What demands should the Occupy Canada movement focus on?

changes to the economic system/free trade deals/etc

FN rights

more democratic political system

environmental justice/tar sands

Afghanistan/military 

Please include youth issues..

How about demanding that wages, pensions, employment insurance, social assistance, workers compensation, disability benefits and anything else that I might have missed be indexed to the average increases in salary and bonuses for the top ten CEO's in this country.  Oh...and make them retroactive for let's say...the last thirty years.

And how about writing off the massive student debt while they're at it.

Demand a new, completely open and accountable government. "Democracy, not Corporatocracy!" as they say. However, demands, marches and protests are a waste of time if they're ignored. It's time to get serious.

Our federal gov't, like others, has long been in thrall to corporate interests such that democracy no longer exists; the system itself is broken, the resulting governments sociopathic. Voting is useless - doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result is called insanity. The Harper Gov't, with its majority from a minority of support, is proving that quickly as they pursue the raping of our national resources for short-term profit at the expense of our children's future. Humanity may go extinct within the next 100 years from an unprecedented rapidly changing climate, with unbridled burning of fossil fuels the sole cause; yet the Harper regime is actively pursuing complete tarsands development, sure to create the worst-case climate-change scenario.  No reasonable, sane Canadian wants this. The Harper regime must fall now, as must any gov't globally not working hard for a livable future. Action must be taken to thwart the daily functioning of our governments until we are heard. There are many great thinkers with ideas on no-growth human-scale economies, and how to form societies in balance with our environment - their ideas must become common knowledge among Canadians. Our nation is ignorant of alternative ways of living well, addicted to a destructive daily existence, relying on corrupt governments to deal with important issues, and corrupt media to keep them enlightened. Canada needs some tough-love to get it back on the right track. This is a revolution. It's happening globally, increasing daily. Free-market unlimited-growth capitalism is ending, unable to cope with a finite world. We can either work to make a better world now, or watch everything we hold dear dissolve to chaos anyway.

OUT OF LIBYA! OUT OF AFGHANISTAN! OUT OF NATO! NOW!

Toronto Star business reporter [url=http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1064574--occupy-toronto-leaderle... Flavelle[/url] provides background to this thread topic:

Quote:

If the movement seems unfocused that’s because organizers says it’s going to be up to “the people” to decide what counts.

At general assemblies, beginning this Friday in a downtown Toronto park and continuing throughout the “occupation,” participants will meet and talk and share their concerns and educate each other.

[b]The theme, if there is one, appears to be corporate greed.[/b]

As one Occupy Toronto supporter put it in an email, the Canadian government is in debt, bankers have been allowed to run amok, and the average Canadian is paying the price.

“We the people are tired of living with no hope,” Gregory Kane wrote. [b]“Perhaps the entire protest, the entire “occupy” movement is simply about gaining and spreading knowledge and joy.[/b] What else do we have to live for?”

Unless the Occupy Canada thing can move to economic action the government is not going to notice.

- Move money from big banks to credit unions

- Boycott 'top 500' companies. Only shop at local businesses.

- Divestiture from equity markets (i.e. sell your stocks)

- Pay off your debts

- Stop working, and do not take jobs of people who have stopped working...

Immediate withdrawl of all government intervention in Indigenous politics, removal of the Indian Act, return of all crown land to Indigenous peoples.

Immediate establishment of delegation mechanisms between ridings and MPs. So that MPs are no longer trustees, but are required to carry the democratic mandates of their constitutents, which are decided in mass democratic decision making processes.

Repeal of NAFTA, especially the provisions on Energy.

Immediate suspension of the the extraction and processing of bitumen in the Tar Sands.

Immediate forgiveness of all student debt and a completely switch from loans to bursaries.

Immediate withdrawl and suspension of covert support from operations in Libya, Afganistan, Haiti, Iraq.

Immediate anti-scab legislation

Immediate decriminalization of solidarity strikes

guaranteed income for all

Immediate suspension of canadian mining company operations outside the borders of canada through the freezing of assets

Gosh, everybody's got such great radical demands for us to march in the streets on! 

Funny how double standards work, though: When babblers suggest these as policy positions for NDP conventions to adopt, they get laughed out of babble as some kind of ultra-leftist crackpots with no sense of political reality!

I'd really like to see the Tar Sands as a major issue, or at least represented. I'd like to see the ad campaigns for the tar sands taken off air, they seem so victorious and confident, while lying, or simply not telling the public of that actual impacts on the tar sands, and rarely if ever are activists allowed their opinion on any sort of major new source deemed by the public as influential. But not just the media campaigns with the tar sands, the actual tar sands themselves. While I understand deconstructing the tar sands projects right away would be near impossible and unrealistic, certain steps can be made towards the progression, i.e. tax foreign oil companies that want to produce the sand far more than it's worth extracting, per barrel, and force them out of our country. Environmental laws, which I'm not 100% studied up on, but I feel they should apply here, and that they aren't being taken seriously at all. I'm certain there's laws which the oil companies have broken, and I'd like to see them held accountable, even things such as the thousands of ducks that have been trapped by the tar sands and drown in oil -- and that's just one species plight, there's many other animals around the area suffering because their eco system is being destroyed. The native population situated around the tar sands have been endangered as well, not only culturally but health-wise, as the continued development of the tar sands has seen an increase in cancer, and other diseases in the native communities. 

I think if we follow some of theses ideas, and work towards shutting the tar sands down, it can be done. Cut the losses, put the profit into "greener" more sustainable forms of energy. I'm sure there's even ways to continue extracting the oil with a less damaging methodolgy, i'm not the person to ask, i'm not an environmental student nor an engineer, but someone out there will have ideas and methods. I'm just a concerned human being.

by the way, this is just one issue, and an environmental one at that, there's many others, such as the closure of youth shelters across canada and soup kitchens, the fall in crime rate, yet the continued media blitzkrieg of violence, and the opening of new jails all across canada.. is this to suggest they are to be filled? What about the omnibus crime bill just silently passed by the government.. just my two cents. 

M. Spector wrote:

Gosh, everybody's got such great radical demands for us to march in the streets on! 

Funny how double standards work, though: When babblers suggest these as policy positions for NDP conventions to adopt, they get laughed out of babble as some kind of ultra-leftist crackpots with no sense of political reality!

In my opinion, from the limited research I have done there is no real tangible purpose for politics. Worrying about who is going to win an election next term is obsurd, especially when they accomplish nothing but plunging the country into more debt and fighting wars that have nothing to do with us. Politics is an arena of hyena's that laugh and lie to make their way to the top. I hold no grudge agianst those who go in with meaning and motivation to change things, but when they betray the will of the people they all become scum.

M. Spector wrote:

Gosh, everybody's got such great radical demands for us to march in the streets on! 

Funny how double standards work, though: When babblers suggest these as policy positions for NDP conventions to adopt, they get laughed out of babble as some kind of ultra-leftist crackpots with no sense of political reality!

Here in manitoba the Grassroots of the NDP has passed a call for anti-scab/replacement worker legislation since 1978. Including every year of the last decade and no NDP government has ever made it a reality for us here provincially. So, how can we possibly expect the NDP to represent these issues for us. That's the whole point of Occupy(ed) Canada, that its not about voting or parties, its about forcing whomever is in power to deal with the popular demands of citizens for a safe, fair, equal and sustainable future for all peoples, and people.

Governments and parties never provide those things, people and peoples fight for those things. Through blood, sweat, and tears. It happens in the workplaces, homes, and social spheres of our life, as we struggle to take them back one by one, and bring mass democracy to all the spheres of our life. So we have equal control, power, and responsibility for our lives. To be self-determining as  an individual and a people.

That's where I come from when I fight. I'd rather see you at the barricades than the convention floor, compa. Because the working class and our allies have a chance at the barricades. Not in parliament as its currently configured.

End to corporate limited liability, to be changed to complete liability.

Rescind corporate recognition as "natural persons".

Significant tax levy imposed on large (>25Million) inheritance.

Significant increase in income tax levied on corporations and the top tier of wealth.

Banks nationalized. No more speculation on foreign debts...

Disallow speculation in the housing/real-estate market.

Above just a few of the dream possibliites, but all are moot and null and void because the 1% will not accomodate any of them.

The event on Bay Street starting this October 15th will work only to draw attention to the growing dis-ease but will not and can not bring about any solutions. The only solution is in our own withdrawal and refusal to participate in the system: Examples:

Shop only for NEEDS. Destroy your credit cards.

Commune with your neighbours, share resources, cut down on reliance to the grid (hydro, oil, tel-com, agribusiness, etc.)

Make space in your life for pleasure and time with friends and family. Contribute less to the general labour pool that makes suffering go around.

Cash in your RRSP's--they are fueling misery in the world. Share the wealth.

Volunteer.

Quit the car. Ride a bike. Get in shape. Meet your friends in parks and go for runs together.

ETC.

See you on Bay Street. Please ask all your friends to come out--representation from all walks of life are required to make this effort worthwhile.

Don't expect it to be SCARY...no--it will be FUN and LIGHT and more like a CARNIVAL than a PROTEST.

If anyone tells you there will be a riot ask them to shut up and keep their dreaded miserable imagination to themselves.

:-)

an immediate stop to any move to further deregulate the banking industry

stop the XL pipeline now

hold a national referendum regarding continuing the mining of the tar sands within 6 months, grant veto power to affected Native groups to negate this vote  (we can arrive at this process at a later date)

nationalize our petroleum industry, so we can assure that Canadians benefit equally from our bespoiling our land.

demand a move to proportional representation in our parliament

immediately end corporate tax cuts-  ensure that VP's and above including CEO's are taxed at source as are the rest of us, at a rate that reflects on the benefits they gain by living here.

an immediate apology be made to natives for having stolen their land- and we embark on open and real discussion as to how to compensate for this theft.

a rollback to tuition fees, and a guarantee that any who wish, and qualify may attend university without bankrupting their future.

a statement of intent- that the people and government of Canada are committed to bringing peace to the world, and henceforth will provide peacekeeping forces only. unless in defence against an invasion on our soil

knowing how important to the growth of our culture immigration has been, we will reopen our doors.

we will reinstate all funding to women's groups and reaffirm our belief in equality,

we will pass a national day care plan, and anti child poverty law- no child should be living in poverty in this country. 

we will ensure that Natives along with anything mentioned above will be given a true place at the core of our governance- be this a third house- or a parallel senate-  neither of which will ever be elected....

I think we should call attention to North American Integration/the NAU.

Talk about how they're harmonizing security along the border, erecting fences, NAFTA superhighways, deeper integration between Canada/US/Mexico, single currency, etc.

And how they seem to be going about it in the name of business/banking/security/etc with little/no input of the Canadian people.

.

SAskguy wrote:

dont let the political partys highjack y=this movement, deep into the party the yreally do not care about us, it's true, we have been duped.

Good point, andit leads me to observe that this really is the theme behind the "Occupy ---" movement is that it is an indigtment against polical parties.

It used to be that we saw political parties as agents of change, but the very fact that people are in the streets in many nations means that they are not.  That's why some of the more vocal early critics of the "Occupy Wall Street" were Democrats. (or, as they have become known as, "Republicrats") 

M. Spector wrote:

The most effective way to mobilize the greatest number of people for a protest is to pick a single issue that they can agree on, like "Make the rich pay for their own financial crisis, not the rest of us."

The more you try to turn it into a shopping list of grievances, the more you will restrict the range of people who will actively support it...

That's not to say that individuals and groups should be discouraged from bringing their own particular slogans and demands to the Occupy Canada protests - quite the contrary. But the focus and appeal of the Occupy Canada movement organizers...should be a single issue that has broad appeal among the working class.

I just want to emphaszie this post, which just about nails the question in the OP. Also, it's good for Spector's ego to know that some people agree with him.

That is a great poster, eastnoireast. Thanks!

yes, I really like the poster - it isn't rocket science

Sven wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

The most effective way to mobilize the greatest number of people for a protest is to pick a single issue that they can agree on, like "Make the rich pay for their own financial crisis, not the rest of us."

I think that is the best approach.  If everything is a priority, then nothing will get done.

What people are outlining are very important issues to radically alter the system. Scaling it down to one slogan destroys the diversity of demands that we all consider essential to making a better world. We need to revel in plurality and diversity of demands.

Not try to streamline the message so things are made invisible.

I agree that making the rich pay for their crisis is fundamental. But even the Occupy wall street protest had multiple demands. It caught steam, because everyone knows this is bigger than one demand, we have a chance to demand more, so why limit ourselves.

Sven wrote:

If everything is a priority, then nothing will get done.

That's not what I meant. In fact, everything IS a priority!

Naomi Klein said it best:

[color=mediumblue]The 99 percent is taking to the streets from Madison to Madrid to say “No. We will not pay for your crisis.”[/color]

That one slogan sums up dozens of demands!

The focus of the protest should be to have Government support of local industry in bringing their products and services to the local market place at competitive prices, which could also later translate to competitive pricing in the global market place.

Let's consider what has happened over the course of recent decades as a result of various trade agreements and the like.  Essentially, this has made it easier for larger corporate businesses, for instance, large retailers, to move across borders and into a greater number of communities - often offering hundreds of jobs to a local community.  However, what if many of the goods that these companies supply are produced in other nations and as part of alternative economies; furthermore, what if the products that fill such a large retailers shelves across all of their locations rely on the central distribution of said products?  A store that creates 300 jobs, could potentially cost 1000's of others based on supply chains alone.  Worse yet, such large companies have the added price advantage of stocking their shelves at discounts that are often provided to volume purchases.  This makes it difficult for smaller retailers that might base much of their business on more localized products to compete at the lower prices offered by the larger competitor.  If and/or when these smaller stores end up closing their doors as a result of their consumers taking their business to the larger retailer where prices are lower - even more jobs could be lost in the greater community.

In addition, the larger company will likely offer jobs with "competitive wages" and compensation, in part because publicly-traded shares rely on both profitability and creditworthiness of the corporation.  After all, wages add to over all operating expenses.  So really, what is a "competitve wage"?  Basically it amounts to a reliance on people competing against their own demographics to provide the required skill set at the lowest cost to a business, while still attracting people to compete for a position.  You'll notice that the benefit of potential employees was not mentioned in that definition.

Meanwhile, as this sort of company operates in a community, perhaps creating a net loss of jobs in the local economy and also paying employees no more than is necessary, the corporation itself has an ever-increasing profit margin and better creditworthiness.  This is quite different than it's average employee (especially frontline staff) who must continually compete with an ever-increasing rate of inflation that does not truly represent the higher increase to the actual cost of living in most communities - competing while their wages and salaries remain relatively stagnant.  Even those individual incomes that increase based on raises due to inflation continue to lose ground with respect to the purchasing power of a dollar as the actual cost of living grows much larger.  In addition, the money supply, interests rates, borrowing opportunities and many other things will be based (in at least part) on inflation - making each less accurate.  Especially when a possibly decreasing GDP (or lack of substantial growth in GDP) is also considered - affecting the creditworthiness of not only the individuals within the community, but the community and government itself.  As a result, people might continually look to more conservative forms of government that operate under similar guidelines to the larger corporations themselves - cutting spending, etc.  However, as more people might now be reliant on the programs and services that are subject to spending cuts, these required services must now be provided by individuals themselves in a less regulated private sector.  Over all, while the community might be more creditworthy (and attractive to more large investments/corporations) - the individuals that live in the community might now have to rely more heavily on credit and the associated debt just to live.

Of course, we'll be told that the average household income has grown - but this is simply the result of more incomes being earned per household, not a result of individual incomes themselves increasing with any sort of significance.  This also weakens the community over all, as fewer families are able to sit to a family dinner and stress tends to be on the rise, as do the related health concerns and the demands on health care and other systems in order to deal with them.  Remember, that this might be the result of a larger chain that provides less healthy choices for individuals to consume (after all, something like a tomato continues to ripen after it is picked - so each tomato might be picked earlier to be shipped from elsewhere, meaning it only has the nutrients of a younger tomato, too).

If governments were to focus on attracting better employers, rather than larger companies and also focus on allowing locally produced goods better opportunity to compete - everything could be offset.  Whether cost of living, increasing wages to beyond "competitive" and the number of jobs available in their communities.  Of course, we could also start to make our own "smarter" choices as consumers, when we are able.

Giniw wrote:

No thanks. I'm not interested in capitalism-lite. This doesn't solve the problems of exploitation, ecological criss, indigenous self-determination, etc.

Are you sure about that, Giniw?  The problem isn't capitalism, itself, it is in our own shunning of the responsibility of ensuring that we are not simply buying goods and services that allow its current incarnation to take such a foot hold.  If we were to spend our money on the goods and services that were provided by better businesses (in terms of employee treatment and/or community involvement, etc) it would be those businesses that had the greatest success whether in revenues or the open market.

If government was to take an approach that reduced the cost of locally-produced goods through subsidizing supply-chains and their productivity, it would create more employment opportunities locally and also increase the salability of goods to a greater number of consumers.  As such, the consumer base would actually be supporting its own interests - allowing the local economy to flourish and also supporting better companies and employment standards.  All of that, in turn, could sway the open market toward companies that follow similar paths - especially if a greater number of global citizens were to take a similar approach.  Over all, better employment within a community also reduces the amount that need be spent on social programs and the like, on a per capita basis. 

gary_reinsch wrote:

Giniw wrote:

No thanks. I'm not interested in capitalism-lite. This doesn't solve the problems of exploitation, ecological criss, indigenous self-determination, etc.

Are you sure about that, Giniw?  The problem isn't capitalism, itself,

Nope.  Actually, the problem is capitalism.