there. Mostly dipping deep into social activism via the Occupy movement but also really giving myself a good education in the things that I never knew enough about and I knew I wouldn’t get the truth about in school. One of these things was finance, economics, banking–the kind of stuff that Gateman glosses over. My most recent exposure has been on this Canadian housing bubble we are all living in–the one that ‘will never recede’. Well, I just finished a paper a few days ago on this exact topic, because I felt like the PEOPLE needed to know the truth. And what would you believe, today there is an article in the Globe and Mail about how. ‘Skyrocketing house prices bound to come down, BMO head says’. Lol, you don’t say! Here is the paper I wrote with two friends in Econ 211, read it and you will know just why this Canadian housing bubble DOES have to come down and why the circumstances surrounding it make the story a lot more tenuous than just a ‘market correction’. Enjoy!

Kiss Your Borrowed Prosperity Goodbye by Anthony Mayfield, Nick Wogan and Mustafa Akhtar

Colleen Wallace, a 70 year-old resident of Chelsea, finds her savings flagging in the wake of lower than ever interest rates. It’s a savers dilemma. Canadians find themselves in a turmoil characterized by stagnant income, weak return on investments and increasing food and especially housing prices. Inflation at 2.3% in relation to interest rate at around 1% not only discourages savings but also renders a loss in net value. Life-long investments made to pay off mortgages are now rendered redundant as economists warn the housing boom has come to an end (Silcoff and Mckenna).

The Canadian housing market since 2001 has seen an increase in prices that has far outpaced inflation and economic growth in the country. This increasing of prices in relation to personal income has played a part in the creation of what some would consider a bubble in the Canadian housing market. The Economist magazine has used two functions to try and calculate the overvaluation, if any, of the housing prices in Canada and has found that the average of the two calculations gives an overvaluation of 25% . (The Economist, Part 2) Indeed, it has been estimated that a bursting of the bubble across Canada in a similar fashion to the Toronto Crash of 1989 would result in reduction of home prices by up to 40% in the worst scenario (MacDonald 4).

It would appear that the Canadian housing market is overvalued, with Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney admitting that some housing is ‘probably overvalued’(Hodgson). The Canadian housing market, it can be argued, is due for a correction to the true market value. The most pressing question is how will this be achieved and how can a bursting of the bubble, characterized by a sudden, sharp decrease in prices similar to seen in Toronto in 1989 be avoided. In this paper we will argue that through slowly and steadily raising overnight rate of the Bank of Canada, a responsible deflation of the housing bubble can be achieved and the overvaluation of housing in Canada can be corrected. We will also argue that there is an increasing precedent to do this correctly and safely, as the household debts accumulated on the Canadian population has “left Canadians vulnerable to economic shocks” (Praet 1) and vulnerable to debt spirals triggered by a crash in the equity held in the home (CGA 35).

Housing bubbles emerge when housing prices increase more rapidly than inflation, household incomes and economic growth (MacDonald 3). Low mortgage rates, access to easy credit, net immigration and the stock of available housing contribute to the growth of a housing bubble (MacDonald 4). Factors such as low mortgage rates and access to easy credit help draw buyers into a market they might otherwise not be able to compete in. This increases demand and pushes the price of the housing to higher levels (MacDonald 4).

Currently, all-time record low mortgage rates are being offered by the Big Five Canadian banks of 2.9% which is based large part on the record low overnight rate set by the Bank of Canada at 1%. While this may give an artificial impression of housing affordability during which the rates remain at record low rates, this presumption of affordability could change rapidly and intensely if mortgage rates rise to historical averages, which are usually nearer to 4% (MacDonald 4). Mortgage rates play a large factor in whether or not potential buyers will purchase a house. If the interest rates are too high buyers will be pushed out of the market due to the burden of anticipated mortgage payment costs (MacDonald 4). Larger down payments and mortgage insurances also have the effect of discouraging borrowers from taking out a mortgage (MacDonald 4).

Asset price booms and their subsequent bubbles are discouraged by economist and central bankers. This is done because as evidenced by the recent housing crash of the US in 2008, a sudden crash in prices can have very grave implications for employment and the real economy when the bubble is burst (Meltzer 2003). Asset price bubbles also contribute to an artificially held belief by investors that they will always receive real returns on their investment, in this case with investment in housing (Selody and Wilkins 7). This can lead to speculative purchases of housing and an over-investment in the housing market. This was referred to in 1996 by Alan Greenspan, in reference to the asset bubble seen in the late 90s in the United States as “irrational exuberance” (qtd. in Selody and Wilkins 5).

This irrational exuberance can also stem from positive developments in the real economy that leads to “the underestimation of risk and over-extension of credit”, which is the cause of “over-investment in physical capital” (Meltzer 2003). This same phenomenon applies to real estate market as explained by Collyns and Senhadji (qtd. in Selody and Wilkins 5). This also directly affects inflation as housing prices are factored into the consumer price index from which inflation is calculated (Selody and Wilkins 5).

Canadians have been increasingly taking on debt to pay for increasing prices of living as real wages have stagnated since the 1980s (Yalnizyan 6), and has thus “force[d] households to substitute consumption from income with consumption from credit” (CGA 34). This particular type of credit, known as “revolving credit” has been called “alarming” by the CGA as it allows minimum payments without repaying principal, which could “effectively evolve into a debt spiral” (CGA 35). In fact, The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has found that Canada has the highest consumer debt to financial asset ratio among 10 OECD countries, including the US (McDonald 3). Currently Canadians owe $1.5 trillion in mortgage debt across Canada, which equals an average of $176,461 owed for every 2 child family (CTV). It can be argued that growing population and positive inflation create natural preconditions for debt. However, even when accounted for the aforementioned instruments, household debt still shows an upward trend (CGA 30). Subsequently, British Columbians on average carry an additional $35,588 in non-mortgage debt. These debts has been referred to by Governor Mark Carney as recently as March 9th, 2012 as the “the biggest domestic threat to the economy” (Isfeld). Indeed, what this all-time record levels of household debt means, is that the Canadian consumer is very vulnerable to a sudden lowering of house prices as indicative of a housing crash.
Another area of concern is consumer credit, which makes critical part of household debt. Increasing household debt is an alarming trend, with Canadians now reaching a level of 155% debt to income ratio. The increased indebtedness means that “the household sector is more exposed to interest rate risk, particularly where variable rate mortgages are prevalent, and to shocks to household income and house prices” (Debelle 21). Debelle goes on to argue that the biggest of these shocks is unemployment. This could lead to default, distressed selling and thus a downward spiral in housing prices. High indebtedness could also compromise labour mobility, worsening unemployment (21). It is especially concerning because unlike mortgage, consumer debt is not backed by appreciable assets.

One explanation to why bubbles persist is the presence of rational arbitrageurs who try to “ride the bubble as long as they can” (Selody and Wilkins 5). Asset bubbles have been argued by central bankers to be a product of a combination of extraneous and incalculable elements of consumer behaviour. This line of argument argues that because the cause is exogenous, monetary policy will be rendered impotent. This reasoning explains Bernanke and Greenspan’s argument that “instruments of monetary policy are too blunt to be used” (Selody and Wilkins 5).Contrary to this, however, empirical data shows a strong correlation between excessive credit growth and asset-price bubbles (Selody and Wilkins 6).

Vancouver has had two housing bubbles, meaning large overvaluations of property, in the past. One of which was in 1981 which faced rapid devaluations and a second in 1994 which gradually declined (MacDonald 4). However, most Canadian housing markets have been historically stable from 1980 to 2001 (McDonald 4).This is because traditionally Canada has had consistent and effective impediments to taking on mortgages. This ultimately ended in 2001, when a loosening of mortgage restrictions finally culminated in a zero-down, forty year mortgages being issued by the end of 2006 (MacDonald 6). In 1994, Vancouver’s bubble had a slow housing deflation that could more accurately be called a market correction. This is largely favoured over a scenario such as the Toronto housing bubble which had a deeper and longer crash in 1989, or an even worse scenario such as the sudden and steep decline in prices seen in the US in 2008. In Vancouver during the 1994 deflation, housing prices decreased by 16% over a four year period. (MacDonald 18) . This is juxtaposed with the 1989 crash of the Toronto housing market, which saw condominium prices drop 39% and all other housing lose 27% of their value in a shorter period of time (MacDonald 16).

Using the trends of these two housing bubbles, the Vancouver bubble of 1994 and the Toronto bubble of 1989, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has calculated what the housing bubbles in several major Canadian cities could look like in the two aforementioned scenarios. The worst hit city in both scenarios is Edmonton, but the forecasts harbor major differences. In a scenario with a housing correction through deflation, rather than a true ‘bursting’ of the bubble, housing prices in Edmonton would drop a calculated 29%, from $333,000 to $235,000 over a three and a half year period (Macdonald 8). Vancouver’s housing prices would decline from $658,000 to $524,000 in the same period, a drop of 20% (MacDonald 9). In this same scenario, using the trends from the Toronto crash of 1989, Edmonton would suffer the worst again, this time a 40% decrease in housing value from $330,000 to $203,000 over a period of five years (MacDonald 9). Vancouver’s prices would drop a calculated 31%, from $658,000 to $454,000. (MacDonald 9).

For Canadians taxpayers, there are large stakes in seeing that the housing bubble is dealt with in a way that does not precipitate an event in which the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has to pay for the insurance of a large number of failed mortgages. We have already seen a $75 billion dollar purchase of mortgages from major Canadian banks by the CMHC in 2007 (http://www.fin.gc.ca/n08/08-090-eng.asp), which ultimately is paid for by the Canadian taxpayer. Professionals estimate 375,000 mortgages holders in Canada are already challenged by their current payments and may not be able to handle higher rates (MacDonald 3). This is of particular concern, as a high proportion of Canadian mortgages are insured by the government through the CMHC (MacDonald 6).

In conclusion, the housing market in Canada and its larger macroeconomic implications is a critical topic to say at the least. As can be drawn from the argument above, a housing crash remains a likely possibility, especially if prudent steps and measures are not taken to discourage such an event. Such a situation would have dire consequences not only for households in terms of foreclosures and the extreme likelihood of having to pay into the CMHC for failed mortgages, but also for the economy as a whole. A raising of interest rates that occur too quickly could have catastrophic events by pushing many households into a debt spiral which will ultimately end in foreclosure. However, not acting and allowing interest rates to remain at historic lows will only accentuate the problem and make the inevitable correction more painful in the long run. Another major concern is the adverse blow to consumer and investor confidence that will implacably result in undesirable long term macroeconomic implications. For the details raised throughout this paper, it is imperative for The Bank of Canada to take corrective measures in time before the situation exacerbates and evolves into a vicious trap.

Works Cited:

CGA. “Where Has the Money Gone: The State of Canadian Household Debt in a Stumbling Economy.” Certified General Accountants Association of Canada. Web. 15 Mar. 2012. .

CTV. “Household Debt Reaches Record $1.5 Trillion.” CTV News. Www.ctv.ca, 14 June 2011. Web. 14 Mar. 2012. .

Debelle, Guy. “Macroeconomic Implications of Rising Household Debt.” IDEAS: Economics and Finance Research. Web. 15 Mar. 2012. .

“Government of Canada Announces Additional Support For Canadian Credit Markets” Archived. Department of Finance, 21 Nov. 2011. Web. 14 Mar. 2012. .

Hodgson, Jeffrey. “Some Canada Property Markets Likely Overvalued: BoC.” Some Canada Property Markets Likely Overvalued: BoC. Www.ca.reuters.com, 22 Jan. 2012. Web. 14 Mar. 2012. .

“House of Horrors, Part 2.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 26 Nov. 2011. Web. 14 Mar. 2012. .

Isfeld, Gordon. “Household Debt ‘biggest Risk’ to Economy: Bank of Canada.”Www.vancouversun.com. The Vancouver Sun, 8 Mar. 2012. Web. 14 Mar. 2012. .

Macdonald, David. “Canada’s Housing Bubble: An Accident Waiting to Happen.” Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (2010): 1-23. CCPA, Aug. 2010. Web. 8 Mar. 2012.

Praet, Nicolas. “Canadian Debt Still Rising, but at Slower Pace: Equifax.” Www.canada.com. Www.canada.com, 10 Jan. 2012. Web. 14 Mar. 2012. .

Selody, Jack, and Carolyn Wilkins. “Asset Prices and Monetary Policy: A Canadian Perspective on the Issues.” Bank of Canada Review.00451460 (2004): 3-14. ABI/INFORM Global; CBCA Complete. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

Silcoff, Sean, and Barrie Mckenna. “The Globe and Mail.” Home. The Globe and Mail. Web. 15 Mar. 2012. .

Yalnizyan, Armine. “The Rise of Canada’s Richest 1%.” Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (2010): 1-22. CCPA, Dec. 2010. Web. 8 Mar. 2012.

Proportional Representation: True Democracy For Canada

Although it is a significant issue that affects every citizen in Canada, the idea of electorate system reform is seldom spoken about in everyday conversation. Many citizens of Canada assume that the system we have in place is the most democratic approach, although deeper analysis suggests otherwise. Our first-past-the-post electorate system has been contributed to lower voter turnout (Blais and Carty 1), increased regionalism (Milner 3), increased party polarity (Milner 3), and has detracted from national unity (Milner 4). This system also creates ‘wasted votes’ (Blais and Carty 4), disproportionately favours large regional parties at the expense of smaller national parties (Blais and Carty 7). These flaws can be remedied by a model of proportional representation that awards party seats by percentage of votes received. One List Party proportional representation is one such electorate system, and it will be demonstrated throughout this essay that by adopting this model of proportional representation, Canada can enact a more functional government whose leaders are more representative of the people.

The first-past-the-post system, also called the single member plurality system, was adopted from England during the creation of Canada and has been used ever since. There are 36 liberal democracies in the world with more than 2 million citizens. Canada remains as one of only three of these liberal democracies that lacks any use of proportional representation (Milner 4). In our current single-member-plurality system, the candidate who receives the most votes wins the riding outright, despite often garnering less than half of the votes (Westell 1).The first-past-the-post system is also to credit for the creation of wasted votes. Wasted votes are votes received by a losing candidate that are then discarded and thus have no value. Every vote that is not attained by the winning candidate is a wasted vote. This means that in a scenario where there is a riding with a million voters and 3 candidates, if one candidate gained 34% of a vote and the two other candidates each earned 33%, then the person with 34% of the vote would be elected and the other 670,000 votes would have no value. This skews national voting results when large portions of votes have no bearing on the outcome of the election.

It has been suggested that under a model of proportional representation there would be a reduction of disenfranchised voters who do not vote because they know their party will not be able to field a winning candidate in their riding (Welner 2). Essentially, they know their vote would be wasted. In a One List Party proportional representation, all nationwide votes for parties are tallied, thus eliminating wasted votes. The elimination of wasted votes will have an added effect in that parties will have an incentive to field more candidates in areas they hold a low likelihood of outright winning such as the Bloc running outside of Quebec. This is because any and all votes contribute to their winning seats (Welner 2). This widened geographical representation fosters a more democratic version of government by broadening the areas of representation and allowing more citizens’ votes to count and have meaning.

The current first-past-the-post system encourages parties to focus their efforts and resources on areas they are doing well in, and neglect paying the same amount of time and resources elsewhere (Welner 3). This effect has led to regionalism as specific parties begin to only represent voter strongholds and thus focus on only regional concerns (Westell 3). This phenomenon of creating parties that represent only regions deteriorates national unity (Milner 3). If parties concentrated more on issues of national relevancy, they would be forced to view the country more as a whole. This would lead to the incentive of letting go of divisive, regional platforms and emphasize platforms that work towards national unification (Welner 3). Parties that are usually regional in nature, such as the Bloc, would also have an incentive to run candidates outside of Quebec to try and maximize their number of national votes. The overall effect is a moving of mandates to a national scope and an increased incentive for national unity.

First-past-the-post voting has also decreased party competition (Blais & Carty 1) It “snuffs out” minority viewpoints and hurts parties that take distinct stances on specific issues (Hayward 1). This can be seen specifically in the case of the Green party, who gained 3.9% of the national vote yet only received 0.3% of the seats in the 2011 federal election. In List Proportional Representation, there is an incentive for parties of different kinds to field candidates everywhere possible, and an incentive for every voter to fill out ballots, even if their party’s local candidate has no chance of gaining the most votes (Hayward 1). This encourages a wider array of parties to try and represent people across the country. This broadening of the spectrum of parties means voters can see their votes translated into representation that gives a more accurate portrayal of the issues and needs facing the citizenry (Hayward 1). This has the net effect of producing a more democratic form of government whose mandate more closely represents the wishes of the people.

Low voter turn-out has also been attributed to a single-member-plurality voting system (Blais & Carty8). The abysmal 61.4% turnout in our most recent federal election is linked to the fact that people are less likely to vote if they know their vote will be a ‘wasted vote’. In most ridings there are only two or three parties that field candidates who are contenders. This works to disenfranchise would-be voters who correctly feel that their vote supporting smaller parties will be worthless (Welner 2). These people, despite having political views, simply do not make the trip to polling stations to vote. Proportional representation also increases the number of parties and produces a variety of choices for voters. The result of this, as seen from other countries who have switched to proportional representation systems, is higher voter turnout (Blais & Carty 1). In a study conducted that compared proportional representation and single-member plurality, the gap for voter turnout was a whole 10 percentage points (Blais and Carty 8). Indeed, it was concluded, proportional representation does foster voter turnout (Blais and Carty 9). The higher the percentage of voter turnout, the more representative our parliament is of its people and the more engaged in democracy are its citizens. It also gives the government more legitimacy when more of the electorate had a part in bringing it to power.

Proportional representation will also bring in a political environment more conducive to collaboration and with less antagonism (Welner 4).This is done by reducing the political cost of leaders making the electorate aware of alternative policies and potentially upsetting voter ‘strongholds’(Welner 3). When parties no longer have to worry about losing their regional bases, they are more capable of offering long-term perspectives with appropriate policies and finding possible political partners that will help them achieve these policies that keep the long-term needs of Canada in mind. This is also due in part to the fact that is unlikely that parties will gain over 50% of the popular vote, and thus coalition parties are often the norm in proportional representation (Milner 3). This representation means that political parties will have to collaborate and cooperate even when they are in disagreement. Welner writes of proportional representation saying, “compromise and coalition is a visible, built-in feature of the political process” (Welner 3). This also works in conjunction with parties focusing more on national issues rather than issues to appease their regional base. In a first past the post model, governments work to pass legislation as if supported by a majority of the parliament, as oppose to building broad-based support needed for controversial reforms but nonetheless necessary policies (Milner 3). In a first-past-the-post democracy, other parties have nothing to gain by cooperating with these policies and instead their political interest is to denounce unpopular reforms by exaggerating their ill effects, even if it is a policy they know to be necessary (Milner 4). The general outcome is a “misinformed and increasingly alienated electorate” (Milner 3). This method of conducting a government, with a “built in” polarization effect (Milner 3), is in contrast to a proportional representation model which pushes parties toward cooperation in dealing with long term issues and creates a political environment more conducive to having apropriate measures passed.

First-past-the-post provides an advantage to parties based on certain logistical characteristics. It rewards parties whose support is geographically focused (Hayward 1) and also larger parties (Blais & Carty 7). These large parties systematically receive a percentage of seats that is higher than their percentage of votes and enjoy the greatest level of disproportion in that regard (Blais & Carty 7). This effect was evident in the 2008 election when the Bloc Quebecois only gained 10.48% of the popular vote but won 16.5% of the seats. With parties such as the NDP, Conservatives and Liberals, who are large and well known across Canada, they field candidates with the largest chance of coming first in their riding (303/308 seats are owned by these 3 parties). This comes especially at the expense of smaller, national parties such as the Green Party, who only won a single seat in the recent federal election. An after an NDP surge in Quebec, this has also forced all small parties other than the Bloc out of the parliament completely. In a first-past-the-post -election system, these parties end up with no representation at a federal level because they have no chance of winning a specific riding. If proportional representation were implemented, it would even the playing field for smaller parties whose base is spread over larger regions. If these parties were able have officials elected based on the number of total votes they received, it would lead to a group of elected leaders that greater represent the diversity of Canadian beliefs and political opinions.

An example of this is in the most recent federal election. In this election, Harper gained a majority government with 166 seats. The NDP became the official opposition with 103 seats, and the Liberals, Bloc and Green party all won 34, 4, and 1 seats respectively. Harper had sealed a majority government with 53.8% of the seats, however, had only gained 39.6 % of the popular vote. If a proportional representation approach had been used, the Conservatives would have 122 seats (-44), the NDP would have 94 seats (-9), the Bloc 18 seats (+14), the Liberals 58 seats (+24) and the Green Party would have 12 seats (+11). This is a far more accurate representation of the way Canadians actually voted, and it erases the unseemly discrepancy percentage of votes received and percentage of seats received that occurs when using a first-past-the-post electorate system.

Proportional representation is based on the idea that the number of seats a party attains should closely reflect the share of votes it receives (Hayward 1). It eliminates the concept of wasted votes and stresses the belief of equality of votes: that no one vote should be worth more than another. There are several versions of proportional representation, including List Proportional Representation (LPS), Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) and Single Transferable Vote (STV) (Hayward 2). In list proportional representation, citizens vote only for a party instead of specific candidates. After all the votes are tallied, seats are given directly proportional to the number of votes received. In this case, parties publish their list of top candidates and seats are awarded to candidates in respect to their rank on the list. If the party gained 40 seats, then the top 40 candidates would receive a seat. This is proportional representation in its “purest form” (Hayward 2).

The first-past-the-post electorate system has received criticism for being undemocratic and delivering election outcomes far removed from the voters’ wishes (Westell 1). Indeed, it heavily favours many parties for logistical reasons, such as where the base of the party is located. Canada remains as one of the last few liberal democracies in the world to not have any form of proportional representation, and there is much evidence that this may not be in the best interest of those who wish to have a true representative democracy.

Proportional representation would be a better electorate system for Canada than the current than first-past-the-post system. Proportional democracy has also been demonstrated to increase voter turnout by eliminating wasted votes. When people are able to know their vote will count, they are more likely to vote and support smaller parties. Proportional representation allows for a fairer split of seats and gives more parties a chance to represent their citizens. A proportional representation discourages political parties building regional strongholds which will help national unity. Moving away from this regionalism politics allows the conversation to focus onto national issues, and offer alternative policies that may not be politically possible in a first-past-the-post system. Proportional democracy has been demonstrated as a viable alternative to first-past-the-post and if adopted would bring great benefits to our democracy.

Citations
Blais, Andre, and R. K. Carty. “Does Proportional Representation Foster Voter Turnout?”European Journal of Political Research 18.2 (1990): 167-81. Print.
Milner, Henry. “The Case For Proportional Representation.” Introducing Inroads #7 (1998): 1-4. Print.
Westell, Anthony. “Proportional Representation – Why Not?” Literary Review of Canada13.3 (2005): 18-20. Print.
Hayward, Caitlyn. “WINDS OF CHANGE: Proportional Representation in Canada.”Catalyst 30.2 (2007): 1-4. Print.

Last year, I wrote a paper on why marijuana should be legalized in Canada. The public sentiment at school was arguably neutral, and I was without a high level of explicit public backing for the idea–or so it seemed. An interesting poll that I noticed surface early this morning of Nov 24 was done by CBC, and they asked Canadians exactly that: Should marijuana be legalized?

The results have been astounding, at least to me. At the time of writing, those answering ‘Yes’ to the question of legalization clocked in at 93.06% with currently 7,886 votes. This is compared to ‘No’ with 5.53%, (469 votes) and ‘I’m not sure’, 1.4%, 119 votes).

Now any student of statistics will tell you that this is not a scientific poll, and it is definitely not that. Framing of the article, audience, and wording of the question all play a role in those results. However, even with insane statistical discrepancy, it would be hard to argue that it could overcome a difference of over almost 17 votes to 1.

I think Canadians are beginning to make their mind up. Their sentiments, however, are going against the direction the government is going. The Conservative Government helmed by Harper is trying to introduce a crime bill which contains new mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences – including marijuana. Crown prosecutors in BC have been quoted as saying it will cause a massive financial strain on the judicial system.

This all reflects a government which is run in a way that is out of touch with the people’s demands. We have seen major prisons being planned for construction, which now will engulf more innocent nonviolent people. This is the same flawed thinking that keeps marijuana illegal and funds the gang war in British Columbia. The people know that, but Ottawa cares not.

At the same time, people who call for government accountability in these matters are chastised. We’ve seen the Occupy movement been called by our premier Christy Clark as “nonsense” speaking on behalf of the public saying they were “fed up with [Occupy]”. At the same time, we have seen cities all over Canada granted injunctions to clear out the protesters with ease.

Toronto, Ottawa, Victoria, Nova Scotia, Calgary, Edmonton, Vacouver, Regina–all these places had physical occupations. And all these cities, within a day or two of eachother, all were granted injunctions and sent the police to evict the people nearly the exact same day. What we saw, in essence, was a nation-wide stepping over the constitution on a case by case basis. The saddest thing is: Victoria, Vancouver, Toronto–each of the places mentioned–they were all taken to court on an individual basis, citing different reasons (Other people want to use the Art Gallery! was a site specific reason), and yet EVERY single city won their case.

It has really made me question, what is the significance of the constitution? We have the Charter of Freedom and Rights, but what is it really besides a piece of paper that is presumably kept on hand somewhere. Or just some text on a website. We saw Occupy Nova Scotia raided on Remembrance Day. As we remembered those who died for our freedom, there were police with their knees on peoples necks, arresting 14 in the raid. This is after Occupy Nova Scotia came to consensus to leave their initial location so Remembrance Day ceremonies could be held there. After they moved to a park, and in the rain, they were tackled and arrested by Halifax police. This led to uproar, even in the mainstream media. The mayor said they had agreed earlier to evict and he has no idea who gave the orders for them to move in on Remembrance Day–no one was held accountable, and life went on.

Even the corporate media takes a kick the mayor for his stupid move

And as you watch campus police pepperspraying non-violent students, sitting with arms linked at UC Davis, it makes one wonder if those who control us ever really will care about us.

Learn more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/braces+Tories+crime+bill/5643658/story.html#ixzz1eg7Yd9sH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW7t5l_PKgg Christy Clark

And may I recommend checking out
Occupy UBC

I’m posting this photo in response to one of my comments, about someone asking ‘What are they even protesting?!’
Just because you don’t know, doesn’t mean they don’t know.=]

Today the lawyers of Occupy Vancouver, the defendants, and the lawyers of the city seeking a temporary injunction of the protesters met. They developed and explained arguments to the judge, seeking to provide the most endearing case. This is a brief breakdown of what was exchanged.

The lawyers of Occupy Vancouver worked with the judge to hash out exactly what their argument was, as there was a bit of misunderstanding of how they were going to flesh out their defense. They were going to cite the Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedom, a constitutional law, to argue they had the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of speech.

During this time, one of the prosecution’s lawyers became upset and complained about the amount of time it had taken to get to main arguments. The judge affirmed him of its importance, and they continued. After defense had finished their explanation, the prosecution rose to give the first part of their argument, as recess was going to be called at 2 pm.

The prosecution explained they would be citing the City Land Regulation Bylaw, and the City Fire Bylaw. They explained that they had initially been fine with the protest, but due to ‘escalating circumstances’ they were going to seek a common law injunction.

He posited that the Art Gallery was under city authority, because it was under lease from the Provincial Government. This lease began in 1980, as he explained, and would end in 2079.

The prosecutor continued to give his case for the injunction. He said that there were 15-30 people currently living at Occupy Vancouver. It was been cited by other officials, however, that there are about 80 current living at Occupy Vancouver.

These were the instances that the prosecution brought up to seek the injunction: There have been people smoking adjacent to entrances. There has been the smell of marijuana. There has been excessive garbage on Art Gallery land. At that he said that there were, at first, clean-up crew that would keep it tidy. He claims, untruly, that that crew is no longer operating on the grounds.

He claimed there were food scraps and dirty plates on Art Gallery Land. He said there were rats in the night and the and also claimed the protest had damaged plants and turf.

The prosecution explained that there were 4 new dome structures on the art gallery, in the stead of several tents. He says that officials have seen inside these structures. He explained with great disdain that they witnessed sleeping bags, blankets, backpacks and garbage plates.

He then explained a very crucial part of his argument. The city said they understand that a constitutional issue is of great importance, and this importance merits a long discussion. But due to the potential that the Art Gallery was so unsafe it was due to its possibility for irreparable harm that it was seeking an INTERIM injunction, to get the protesters off the site and have the argument over Charter Rights at a later date when they have had more time to prepare for that argument.

He said Occupy Protesters have been compliant, but it is hard to resolve issues sometimes due to the nature of the organization. This form of noncompliance has been cited as a reason to clear the grounds. He claimed the resources lost at Occupy Vancouver restricts firefighters from “doing their duties”.

In anticipation of the defense, he brought up rulings made by other judges in similar instances to explain his interpretation. A case was brought up from Victoria, where a judge ruled it was unconstitutional to prevent homeless people from setting up temporary shelters overnight in a park. The defense said that this was irrelevant, due to the circumstances being different when it is a ‘life or death matter’ versus a political protest.

He also brought up the Zang case, where temporary structures were erected on a city street of Vancouver in political protest. The courts also ruled in favour of the defendents in that case. He said due to that case, a policy was enacted that allowed political protesters to seek a permit. He cited that Occupy Vancouver never tried to seek the city for a permit, and instead have ‘simply taken over the land’. This point was brought up despite earlier evidence brought up by defense that organizers had tried to speak with the city, but they had not been replied to.

He said if the protesters had approached the city, they could have received permission to erect structures. But this is an issue since the city regulates permission of these arrangements.

The time had then reached 4.15, which was when court was to be called for the day.

A few weeks ago Occupy Wallstreet was just a small movement, a movement that only those very clicked in with independent news sources would have known about.

Since then, the mainstream media has reluctantly had their hand forced in choosing to cover the seismic shift now taking place in the United States and abroad. The movement (as I will refer to it) has spread to over 100 cities, the largest being in New York where marines, war veterans and ‘raging grannies’ march among trade unions with total numbers reaching in the tens of thousands at times. There are also major organization and numbers among Occupy Boston, Occupy Chicago and Occupy Los Angeles.

((RussiaToday coverage: Occupy Wall Street too big to ignore))

Each day the movement continues to grow as people hear of the protests through word of mouth and the internet. Occupy Vancouver’s march has 3272 people listed as Attending on Facebook, and the Occupy Edmonton page already has 1498 likes. The idea has not only spread in Canada, but cities in Europe, Asia and Africa are also participating.

((Coverage of Occupy Vancouver by CTV))

People are protesting a number of things, and indeed the issues are different from city to city. I cannot speak on behalf of the movement since I am only one person, but in my opinion one of the the main concerns people have is the amount of power vested in the hands of corporations whose only motive is to increase profit, whatever the environmental or social cost.

((The Corporation — Documentary Film Trailer))

We are seeing a growing difference in income between the upper 1% of society and the rest of the 99%, especially those in poverty. After the bailout in the US, which had 6 million people’s homes forcelosed, bankers made huge profits by betting against their own stocks, and then payed out bonuses to the CEO’s with the $600 billion dollars of tax money they were given.

((US banks pay record bonuses after bailout following economic collapse))

Although Canada was not the cause of the financial crisis of 2008, we were still hit hard. And although we do not have quite as severe deregulation and lax laws concerning the financial system in Canada, we still have major issues. It might surprise Canadians how much *DEBT* our country really is in. What is the actual number?

http://www.debtclock.ca/
((An ongoing documentation of Canadian debt))

$-570,248,188,000.00 is the amount of our total debt. That is over $16,000 per person. If someone we knew was in severe debt and continued trying to spend more money, we would consider them mentally sick. That is a fun metaphor until we, as students, realize that that will be OUR burden in the coming years. Our population is not evenly balanced, we have a high proportion of baby-boomers that are now retiring and collecting pensions. What this means for the younger generation is that we will have to shoulder that burden, even as we see now that the European banking system is near collapse and another global recession may be just around the corner. And what it means for those baby boomers is that there is the chance that when they reach for that pension, it will have disappeared.

((“The old adage that the “rich get richer” seems to ring true in Canada, according to a new study that found the income gap in this country is growing faster than it is in the United States.”))

And the corporations continue to make insane profits and pay gregarious bonuses to their CEO’s, as more Canadians slip into poverty.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110913/income-gap-conference-board-110913/

This is obviously a huge issue. Many people see that there are things that are wrong in society, but never before have we been able to organize and assemble so efficiently and peacefully. The unprecedented Arab Spring lit the flame of social change, and it has now spread across the world and reached us here in Vancouver. We have seen the failings of society, and we are now organizing together and to tackle it collectively, old and young, every single member of the 99%

((When was the last time you saw grannies livestreaming from a protest?))

As we have seen in Spain, when people come together change CAN happen. I ask of you to question your belief in the permanence of society, to question that capitalism is nature’s law. Let go of your feelings that say no social change can occur and the people will always remain divided. PEOPLE ARE WAKING UP. We are realizing that mainstream media and the 1% that control has kept us focused on our differences and kept us divided. But no longer.

((Tahrir Square protests))

This is a social movement that may define a generation. But to succeed, at the dismay of exploitive corporations that have sprawled out and brought destruction to every corner of the Earth, we need the collective power of the people. Everybody has a list of assets that they bring to this world, and thus to this movement. If everybody contributes their unique skill set, real change (not politician ‘change’) CAN happen.

As the first years at UBC parade around Imagine Day, I am at home crunching my to-do list waiting for the moment I can scratch my pen through the last remaining line of text and finally hit the court for some B-Ball! I think on and during University its absolutely essential to find your (as cliche as this sound) healthy balance. I have seen kids who sit around and chain-smoke cigarettes all day during exam week to deal with stress, and I have seen kids almost flunk out of university because they were just playing b-ball all day. Seriously. I leave you with those as the two extremes, and two poor ways of approaching fitness.

Also: everyone tries to emphasize UBC Rec as the thing to do if you want to participate in some sports. Yes, and no. I was running track last year and wasn’t able to participate in any REC leagues, so I can’t pass too much judgment–but I know what the protocol is: organizing a team and playing! The thing is, REC is exactly that: organized, which has it’s pros and cons. Another great way to get your skills up, get your heart racing, and doesn’t involve trying to get a bunch of predetermined people at a specific spot at a predetermined time is just DROP IN BASKETBALL alternatively known as pick-up ball.

When you see courts at the Student Rec Centre, or at Vanier, or at that court by the UBC Thunderbird Arena, and a bunch of kids running around playing basketball, it is almost always certainly pick-up ball. Joining these games are a great way to develop some skills without a scoreboard, a referee, or having to know anyone else (which is very helpful if you’re a first year student and can’t grab a bunch of friends to go shoot around with). I didn’t really plan on it, but I will write down the unwritten system of pick-up basketball that is acknowledged anywhere there is a court. I’ll write these out because it was not long ago that I was sitting at the edge of Kits beach basketball court with my basketball sitting on the ground in front of me wondering HOW DO I GET ON THERE AND PLAY WITH THESE GUYS? So I will save you the trouble of having to look like a dumbass and learn the hard way like I did 😉

THE SYSTEM:
The teams are split evenly (most of the time, although 3v2 and 4v3 can be common, especially if there is a bit of skill discrepancy between a few really good players. Some of my favorite games have been 3v2’s). The teams are usually split according to size and skill level, although ‘shooting for teams’ can be an option. What happens in that case is that each player takes a shot from the free throw line, and the first (x) amount of people to make their shot join the first team, and the rest who missed their shot make the second team. (x being the number that it would take to make even teams). This way works, although I’m sure, since you are so smart and go to UBC, you can figure out why it isn’t quite as fair.

The games usually go to 11, although its important to agree on what you’re going to before the game starts. Sometimes if you’re tired its better to opt for just a game to 7. The way scoring works is that each basket is worth a single point, and three pointers are worth 2 points. This makes for some very exciting games, because some clutch 3 point shooting can really turn the tide. The games are usually ‘win by 2’, but again, double check that before the game starts.

If you’re playing with three people or more to a team, and you’re playing half court, there is a rule called ‘pass off the top’, which means that the person who starts immediately with the ball isn’t allowed to score immediately, they have to make at least one pass before the team is allowed to score.

Fouls are usually ‘call your own foul’, which means if you get whacked by somebody, it’s your responsibility to call the foul. Ballers go by the honor system here, because if you don’t, it turns into those middle school dodgeball games where everyone claims IT DIDNT HIT ME IT DIDNT HIT ME– and we all know that just sucks.

What happens after a basket is scored depends on the rules that are agreed upon before the game starts, or after the first basket. It will either be ‘straight’, which means that each time you score you get the basket back, or ‘switch possession’, which means the other team gets the ball each time you score. There is also ‘possession after 3’, which I”m sure we’ve all heard and is pretty self-explanatory. In my humble opinion, straight games are the most fun!

GETTING ONTO THE COURT:
If you are going by yourself to a basketball court, which I highly recommend, you might feel a little apprehensive about going and joining a game. Seriously, don’t be at all, people are always, ALWAYS looking for more people to get bigger and funner games going on. The best way to get into a game is to simply do this, walk up and start to put down your backpack or whatever, drink some water, and wait for a basket to be scored (aka a break in the game). At that point just go right ahead and say ‘I got next!’. What this means is that once this game is done, and they are assembling the teams for next round, you automatically have a spot. The team that lost will have to vacate their spot on the court, and if there aren’t enough people, certain players that have just lost will get back on and have play a consecutive game. That’s where you come in–as someone approaching the game you give whoever just lost a nice break if they are a little out of shape and huffing for air 😉

Other lingo that might be helpful to know is ‘run it back’. If you are playing a super competitive game and you or the other team just barely lost and wants an immediate shot for revenge, just LOOK THEM DEEP IN THEIR EYES AND IN YOUR BEST ANGRY VOICE DECLARE “RUN IT BACK!”. This shows that you’re ready for another game and want to take their glory away ASAP. The best games you can find are these super competitive ones where the teams run it back over and over and over until everyone is so pooped they all just sit down and laugh together about how damn sore they’re gonna be tomorrow. And that’s why basketball is so great–the comradery!

So there you have it! A little crash course in drop-in basketball. I would personally recommend this style of play especially for someone who is looking to get into the game, even over a tier 2 REC league. Even if you are the worst player on the court, which is what I sometime am in very competitive games at Kits Beach, you can still learn how to play the game and how to position yourself and help your team win. You may not play as integral of a role (which you will probably be happy about, as I sometimes am :P) but it just moving around on offense and playing defense will definitely help you get a flow of the game. At the SRC there are usually 4-6 courts with often 4 different games going, so there is almost certainly a court tailored to your skill level. When I knew not a single soul in Vancouver I found the best way I had to socialize and make friends was at the basketball court, and I found myself there day after day playing the great game of basketball with a great set of people.

A few random tips:
Don’t buy a basketball at the little store at the SRC, they are all very overpriced. I would recommend going to a Sports Mart or something of the sort, they will have more reasonably priced equipment. Or, usually, you don’t even need a ball, although they are priceless in terms of practicing.
Don’t wear a white t-shirt if you are playing outside. You’re not going to permanently ruin it, not by any means, but they get dirty and just look really gross. Just a little information nugget 😉
Bring a water bottle, shorts, and good runners (preferably with ankle support of some sort). Colored t-shirt or tank top, and no jewelry or watches so you don’t scrape other players.

Last but not least: HAVE FUN! And always hustle hard! Even if you aren’t the best, if you are giving your best effort (especially on defense) I *PROMISE* no one will give you dirty looks or be pissed off. The only way to piss people off is to perform poorly because you are lolligagging. As long as you are running hard, you will be fit, happy, and have a million friends who worship and adore you! Beautiful models will be arriving at your place of residence just to have a second with YOU, YOU! and Mt Rushmore will be knocked down and replaced with an effigy of YOU, YOU! Okay maybe not, but you will have a blast, that I guarantee.

Have fun, and keep hoopin!
Mayfield OUT

Hello again. I was given an assignment by my professor a few weeks ago to write a research essay on a topic of our choosing. Well, keeping with the theme of trying to change things causing ills to society, I chose to write it on a topic that is well-known to many on our UBC campus: marijuana, and specifically, the legalization of the substance. I researched my ass off because I knew, more than just getting a great mark, my number one motive was to write something that could have an impact on people’s perspectives and to accomplish that I knew I had to bring my A-game. Whether or not my A-game was brought is of course, up to the reader to decide. Without further ado, here is the essay in it’s entirety. (The conclusion was changed for the actual essay I handed in.)

The Canadian Case For Legalizing Cannabis

Although it is a policy that affects nearly every citizen in Canada, the debate over Canadian marijuana legalization is seldom spoken about in everyday conversation. Many citizens of Canada assume that prohibiting cannabis has been successful and beneficial for Canadians, although deeper analysis of the issue suggests otherwise. The prohibition of marijuana has been in effect since 1923, despite a 2003 report committed by the Senate of Canada which recommended the government legalize cannabis and have it taxed and regulated. Canadian Senator Pierre Nolin describes prohibition as a “patent failure” which is not only economically taxing but has extremely detrimental social costs (Nolin xv). These costs are what led Senator Nolin and the Senate in 2003 to suggest Parliament abolish the old system of criminalizing cannabis and instead recommended a responsible legalization of the plant. They recognized that if cannabis is taxed and regulated it can not only save us valuable law enforcement resources, but its sale can bring in funds for the government and the citizens of Canada. The money wasted on keeping cannabis outlawed can be applied more effectively in preventative and treatment efforts such as identifying and treating at-risk users, allowing young people greater access to genuine health information and allowing research which can lead to better understanding of the drug’s effects. Based on all this criteria, I will argue that legalization and regulation is the only viable solution to the glaring shortcomings of the failed marijuana prohibition in Canada.

Cannabis and marijuana are two interchangeable words that refer to the flowering buds of either the Cannabis Sativa or Cannabis Indica plant (Blackmore 332). Scientific findings attribute the first use of cannabis to China where the plant stalk was used for clothing and ropes over 10,000 years ago (Nolin, Kenny, Colin 56). Marijuana today is the most commonly consumed illicit drug in Canada and the world. A committee of the Canadian Senate reported on the prevalence of marijuana in Canadian society, estimating in 2003 that 100,000 Canadians over the age of 18 and 225,000 Canadians between 12 and 17 use cannabis on a daily basis (Nolin et al. 81). Marijuana remained legal to use for 12,000 years until the beginning of the 20th century when a “moral panic” perpetuated by the media helped contribute to the 1920 passing of the Opium and Narcotics Act (Nolin et al. 99, 49) Marijuana was added to this act abruptly and without question in 1923 and has remained illegal ever since. Laws prohibiting marijuana remain in Canada despite polls suggesting that two thirds of Canadians would like to see marijuana at least decriminalized (Nolin et al. 102). The drug today, however, is considered illegal due to an act passed in 1996 called the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was created by the Canadian government in 1996 and has received criticism for lacking a clear, rational purpose and failing to put any significant emphasis on either prevention or harm reduction strategies (Nolin et al. 7). In this act the federal government claims to spend nearly $450 million dollars yearly in their Canadian Anti-Drug Strategy to pay for harm-reduction and education strategies, although it was revealed in 2001 that 95% of that money is spent upholding the criminal law. (Nolin xv) This is despite the fact that it has been found that increasing the presence of law enforcement has negligible effects on stopping the drug trade while possibly increasing the rate of violence in the area (Rasmussen 106). Still, the Canadian Senate in 2003 estimated nearly $1 billion dollars was spent every year on drug enforcement (Nolin et al. 129).

The way the government fights the illegal flow of cannabis is by two means, disrupting the supply of cannabis by targeting the growers and dealers, and by reducing the demand by targeting consumers who want to purchase marijuana (Lynch 6). Disrupting the supply is done by increasing the penalties for those who grow and traffic marijuana. This is achieved by increasing jail time and other penalties for those who are caught possessing a large weight of marijuana. Ironically, basing the severity of penalties on weight has been the motivation for growers increasing the potency of marijuana (Lynch 83). It also raises the demand of the consumers for high potency marijuana, which combines for the reason there has been up to a 40 times increase in potency since 1974 (Lynch 84) This effect was also found in the United States’ prohibition of alcohol where low-potency beer was replaced with high alcoholic spirits (Rasmussen 87). In economic terms, the substitution effect is a phenomenon where consumers replace a product that has low availability for a product to a product that is more easily attainable. Studies observe this effect in marijuana where less availability induces substitutions of cannabis for much more lethal drugs including alcohol, cocaine and crystal methamphetamine (Rasmussen 74). Reducing demand is done by increasing the penalties and the likelihood of being arrested for possession of marijuana. This tactic can be seen in the number of arrests that are made for simple possession, which has been estimated at a staggering 21,000 people a year (Nolin et al. 131). This extremely high number raises doubt about the actual legitimacy of the whole prohibition, considering these individuals are nonviolent users who may live the rest of their life with a criminal record for using a virtually harmless substance. These examples illustrate how the effect of trying to prohibit marijuana often has unforeseen consequences that are graver than the actual use of the drug itself, which is an idea that was put forth by the Senate of Canada (Nolin et al. 194).

Even with the various efforts by law enforcement, the attempts are meagre when it comes to stopping the illegal cannabis market. It has been found globally that drug use is influenced less by enforcement policies and more by social and cultural factors, which is why it is thought that the “Pacific Coast Mentality” contributes to the entrenchment of marijuana in Vancouver’s culture (Nolin et al. 23). A Swedish study, when comparing major nations’ drug use rate and the amount spent on enforcing prohibitionist laws, found that drug policy laws and law enforcement made no significant impact on drug usage (Nolin et al. 171). This is reflected in the United States, where the country’s highly restrictive policies and billions of dollars spent on enforcing drug prohibition exist alongside the highest rates of marijuana use in the world (Nolin et al. 171). Canada is also one of the world’s highest ranked in terms of cannabis consumption (Nolin et al. 171), and use is steadily increasing (Nolin et al. 59). It is hard to imagine that cannabis prohibition is working effectively when 2.5 million Canadians actually use cannabis yearly (Nolin et al.186). Indeed, it would seem cannabis use is not leaving Canada anytime soon, regardless of any amount of money spent trying to prohibit it.

Each of the 21,000 times a year someone is charged for marijuana possession, valuable time is spent by law enforcement officers during the actual arrest, again while processing the charge and again during trial if a plea bargain is not struck. If it is accurately estimated that 30% of our justice system is spent dealing with cannabis cases (Nolin et al. 157), lowering the amount of arrests for marijuana possessions would take an enormous strain off of our courts and law enforcement officers. Enforcing the laws prohibiting marijuana cost an estimated $300 million dollars a year (Nolin et al.157). This, ultimately, is tax payers’ dollars which represents a policy which is no longer backed by the public’s wishes. A more appropriate use of this money would be funding efforts that work to minimize harm caused by marijuana use in society. Harm reductions techniques usually fall under two categories, prevention and treatment. Prevention efforts are programs that try to educate at-risk users of the potential dangers of marijuana abuse. Treatment methods are necessary for the rare occasion that someone develops dependency.. Investing in these options was highly recommended in the Senate’s 2003 appraisal of the drug war in Canada, yet very little action has been taken by the federal government in this respect.

Even without much attention being put towards prevention and treatment in Canada, the harm of illegal drugs and specifically cannabis are still dwarfed by the social ills caused by alcohol and tobacco. The cost associated with substance abuse of all illegal drugs, which include things such as health care costs and law enforcement, was pegged at $1.4 billion dollars based on a 1992 study. Ironically, the researchers found the second biggest cost of illegal drugs was in upholding the laws, which the study accounts for $400 million of the $1.4 billion figure. Comparatively, the costs incurred on Canadian citizens due to abuse of alcohol and tobacco products were $7.5 billion and $9.6 billion respectively (Nolin et al. 155). This is due largely to the fact health care costs are virtually zero in the case of marijuana, as oppose to alcohol and tobacco in whicH health care costs account for the majority of their combined $17.1 billion dollar debt to society . Though psychologal (as opposed to physical) addiction can occur in users of marijuana, studies have found smoking marijuana to be less addicting than nicotine, alcohol and even caffeine. There has not been a single documented death on Earth attributed to marijuana in its thousands of years of use (Arthur 12) and in 2003 it was concluded by the Senate of Canada that “cannabis poses very little danger to the user and to society as a whole” (Nolin et al. 192).

Most Canadians actually are against the cannabis drug laws, with 66% of Canadians wanting at least decriminalization and 47% wishing for tax and regulation based on polls collected in 2003. The percent of citizens supporting legalization had risen from only 31% in 1991; a 16% increase over 12 years (Nolin et al. 102). It has been found that British Columbians are particularly in favour of legalization and when polled believed that legalization would increase access to marijuana health information, increase effectiveness of law enforcement and reduce organized crime (Nolin et al. 104). Emphasizing policies that integrate drugs into social life and educating people about drugs is a perceived as a more effective public health policy than relying on the criminal justice system to deal with the problems of drug use (Vallance 25). Indeed, it brings into question the liberty of Canadians each time a non-violent citizen receives a life-altering criminal record for possession of marijuana, for which 21000 arrests are made yearly. This was the precise argument used in 2001 when an Ontario Court ruled that marijuana prohibition violated section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In July of that year the government, to appease the court finding, began regulating the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes only (Nolin et al. 24).

This proliferate use of cannabis in Canada is an extreme problem when viewed with the philosophy of prohibition, but it also harbours magnificent potential if the plant were to be legalized. Canada’s cannabis market is already prolific, with an estimated 2.5% of the world’s marijuana being grown within Canadian borders with only 4 hundreths a percent of the world’s population. The RCMP has estimated that 800 tonnes (1.6 million pounds) of marijuana are being produced in Canada each year with 500 tonnes coming from British Columbia (Nolin et al. 35). Cannabis production is a significant part of British Columbia’s economy, where with a market value of 6 billion dollars it is considered one of the province’s largest industries (Nolin et al. 37). Again we must be reminded that because of current prohibitionist laws this gigantic sum of money is funnelled directly to fund gang organizations who risk prison sentences and violent deaths in pursuit of immense profit.

Faced with the facts we are forced to realize that marijuana prohibition is flawed as a philosophy, has failed as a policy and will continue to indebt the Canadian people until political change sees it abandoned. Canada has much to gain by taking a responsible approach to cannabis use, an approach that emphasizes health and safety and discards the outdated thinking of targeting its own citizens with jail-times and criminal records. As a proud Canadian who believes in the rationality of his fellow citizens and my his country’s reputation as a leader in global initiatives , I naturally believe that if more information and genuine facts were portrayed to the public, then the already majority population of Canadians who would like to see change to the laws would only increase. Thus, it is our imperative duty as patriotic Canadians to realize our potential in changing the marijuana landscape, not only on a national but a global level. To not be afraid of open discussion and debate is the responsibility of a new generation of Canadians, ones who openly admit to smoking marijuana and stand steadfast in defense of their personal rights. I thereby personally challenge every Canadian to develop their stance on marijuana’s place in society through open-minded research and discussion. And if you come to the conclusion that I have, and you see can more readily see the strain that our laws put on our society, then I call on you as a patriotic citizen to voice your opinion and not sit idly by and let others make your choices for you. Afterall, democracy is based on the wishes of its people.

Thank you for your time
Anthony Mayfield, UBC

AFTERWORD:
While I was writing this, I attended the CAP conference put on by the students and professors at UBC. I was pleasantly surprised to see that there were not one, but two projects on the issue of marijuana use in Canada. One focusing on the current drug laws, and another focusing directly on policy reform. Based on those projects, and the sentiments I hear of all people who would like to see it legalized–those who use the plant and those who do not–I genuinely think that our generation, with our savvy for tracking down factual information, will be the ones who bring a change to the counter-productive drug laws in society.

Take care, fellow citizens
Anthony Mayfield

UPDATE: AN INTERESTING aside, Canadian Courts have deemed pot laws unconstitutional.. in 90 days there will be complete legalization of Cannabis. Of course, laws will probably be made before then in light of the new court finding, but it’s definitely a triumph.
Pot Laws Ruled Unconstitutional
UPDATE 2: Just got it back today, received an ‘A’ grade, a testament to the hours and hours I threw at this assignment to make it something pot-smokers could be proud of.

Works Cited
Benavie, Arthur. Drugs: America’s Holy War. New York: Routledge, 2009. Print.
Kenny, Colin, and Pierre Claude Nolin. Cannabis: Report of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. Toronto: University of Toronto, 2003. Print.
Lynch, Timothy. After Prohibition: an Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century. Washington (D.C.): CATO Institute, 2000. Print.
Rasmussen, David W., and Bruce L. Benson. The Economic Anatomy of a Drug War: Criminal Justice in the Commons. Lanham, Md..: Rowman and Littlefield, 1994. Print.
Vallance, Theodore R. Prohibition’s Second Failure: the Quest for a Rational and Humane Drug Policy. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1993. Print.
Erickson, Patricia Gordon. Cannabis Criminals: the Social Effects of Punishment on Drug Users. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation, 1980. Print.
Hendin, Herbert. Living High: Daily Marijuana Use among Adults. New York, NY: Human Sciences, 1987. Print.
Blackmore, Susan J. Consciousness an Introduction. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2004. Print.

A few weeks ago I had the distinct honor of being invited to participate in a discussion put on by the UBC Libertarian Club on Wikileaks. Thanks to my blog post on the subject, I was invited to join them, at which point I asked to be a speaker. I got an eventual ‘OK’ and began to write, what I thought was very necessary as a speaker, which was a long speech. When the day came, however, I realized that my speaking had less to do with delivering a speech, and more to do with participating in a debate with the BC Libertarian Party’s Vice President Paul Geddes. Unfortunately I never got to share with the masses my 13 page magnum opus, but here it is, for the world to read, with little notes for me still left intact to give it the raw feel.

At this point I’d like to stress that the subject matter is indeed very, VERY important and as a member of our free society I would consider it your duty to be enlightened on the topics covered in this writing. You don’t have to agree with me, but you at least have to be educated on the matter and know where you stand. And if you do share my feelings on the matter, please, heed my closing remarks and try and do something about it. For me, it is spreading the word and donating to Bradley Manning’s defense fund. What you choose to do is completely up to your autonomous and creative mind to figure out. Without further ado: here is my speech.

Wikileaks Speech by Anthony Mayfield

I would like to start first by breaking down the method behind which Wikileaks, a small journalistic organization, has been able to step on the toes of large governments, banks, and corporations, all while evading the powerful and swift counterattacks attacks made against them, specifically those of the US government.

I’ll begin by illustrating how the website works. Basically, Wikileaks functions as an inbox for people, usually disgruntled employees, allowing them to submit various documentation concerning government injustices, corruption, and environmental devastations. This act of exposure is called ‘blowing the whistle’ and the documents they submit are called leaks. Wikileaks, thanks to the computer savvy of its members, has a very sophisticated process for disguising the trace of these submissions, and so far not a single source has been discovered by their submitting of material.

Of course many of you are probably wondering about Bradley Manning right now, the alleged source of the US government leaks, but I want you to hold onto those thoughts and questions because I will come back to that later in the presentation.

After the information has been submitted, Wikileaks, meaning Julian Assange and his team of international volunteers, then examines this material and works to determine its validity. After his team has concluded that the submissions are in fact the real deal, and to their credit they have not published a fake document in their 4 year history, they then look to first disclose the information which will have the maximum political impact. This can be seen quite obviously now in the ongoing release of US diplomatic cables, which has been cleverly been coined by Assange as ‘Cablegate’.

(As an aside I I will mention a bit about what a ‘cable’ is so you can understand the jargon. A cable is simply a message typed out by either a US soldier, or a US diplomat, where they brief Washington on what is happening from wherever they may be reporting. Think of it like an email that the government uses to communicate amongst it’s members)

Continuing on with Cablegate: while sitting on a trove of over 250,000 diplomatic cables, rather than releasing them all at once, which we have seen in the past from Wikileaks, they have instead opted this time to release them slowly, sometimes no cables in a day, sometimes tens of cables in a day. The impact has been staggering. Wikileaks now releases these cables in concurrence with major events happening all over the world. While unrest was stirring in Egypt, Wikileaks released US cables commenting on Mubaraks deep corruption and the level of police brutality in the country. This undoubtedly helped fuel the fire of the revolution, and for the first time the people had something concrete that they could point to and rally on. We are also seeing this currently with Libya, where Wikileaks has been releasing cable after cable documenting the dysfunction in the ruling of Gaddafi and his extended family. It cannot be doubted now that a small, albeit dedicated and computer-savvy group of individuals is certainly a real force to be reckoned with on the political landscape.

It is entirely fitting for Wikileaks to have come to prominence in this new internet era, where Twitter and Facebook enable people to communicate effectively to the point where they can spread the idea of revolution and oust their long-standing regimes such as the case was in Egypt.

(Just an aside: for anyone who wants to see exactly how Facebook was used in orchestrating those protests I would recommend watching a Frontline Documentary that just came out a few days ago called ‘Revolution In Cairo’, which can be viewed on the Frontline website.)

The beauty of the whistleblowing system is that not only is Julian Assange utterly replaceable, but the whole of Wikileaks can be swiftly replaced, too. Wikileaks’ biggest contribution to the global community, you could argue, is the blueprint it has laid out on to how to run a cost-effective whisteblower website. We are now seeing copycat sites pop up all over the internet, the most well known of these is Openleaks, an organization started by Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a former associate of Assange. Openleaks, unlike Wikileaks, does not actually host any information on its website,
but merely acts as a middle man, enabling the submitted material to go directly to a handful of news organizations partnered with the website. It seems the model of an effective whisteblower site is out of the bag and in working order all over the world, and although these particular sites may differ in method, they all have one simple goal: Transparency

A quote of Julian Assange’s that drives this point home is, and I quote “The aim of Wikileaks is to achieve just reform around the world and do it through the mechanism of transparency.” End quote. It is impossible to end injustice if you don’t know it’s occurring, and if you are shown injustice first-hand, it is hard not to want to do something about it. This sentiment was felt around the world when Wikileaks released a video called Collateral Murder. (And I’m just interested to see, by show of hands, how many people have actually seen the video?)

The video offers true insight into the disgusting nature of the war, and lets the viewer sit and watch US soldiers from a first person perspective in an Apache helicopter as they gun down unarmed civilians, including children and two journalists working for Reuters. Apparently the cameras possessed by the journalists were mistaken for weapons.

The video offers a grotesque realization on how taking lives in Iraq has been trivialized as no more than a ‘video game’ and that when you enter a war, events such as these come naturally with the territory. Although Wikileaks had had a long history of relaying crucial information to the public, it was this disturbing video that sprung the organization into the contemporary media and the minds of viewers.

The next step for Wikileaks was to simply continue their mission and publish classified and secret information censored from the public. Their next move was their most ambitious: the publishing of 92,000 military cables documenting the war in Afghanistan which was the largest military leak of all time. This release was dubbed ‘The Afghan War Diary’.

To help the small organization attain maximum political impact, the documents were shared with three prestigious news organizations: The Guardian in the UK, Der Spiegel in Germany and The New York Times. July 25th was chosen as the release date and in coordination, the news agencies, including Wikileaks, began to cover the stories told in the cables, which revealed the true nature of the war. That is, these cables plainly show the facts the government was unwilling to publicly admit to and chose to sweep under the rug.

This included revelations such as Pakistan’s close ties with Al Qaeda and hundreds of civilian casualties never before reported. It also gave the public an unprecedented view into the reality of war. Reading first hand accounts of civilian shootings paint a picture that comes without twist from the media and euphemizing by top ranking government officials—it paints the real picture.

Wikileaks’ next release was The Iraq War Logs on October 22nd, 2010. Over 390,000 diplomatic cables were dumped in one single disclosure and hosted on the Wikileaks website for public and media viewing. Again, the sheer number of these documents means there were uncountable revelations about the war, but I will of course only name a few.

The most significant is the number of unreported civilian casualties exposed by the documents. An unbelievable 15,000 civilian deaths were added to the Iraq Body Count, raising the total number of civilian deaths to 122,000. Keep in mind the total deaths in the Iraq war is around 150,000, which means that over 80% of casualties have been innocent civilians. Again Wikileaks revealed the truth, lucidly and in plain fashion. Some in the media called it embarrassing, others, who I would tend to agree with more, called it downright disgraceful. Their tarnished image had the US thirsty for vengeance.

By now you can imagine the witch-hunt for Julian Assange was brewing. A secret 32 page Pentagon discussion on Wikileaks, and specifically, how to deter the threat of internal government leaks, was ironically leaked to Assange and his team in March of 2010.

By November 18 of the same year, 27 days after the release of the Iraq War Logs, there was a curious case cast against Assange dealing with allegations of sexual assault. This case had formerly been thrown out by a Swedish prosecutor citing lack of evidence, but the investigation was delivered a new prosecutor and reopened, coinciding suspiciously close with the gigantic document dumps made by Wikileaks. I do not stand in a position to comment on whether the allegations are true or not, but I can mention a few things regarding the circumstances. Firstly, there is currently no charge against Assange for any sexual misconduct, but he is wanted instead ‘only for questioning’. Ten days after the European arrest warrant was issued against Assange, Wikileaks began its latest and greatest chapter in their long history.

It is interesting to note that even considering their explosive nature, the war leaks of Iraq and Afghanistan were not the thing that caused the most disruption around the world. That would be left to the publication that caused an instant media storm that has been continuing for months and indeed rages on to this very day. That publication was Cablegate, or the systematic release of 250,000 US diplomatic cables beginning on November 28, 2010.

When a US diplomat is working in another country, be it at the US Embassy of Ottawa or the US Embassy of Cairo, he will send back information to Washington through messages called cables. These cables often contain information including unsavory appraisals of foreign leaders, explanations in a straightforward fashion of what the US thinks of the other countries’ policies and evidence of the mounting rivalry between the States and China.

It is no mystery then, exactly why this US diplomatic cable release is such an intriguing piece of reading for the public. Finally, we are able to look deeper into international relations and have a source of information regarding these topics other than the wordy and often misleading press conferences given by government officials. It is also the thing that pushed the US over the edge.

Obama called the leaks ‘deplorable’, Sarah Palin called for Assange to be ‘hunted down like Al Qaeda’ and Joe Biden drew the conclusion that Assange was a ‘high-tech terrorist’. Calls for his assassination were made by top politicians in the US, but they weren’t the only ones. Tom Flannagan, a former advisor to Stephen Harper, live on the CBC, suggested Obama put out a contract on Assange, and perhaps use a drone on him. He then continued to say ‘I think Assange should be assassinated, actually’. The Assange camp viewed this as serious and an incitement to commit murder.

It was an interesting time in December as Assange went toe to toe with many people who wanted nothing more than for him to meet an untimely demise and his organization to crumble and fold.

Unfortunately for those in the US who judge Assange as a kind of devilish figure, they are unable to actually charge him with anything. The initial dissemination of secret documents IS illegal, but distributing them from that point is not. It is protected under the US first amendment right to free speech and a free press. This protects Assange, but not another central figure in the Wikileaks saga: Pvt. Bradley Manning.

Bradley Manning is the alleged source for much, if not all, of Wikileaks’ US cables on diplomacy and the two wars—not to mention the ‘Collateral Murder’ video. He was stationed in Iraq as a low ranking intelligence analyst but grew weary of the war. Thanks to a post-911 initiative to make communication between the military and diplomats easier, Manning had access to all of the hundreds of thousands of cables which he eventually leaked. There is still speculation as to how he was able to download and distribute all of these cables, and there is still speculation as to whether or not he is the actual source. Assange, in what people have criticized as going against his ideology of transparency, is not letting any information out as to who his sources are. He maintains that the system Wikileaks has in place does not actually ever put him in contact with the source, so he himself does not know whether or not Bradley Manning is truly where Wikileaks got its information. And true to Assange’s word, the US government has searched and searched but cannot find a connection between Assange and Bradley Manning. Even with that being said, Wikileaks has put thousands of dollars towards Pvt. Manning’s defense fund.

And this is where we find ourselves, with two political activists facing looming prison terms. As of Thursday, February 24th, Julian Assange has been ordered by a court to be extradited to Sweden. He and his lawyers have anticipated this, however, and are planning an appeal. Assange’s ultimate fear is being extradited from Sweden to US and being charged for espionage. It is a known fact that the US has been collecting information for an ‘ongoing investigation’ of Assange, delivering subpoenas and ordering Twitter to hand over information regarding the Wikileaks twitter.

They have also demanded information of others who once worked alongside Assange, including an Icelandic Member of Parliament, Briggita Jonsdottir, who helped pass legislation that turned Iceland into a safe haven for whistleblowers. The US itself is also hard at work trying to pass legislation called ‘The Shield Act’ which would make it illegal to publish the names of U.S. military and intelligence informants. This amendment to the constitution has been in response to Wikileaks and is an attempt to give the US grounds to charge Assange.

Meanwhile, Private Bradley Manning sits as he has for the past 9 months in maximum custody and solitary confinement. The conditions he has been held in have angered human rights activists and even launched a UN investigation into whether his treatment can be considered torturous.

The twenty three year old spends 23 hours a day in his cell, and is allowed no contact with the outside world or other inmates. To those in charge of his detainment, this is considered ‘consistent’ with the treatment of the other maximum security prisoners.
To those Americans unfamiliar with the story of Wikileaks, Manning is a traitor. That is also what Daniel Ellsberg was called when he famously leaked the Pentagon Papers in June of 1971.

But Ellsberg was no traitor. He worked at for the US government at RAND (a thinktank financed by the US government) and was a top military advisor to Lyndon Johnson. When he saw the brutality of what he believed was a wrongful war, he acted and made a difference. He was put on trial for espionage and when asked by a reporter if he feared going to jail, Ellsberg, the husband and a father of two young children, replied “wouldn’t you go to jail to help end the war?”

Indeed, Ellsberg was not a traitor, but a patriot of the highest order. When the leaks were published by the New York Times, the government threatened legal action against the news organization as well. There were protests in the streets and Ellsberg, while facing 115 years if convicted, was granted a mistrial and never spent time behind bars.

Why then, was Ellsberg regarded as a hero, where Bradley Manning is regarded as treasonous? The question is a concern for all of us, though the answer may not be easy to pinpoint. He is blamed for threatening national security and thus is vilified, but blowing the whistle on war crimes is in and of itself, not a crime.

It became clear to me while following this story day after day that there were grave implications if the US had their way and both Manning and Assange are imprisoned for God only knows how long. It would be a travesty to those of us who consider ourselves proponents of free speech and a free press. It would be a disgrace to those among us who believe that the people have a right to know about how a war is being conducted. The government cannot fight a war on behalf of its people if its people are left in the dark on why they are led to war. Who can hold the government accountable if not its own people?

And whether you agree the idea that it is the people’s right to know what the government does on its behalf or not, the fact of the matter is this: Assange, and especially Manning, need our help. They chose to stand up against inhumanities and are paying for it with their own life and freedom.

The paypal account for Bradley Mannings defense fund has been frozen. The paypal account for Wikileaks’ donations has been frozen. But there is a better method we can use to show our support, and it is the very means they both used to bolster their cause: the spreading of information.

It is our duty to defend the defenseless. As long as the people know, then they can make a difference. It doesn’t take long to realize there are some very benevolent forces working against both Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, and as long as we spread the word we CAN make a difference. I would ask of each of you, to spread the word about Wikileaks and Bradley Manning. Explain to people just how pivotal of a moment in history this is. Let them do their own research and reach their own conclusions: but just try and get the word out.

As we have seen already in Tunisia and Egypt, when the people are united they can stand up to government injustice. Let us continue in their efforts and try to take a stake in our world and make a difference. So in closing, I would like to say, please, take what I have presented to you here and give it genuine thought, do your own research, and if you come to the conclusion that I have, that this is a story that needs to be told, then spread the word, and let us fight for government transparency, for keeping Julian Assange out of prison and to free the courageous patriot Bradley Manning. Thank you.

What’s up? Firstly, I want to commend everyone who has kept with their blogs over the past few months. It really takes dedication to keep writing things that AREN’T graded when you know you could be working on something that IS graded, so well done and good on ya.

As for me, I am going to write a bit of a ramble and I imagine it’s going to cover some topics including: where the hell I’ve been the past few months, what University is REALLY like, a few insights I’ve noticed in terms of students and things of that nature. Without further ado, I will begin.

So at the outset of my blog I made it clear that I didn’t want to write a typical “today this is going on at UBC, tomorrow this is going on at UBC, and yesterday I bought myself some cake” kind of blog. I was going to buck that trend and whip up an extravagant tool to enlighten the masses about the unknown ways of the world! Well, I set my aims a little high and when classes began to speed up I saw my dream vanquished. (Awww!) But that is OK! because it is never too late to adjust your plans for something that suits you better.

Now every writer knows that good writing is pointless unless it appeals to your audience, and at the beginning of the year I thought my audience was a bunch of intelligent revolutionaries from all over the world who, when presented with the right information, would take that information into their hands and change the world! This was before classes started mind you, and now I’m presented with a bit different of a picture. The reality is that most of the people here (including me) are actually hard-working, diligent students who range from semi-stressed to ridiculously-stressed and are more preoccupied with keeping their GPA up than ‘changing the world’.

And this is in no way their fault. University is VERY demanding (will touch on that a bit later) and honestly, who wants to really think (or write) about that kind of stuff when they’ve got a lot of schoolwork to do! So I observe that and take into account a better idea of who my audience actually is.

Now that we’ve established who the audience is (current and prospective University students), we can now turn to this question: What is the function of a UBC blog, and more specifically the ‘Blog Squad’? The logical answer to this seems to be to offer prospective students something to read to understand ‘university life’ and for current students, a way to keep updated and maybe JUST MAYBE, for plain ol entertainment (If it is good writing). 😉 Well, I don’t have time to keep people updated on things going around UBC, and there are already a few blogs that are doing a very good job of that (LINKS). I would, however, love to give an honest appraisal of university and the life of a student, and with students already being accepted for the coming year I think the timing is perfect.

TO: PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS
I have been in University for 5 months, which means I know a lot more about university than you but also, I barely know anything about university. This summary is going to be obviously very biased, and here are some of those biases listed right now: I am white, I am in Arts, I live off Campus and I run Varsity Track. I obviously can’t speak exactly for people of other races, people who live on campus, people who are in different faculties and people who don’t spend all their time running around an oval. Regardless of my biases and how MY life and YOUR life may differ, there are still going to be a lot of similarities. So with that being said, my goal here is to educate you on what I *KNOW* you want to know and your advisor can’t (and won’t) tell you.

MY HONEST THOUGHTS ON UNIVERSITY:
University is awesome. It’s actually THE SHIT. Everything that is annoying about high school is solved in University:
-There are always parties and places to go get wasted
-Everyone is here on their own accord and you won’t find any annoying people dragging the class down (very common in highschool)
-People here are intelligent and extremely nice (no more cliquey high-school bullshit)
-There are no adults or parental supervision (if you live in Totem). If you live in Vanier your RA is probably going to be a drag. If you live in Totem your RA will probably get drunk with you.
-The classes are interesting and challenging (and short, 50 mins)
-People can date without it being everybody else’s business (like it was in highschool)
-There is everything you want: A swimming pool, basketball courts, badminton courts, the ocean, a nude beach–everything. There is lots (too much) shit to do, always.

WOW! Did I just describe paradise? To be honest, sometimes I think University IS paradise! But that’s just me and I’m an optimist, here are some of the crueler parts of university:
-Work. You think you know what that word means, but you simply don’t. And to be honest, I have no clue what work is as compared to someone in Sciences. Your workload is going to depend a lot on your faculty, for me (Arts) it’s a LOT of reading and a LOT of writing. Luckily, if you have the right mindset, you CAN enjoy working. But sometimes you just stare at a book… and stare at it… and look at it… and try and muster up the strength to open the cover…. and stare at it… and then go eat some cereal and check your FB. This is the ultimate dilemma of the university student: what to do with your 24 hours a day.
-Sleep. You are not going to get enough of it, period. All week you are going to tell yourself: this weekend I am going to finally rest up and catch up on sleep 🙂 <-- this is you being optomistic. Luckily for you there are a thousand students who think otherwise and are gunna pull you off your antisocial ass and into the world. And they should: you don't know what you're missing out staying in on the weekend ;) Don't be concerned/worried/stressed about not being able to sleep when you want to and not being able to stay awake when you want to, you will learn the tricks of sleep in a few months and then life will be much, much easier. -Generic stress. I don't really stress out a lot personally, so I can't speak TOO much on this subject. Just try not to obsess over your grades or you will find yourself binge drinking and smoking way too much weed. Do all your schoolwork, study for tests, and that's it. Do what you can and don't beat yourself up if you get a 65--that is the scaled average, which simply means you received an average grade amongst a bunch of the best students in the world. Like everything else in life there are pro's and con's of university. But, speaking personally here, it has been some of the best months of my life. Just keep working hard, practice drinking alcohol/beer pong as much as possible in high school, and enjoy your last few months of life before University and your new chapter of life begins. And to all the current students who read that (if you are out there), is what I've described similar to what you're experiencing? I know there's a large discrepancy between people's lives so I'm really interested in hearing what things you think I've placed too much emphasis on, or what things I've left out. Here is a chance to type a comment and enlighten me on what you think university is actually all about.