Democracy inches along in Tunisia

The Arab spring, one of the most encouraging events from a democratic perspective in recent years, has unfortunately mostly failed. Egypt, the most important Arab country, and the country where democrats' hopes where highest, has lapsed back into an increasingly oppressive military dictatorship. But one country, the one where it all started, continues to follow a democratic path.

Tunisia recently held its second election since the overthrow of the autocratic Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in 2011. The election was by all accounts free and fair with a decent turnout (60 per cent). A liberal party, Nida Tunis, won the most seats, replacing the moderate Islamist Ennahda as the dominant party in parliament and gaining the right to name a prime minister and lead a coalition government. It has ruled out a coalition with the Islamists, turning instead to a collection of smaller parties.

The country faces serious problems, particularly economic. For instance, youth unemployment of around 34 per cent is turning young people off politics, not a good sign when these were the very people who provoked the revolution. Nonetheless, the democratic experiment is progressing well.

True, Tunisia has advantages other Arab countries do not: no sectarian, ethnic, religious or tribal divides to speak of; a largely urbanized and educated population; a substantial middle class and a thriving civil society. Pessimistically, without the same advantages, other Arab nations may be immersed in a world of violent Islamists, military dictatorships, corrupt theocracies and oppressive monarchies for a long time. Optimistically, the fully-fledged democracy of Tunisia will inspire them as an example of a better way. It offers hope. Western governments should embrace and support it.

MacKay makes the right noises

With all the feverish reaction from politicians and a good part of the media to the two recent "terrorist" incidents, it is encouraging to hear Justice Minister Peter McKay say some of the right things, specifically that the law already has the tools it needs to deal with these kind of crimes. No need for muscling up the cops. "There are already some pretty robust measures that we can use [that] allow for the type of preventive … interventions—if I can use that word—for the police," he told reporters.

He referred to Section 83.3 of the Criminal Code, which allows for preventive arrests, and Section 810, which deals with peace bonds. Human rights lawyer Paul Copeland observed that Section 83.3, "could have been applied and should have been applied to Mr. Couture-Rouleau, and it probably would have stopped him from doing what he did."

MacKay also seemed to dismiss the idea, rumoured around Ottawa, that the government might try to eliminate the requirement that a judge sign off on a Section 83.3 order, giving discretion solely to the minister of public safety. "I always would come down on the side of judicial oversight before you would make any interventions,” he said. That sounds about right.

Now if he can only talk some sense into Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney who is not only proceeding with Bill C-44, which expands the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), but has promised yet more legislation dealing with "terrorism." Blaney is the guy who once insisted that terrorism was "the leading threat to Canada's national security," overlooking such minor threats as nuclear war, traffic accidents, climate change, the flu, domestic abuse, and so on and on. What we need at this time is more oversight over our spies, not more power for them. Let us hope that Mr. MacKay's bout of rationalism infects Mr. Blaney.

About those Canadian values

The shooting spree by Michael Zehaf-Bibeau on Parliament Hill that resulted in the death of soldier Nathan Cirillo has resulted in a rush of rhetoric about a threat to Canadian values. As I commented in a previous post, Zehaf-Bibeau's rampage was no such thing. The idea that an irrational act of violence by a mentally-unbalanced crack addict is some kind of threat to our values is ludicrous. As has been remarked by others, this event represents less a terrorist issue than a mental health issue.

An interesting take on Canadian values does emerge from the aftermath of the rampage. The death of Cirillo has been treated with extraordinary pomp and ceremony by our federal government—flags at half-mast across the country, wreaths at the war memorial, the prime minister at the funeral, a hero's commemoration for a man who had in fact done nothing heroic.

The same day as the tragedy in Ottawa, a young woman was found beaten to death on a bike path in Longueuil, Quebec. Understandably her murder received less attention than the excitement in the nation's capital, but why one wonders does her remembrance deserve so little, the soldier's so much?

"Terrorist" murder, if that's what Cirillo's death was, is no threat to Canadian values, but violence against women most certainly is, particularly against aboriginal women. An RCMP report detailed 1,181 cases of missing or murdered aboriginal women since 1980. They are three times more likely to become victims of violence than other Canadian women. All the premiers, the Assembly of First Nations, and the UN’s special rapporteur on indigenous rights have all asked for a national inquiry. The federal government flatly refuses.

So, what Canadian values are displayed here? The death of one soldier merits lavish ceremony, but the deaths of hundreds of Native women merit not even an inquiry. A threat to this set of values would be welcome.

Terrorist or misfit?

Canada doesn’t often capture the attention of the world’s media, but Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, with his murderous rampage on Parliament Hill Wednesday, has managed to put us on front pages around the globe. And who exactly is Michael Zehaf-Bibeau? Well, so far we know that he’s a 32-year old man with criminal records in two provinces who recently converted to a radical sect of Islam that preaches violence. In short, he’s a misfit.

Nonetheless, for someone who has heretofore accomplished little in life he has our leaders waxing eloquent about Canadian values and threats to same. PM Harper warns us about "attacks on our country, on our values. on our society, on us Canadians as a free and democratic people,” but assures us, “We will not be intimidated. Canada will never be intimidated." Mr. Mulcair, too, is resolute in his patriotism, "Canada is shaken today but we shall not waver. We woke up this morning in a country blessed by love, diversity and peace and tomorrow we will do the same. … We will persevere and we will prevail." And from Mr. Trudeau, “we have never bowed to those that mean to undermine our values and our way of life. We have remained Canadians and this is how we will carry on."

Really, gentlemen. Yes, an ugly murder was committed and more were narrowly averted, but the notion that this was a threat to Canada or Canadian values is ludicrous. When we behave as if it was, we play to the intentions of these misguided misfits, elevating their importance vastly beyond what they deserve. What happened on Parliament Hill was simply an act of wanton violence. Let us not give the perpetrator credit for anything more. Let us not build a tragic fool into a threat to the nation.

When Khomeini said no to nukes

When Iran claims it is not developing nuclear weapons because they are incompatible with Islam, the U.S. and its European allies suggest this is mere propaganda. According to an article in Foreign Policy magazine, they simply don't understand how profoundly the Iranians hold this view for both historical and religious reasons.

The prohibition against chemical and nuclear weapons began with what was essentially a fatwa by the Islamic Republic's first supreme leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. During Iran's war with Iraq, both its civilians and soldiers were attacked with mustard and nerve gasses. Mohsen Rafighdoost, minister of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps under Khomeini, proposed that Iran develop both chemical and nuclear weapons. Khomeini forbade both as anathema to  Islam. Regarding chemical weapons, he pronounced, "It doesn't matter whether it is on the battlefield or in cities; we are against this. It is haram [forbidden] to produce such weapons. You are only allowed to produce protection." Prohibiting retaliation in kind against Iraq's use of chemical weapons put Iran's military at a major disadvantage and contributed to the decision to accept a cease-fire in 1988.

As to nuclear weapons, the Supreme leader told Rafighdoost, "We don't want to produce nuclear weapons. Send these scientists to the Atomic Energy Organization." The Atomic Energy Organization is Iran's civilian nuclear-power agency.

Even though Khomeini's edicts against the use or production of chemical and nuclear weapons was never written down, Rafighdoost took it as a fatwa—a judgment on Islamic jurisprudence by a qualified Islamic scholar. Because it was issued by the nation's "guardian jurist," it is state policy, legally binding on the government. The current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei, has maintained the fatwa.

The significance of the Iranians claim they are not attempting to develop nuclear weapons has been demonstrated by their willingness to risk the loss of a war against a merciless enemy rather than take that step. One could hardly observe better proof. When the allies were faced with a similar fate in WWII, they never hesitated in both developing and using the nuclear option, an interesting moral contrast.

Saudi Arabia—beheading capital of the world

Of all the atrocities committed by the Islamic State, the ones that got the most attention were the very public beheadings of two American journalists and a British aid worker. Beheading is indeed a sordid act. And yet we remain on excellent terms with the beheading champion of the world. Saudi Arabia, good friend of Western nations and member of the U.S. coalition against the Islamic State, has publicly beheaded 59 people so far this year, for crimes including adultery, sorcery—yes, sorcery—drug smuggling, murder and, this is Saudi Arabia after all, political dissent.

Beheadings are a popular event in the Kingdom of the Sauds. According to one wit, they are the only form of public entertainment aside from football matches. Nor does the entertainment necessarily end with the decapitation. For certain crimes, the corpse is crucified, the head mounted above the body, where it will be left for public view for up to four days. The executions are generally clean but not always. For example, when Rizana Nafeek, a 24-year-old Sri Lankan maid accused of murdering her employer’s 4-month-old son (she claimed the baby choked on its milk bottle), swayed from side to side, the chopping took a very messy turn.

Lighter entertainment allows the public to witness the hacking off of other body parts—hands, legs—depending on the crime. According to one of the state executioners, Mohammed Saad al-Beshi, if it is a hand he cuts at a joint and if it is a leg he explains, "the authorities specify where it is to be taken off, so I follow that."

Currently awaiting execution for "sedition" and "disobeying" the kingdom's rulers is the prominent Shia religious leader and anti-government protester Nimr al-Nimr. Most of the country's Shia minority live in the east which also happens to be home to most of the country's vast oil reserves. They have long alleged severe discrimination by the Wahhabi majority who dominate religious institutions, the courts and education. Nimr is paying the price of their dissent.

So while we rightly condemn the Islamic State for its atrocious beheadings, this barbaric, misogynous regime remains our bosom friend, the United States and Britain's favourite customer for arms sales and a country to whom we are trying to increase our own weapons traffic. Of course, the victims of the Islamic State were innocents but then, given the quality of Saudi justice, so might victims such as Rizana Nafeek and Nimr al-Nimr.

Oh, what a difference a barrel of oil makes.

Will we have to bomb the Shias now?

We are all familiar with the depravity of the Islamic State. Tragically, some of their foes are also descending into the moral depths. According to a report by Amnesty International, Shia militias, often armed and supported by the Iraqi government, "have been abducting and killing Sunni civilian men in Baghdad and around the country." Their complicity with government forces ranges "from tacit consent to coordinated, or even joint, operations."

Although the abductions and killings are often retaliation for Islamic State atrocities against Shias, they frequently have a more mercenary purpose. After abducting a young man, the militias extort his family. Many families report paying hefty ransoms "only to discover that their loved one had been killed." Even the retaliatory attacks often sweep up Sunnis not connected to the Islamic State but who simply happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

One story illustrates the hopeless situation of many Iraqis. A man whose family fled the Islamic State and are afraid to return frequently visits Fallujah to check on his house and property. "Only I can go, he says, "because I am old. My sons cannot go. It would be too dangerous for them. They could be killed by Shia militias on the road between Baghdad and Fallujah, as they treat anyone going to or coming from Fallujah as a terrorist and often kill people on that road. And the IS gangs in Fallujah would consider my sons as government collaborators because they left Fallujah and are living in Baghdad."

The Shia militias are formidable, the largest containing tens of thousands of fighters, their power growing as the Iraqi army collapsed. They can operate like regular armed forces but with impunity.

According to Amnesty, "The existence of these sectarian, unregulated and unaccountable militias is both a cause and a result of the country’s growing insecurity and instability. They preclude any possibility of establishing effective and accountable security and armed forces able and willing to protect all sectors of the population." Amnesty insists that the Iraqi government must get them under control, but one wonders if that is any longer possible.

Iraq is in a state of collapse. Shias, Sunnis, Kurds and the Islamic State are now involved in a godawful civil war over the spoils. The American coalition's notion that it can do any good here may be nothing more than hubris run wild, turning a Middle Eastern war into an international one with no possible idea of where it will all end. And that prompts the question, Where does our participation end, and what can we possibly hope to achieve out of this mess?

Will Republicans believe their military on climate change?

The American Republican Party is a major obstacle to the United States acting responsibly on climate change. In the manner of our federal government, they do not allow science to interfere with their dogma. But while they have little use for science, they are great admirers of the military, so is it possible they will start listening to the Pentagon when it comes to climate change?

If they will, there's hope for them, and their country, yet. According to the Pentagon, global warming is changing the way the U.S. military trains for and goes to war. Strategic planners have long believed that climate change has the potential to provoke hostilities over migration and food shortages, make old conflicts worse, and present new military challenges in the Arctic.

In a Pentagon report that came out just this week, Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel wrote, "A changing climate will have real impacts on our military and the way it executes its missions. We are considering the impacts of climate change in our war games and defence planning scenarios." The report pointed out that military installations and personnel are already exposed to climate change. For example, Virginia's Hampton Roads area, which contains the country's largest concentration of military forces and already floods during high tides and severe storms, could see sea levels rise half a metre over the next 20 years. Military bases in the southwest face water and electricity shortages due to droughts, and Arctic installations are shifting because of melting permafrost. The Pentagon is worried about global warming before they even rev up a tank, and their concerns increase along with climate change.

So will the Republicans pay attention to their fighting men? If nothing else will convince them of the seriousness of global warming, will a threat to their ability to fight wars do the job? So far it has not. Republicans have used their majority in the House of Representatives to preclude efforts by the Pentagon to adjust to global warming. For a party obsessed with national security, they have displayed a remarkable disdain for their country's greatest threat. Let us hope for all our sakes that as their military increasingly sounds the alarm, they will be forced to accept the inconvenient truth.

UK MPs vote overwhelmingly to recognize State of Palestine

It was overwhelming. British MPs voted 274 to 12 this week in support of a motion to recognize Palestine as a state. The vote was only symbolic, as it isn't binding on the government, nonetheless it sends a clear message on how sentiment is going in the UK and elsewhere on the Palestine issue.

MPs from both sides of the House supported the motion, some making it very clear why. Conservative chairman of the foreign affairs select committee, Richard Ottaway, long a strong supporter of Israel, said, "The annexation of the 950 acres of the West Bank just a few months ago has outraged me more than anything else in my political life. It has made me look a fool and that is something I deeply resent."

Although the vote does not bind the government, it should accept the clear will of the House of Commons and officially recognize the State of Palestine, as134 other countries have done. And so should our government. We, like the UK, believe in a two-state solution to the Palestine issue. It is simply churlish therefore not to accept Palestine's peaceful accession to statehood. Instead we adopt uncritically the Israeli line that a Palestinian state only be recognized at the successful conclusion of negotiations between the two sides. But as former British foreign minister Jack Straw said this week, "Such an approach would give the Israelis a veto over whether a Palestinian state should exist." And as Palestine has no veto over a Jewish state, it is pure hypocrisy to allow Israel a veto over a Palestinian state.

Furthermore, all the leverage in negotiations lies with the Israelis. They have the most powerful military in the region, equipped with nuclear weapons and backed up by the most powerful nation in the world. And they control most of the territory and the water. When one side holds all the cards, demanding the other party negotiate with them is nothing more than demanding they submit, that they accept any crumbs they're offered. Naturally, this holds little appeal for the Palestinians.

The British MPs have done the right thing. Now it is up to their government to follow suit. And for ours as well.

Mr. Harper, listen to the Commish

She's your commissioner, Mr. Harper, appointed under your watch. She is a former mining industry executive, the kind of credentials you respect. So when she speaks, pay attention. And she recently spoke loud and clear.

As federal Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Julie Gelfand heads her department's Fall 2014 report, which is not at all pleased with your government's greenhouse gas emissions record. No doubt, you have read the report and encountered the following scolding:

Overall, we found that federal departments have made unsatisfactory progress in each of the four areas examined. Despite some advances since our 2012 audit, timelines for putting measures in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have not been met and departments are not yet able to assess whether measures in place are reducing emissions as expected. We also found that Environment Canada lacks an approach for coordinating actions with the provinces and territories to achieve the national target, and an effective planning process for how the federal government will contribute to achieving the Copenhagen target. In 2012, we concluded that the federal regulatory approach was unlikely to lead to emission reductions sufficient to meet the 2020 Copenhagen target. Two years later, the evidence is stronger that the growth in emissions will not be reversed in time and that the target will be missed.

In short, you are failing to meet your own target for emissions reductions, your government doesn't know how to meet it, and your approach wouldn't have worked in the first place.

It's a sorry story, Mr. Harper, and it isn't coming from those radical, foreign-funded environmentalists. It's coming from your own government's Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. So listen up.

Calgary inches closer to a charter

In 1867, Canada's founding fathers created two levels of constitutional government—provincial and federal. The municipal level didn't make the cut. This was excusable at the time. Over 80 per cent of Canadians lived on farms and in villages, so local government seemed rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things and was left to the tender mercies of the provinces.

How things have changed. Today, over 80 per cent of Canadians live in towns and cities. In Alberta, over half the population lives in just two cities: Calgary and Edmonton. Arguably now more important than provinces, cities are the centres of politics, social life and commerce—our major wealth creators. They deserve recognition and power accordingly.

In an initial attempt to recognize their new importance, the Alberta government signed an agreement in principle in 2012 to establish charters for Calgary and Edmonton. The charters would grant the cities more powers and change the way they are funded. This week the charters moved a step closer when new premier Jim Prentice signed a framework agreement with the Calgary and Edmonton mayors to work toward formalizing the charters, the details to be finalized by spring 2016. "Calgary and Edmonton face serious infrastructure deficits," said Mr. Prentice. "They need the freedom to come up with innovative, homegrown solutions."

Other Canadian cities—Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver among them—have charters, but theirs, like Calgary and Edmonton's, don't release them from constitutional subservience to provinces. Provincial governments retain the right to bestow authority on cities, and the right to take it away. A charter granted to Halifax in 1841 was extinguished by the provincial government on April 1st, 1999—April Fool's Day.

Nonetheless, charters will enhance Calgary and Edmonton's abilities to govern themselves even as they remain creatures of the provinces. Ideally, cities would be brought into the Constitution as, in fact, Lord Durham recommended in his famous report of 1838. But we are all aware of the current level of enthusiasm for constitutional change.

So this baby step is to be welcomed. We will remain for the foreseeable future an urban nation lumbered with a distribution of powers from a rural age, but we are nonetheless moving, albeit very slowly, in the right direction.

Pity the Americans—running an empire ain't easy

Running an empire is tough. There are always tribesmen out on the fringes who fail to appreciate that you are bringing them civilization. In their lack of gratitude, they act up, and you are forced to send in the legions to bring them to heel. Such has been the case throughout history, from the Roman Empire to the British Empire and now for the American Empire. The need for war is perpetual.

The American Empire is different in that it doesn't colonize the lands of those it conquers—well, not any more, anyway. It is content to maintain an extensive network of military bases throughout the world from which to suppress threats to its power and safeguard access to resources. With hundreds of bases worldwide, the U.S. military deploys over a quarter of a million personnel in over 150 countries.

This empire is also different in possessing a new vulnerability. Previous empires always had a secure homeland, a place the empire-builders could return to after toiling away at their imperialist work and find sanctuary. But due to modern communications and transportation that is no longer the case. On September 11th, 2001, for example, recalcitrant tribesmen struck at the very heart of the Empire, striking the fear of God (or Allah) into its citizens. Never before had an empire suffered such vulnerability at the height of its powers. The ingrates, it seems, can now do to you in your backyard what you are doing to them in their backyard.

So pity the U.S. The job of running an empire is tougher than ever. And yet, at the risk of sounding callous, I must say I am completely lacking in sympathy.

CEO pay—how much is too much?

The American Federation of Labor (AFL-CIO) has compiled a list of CEO compensation in 19 developed countries and the results are of considerable interest to Canadians. It turns out that the ratio of our CEO's pay to that of the average worker is second highest of the group, behind only—no surprise—the U.S.A. The average Canadian CEO makes over two hundred times the pay of the average Canadian worker (the average American CEO makes 354 times as much). The average Canadian CEO pulls in $8,704,118 while the average worker makes $42,253. The CEO pay package includes salary, bonuses, stock awards and other perks.

In Norway, with workers making about the same as Canadians, the ratio is only 58 to one. In Germany, where workers also make about the same as Canadians, the ratio is 147 to one, high by European standards but substantially less than North America.

One wonders what we get for our money. Norway has a highly successful economy, yet they only need to pay their top execs a third of what ours get. Germany is arguably the most successful industrial nation in the world, its companies superbly managed, and their CEOs receive only two-thirds the compensation of our overpaid lot. The answer I suppose lies in our proximity to the U.S., the most inequitable country in the developed world, a very bad but highly influential example. In 1965 the ratio of CEO to average employee in the U.S. was only 20 to one. Are CEOs really seventeen times better than they were back then?

A large part of the reason the gap is tolerated is that people grossly underestimate what CEOs receive. For example, a recent study, How Much (More) Should CEOs Make? by Sorapop Kiatpongsan and Michael I. Norton showed that Americans believe the ratio is about 30 to one but should be only about seven to one when in fact it is 354 to one. This gross discrepancy between what people think is fair, what they believe executive compensation to be, and what it actually is, is universal. If people around the world ever discover the reality about what CEOs are making, we may see an equally universal demand for a maximum wage.

Are we too dumb for democracy?

Hey, the above is not my line. I plagiarized it from a CBC article about a new thesis from the University of B.C. that suggests our brains aren't up to the rational, autonomous thinking required for democracy. Ph.D. political science candidate David Moscrop says voters across the political spectrum tend to vote with instinct rather than reason, i.e. with their "lizard brains," that ancient part of the brain responsible for instinct and emotion, i.e. gut feelings.

I'm not so sure I would write off the voters' capacity for rational, autonomous thinking too readily, although the force that drives us politically, that make us progressive or conservative, is certainly not reason. In any case, one point where I agree completely with the young Mr. Moscrop is with his strong support for “deliberative” democracy, i.e. providing opportunities for citizens of all political views to gather, discuss and debate issues, and using the results to influence politicians and educate other citizens.

When citizens act as a community, rather than as isolated individuals, they are much more likely to support rational policies and indeed more democratic ones. That is why I have long advocated for citizen assemblies. Randomly selected groups of citizens can represent a town, province or nation in microcosm, bringing together a full range of views. Released from the grip of party loyalty and its tribal instincts, and from manipulative media, they are free to deal with their fellow participants on an equal, open, intimate and informal basis, more willing to allow the heartfelt views of others to influence their own. Provided with comprehensive packages of information and access to experts, such assemblies can produce policies underlain by passion but ultimately determined by reason and compromise.

We are smart enough to do democracy, but we need better structures than we have now, structures that allow for well-informed citizens deliberating equally as members of a community.

Who is "part of the problem," Mr. Cameron?

Recently British PM David Cameron, even while encouraging Iran to help deal with ISIS, couldn't resist taking a shot at the country. In his UN speech, he stated superciliously that Iran can be "part of the solution, not part of the problem." Iran's president, Hassan Rouhani, took umbrage, declaring the remark "wrong and unacceptable." A spokeswoman for Iran's foreign ministry, Marzieh Afkham, was rather more caustic: “The speech by the British prime minister at the UN general assembly shows the perpetuation of the egocentric attitude of a government which has a history of [causing] trouble in our region.”

The lady has a point. Britain does have a long history of making trouble in the Middle East, particularly for Iran. In the 20th century it invaded Iran twice. In the 1950s, it collaborated with the U.S. in overthrowing Iranian democracy. Most recently, it participated in the coalition that invaded Iran's neighbour, an invasion that ultimately lead in no small part to the creation of ISIS.

Britain has complained about the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons while hypocritically possessing nuclear weapons itself for no apparent reason but to strut on the world stage. Might we believe it is more responsible as a nuclear power than Iran would be? Well, Iran hasn't invaded anybody in two centuries while Britain has invaded other people all over the map, including Iran, fairly regularly during the same period.

It would seem, Mr. Cameron, that your country is rather more a part of the problem than Iran.

It will be lonely without the animals

We are a rapacious species. Since we first walked out of Africa we have been decimating our neighbours. Today, according to the World Wildlife Fund's Living Planet Report 2014, we are annihilating other species on a grand scale. The report claims we have reduced the numbers of other animals in the world to half what they were 40 years ago. The numbers are based on measuring representative populations of more than 10,000 mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish around the globe.

And how do we do this? Where to begin. We do it by destroying their habitats.We clear too many forests for lumber and for farms. We exhaust too many rivers to irrigate crops, and we spray too many pesticides and fertilizers. We pave over too many meadows for streets and parking lots. We introduce too many alien species that overwhelm local species. We poach and hunt and fish excessively.

We just demand too much, much more than our fair share, and the Earth can no longer satisfy our demands. According to the report, it would take 1.5 Earths to satisfy our current appetite for the planet's resources. Unfortunately, we only have one at our disposal. Some of us are much more demanding than others. For example, if everyone on the globe lived at the same standard as Canadians, we would need more like four planets.

As other species' numbers decline ours steadily increase. Not only do we demand more and more, but there are more and more of us demanding it. Yet one thing never changes—human society depends entirely on the environment. If we don't come to terms with the other species on Earth, we have no future.

Hong Kong—a people who actually care about democracy

North Americans don't seem to care much about democracy. Canadians don't, and our good neighbours the Americans don't. We enjoy considerable freedoms along with our electoral systems of government, but our systems are hardly democratic, and it doesn't seem to bother us. If it did, we would never tolerate them.

Observation of the American system suggests a plutocracy, not a democracy. A recent study entitled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, by Martins Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, which analyzes what influences the U.S. federal government, confirmed this. The study states, "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

The rich have excessive influence in our governments as well, if not to the same extent as with our southern neighbour, and even our method of choosing leaders is undemocratic. Our federal government, for example, is run by a political party that over 60 per cent of voters did not want running the country. This condition of governments being run by parties who have the support of only a minority of the people is also endemic among the provinces. A people who truly cared for democracy would never put up with this mockery of democratic process.

This lack of concern about the lack of democracy is depressing. It is therefore refreshing to observe the passionate interest in democratic process currently being displayed by the citizens of Hong Kong. A decree by China that candidates for chief executive must be endorsed by a special nominating body in Beijing before before they are allowed to run for office has brought massive numbers of Hong Kong citizens into the streets. The protesters, led not surprisingly by students, demand fully democratic elections.

This pro-democracy movement, known as the "umbrella revolution," is gathering international support, with solidarity demonstrations popping up in Australia, Canada and the U.S. Yes, even in Canada and the U.S. Perhaps if Hong Kong residents ever escape the autocratic clutches of Beijing, and that may take a very long time, they will ultimately become as jaded about democracy as we are, but in the meantime their enthusiasm warms the heart of this old democrat.