Media Notes and a Rally

22 Comments

1. While I am not in a position to attend “The Rally For Our Rights” I will, most definitely, be there in heart ! My only hope is that any Newfoundlander or Labradorian who is in a position to be at St. John’s International Airport at 4:30 p.m.,January 27, will rally behind Premier Danny Williams, demonstrating our strong support for his stand on The Atlantic Accord. The time has come to not only “tell” the Feds that we are tired of receiving the “crumbs from the table", but to “show” our discontent! Our futures and the lives of our descendants are at stake !

   Comment by P.W.G. — 1/26/2005 @ 4:18 pm

2. I posted in another of the blog threads about a potential rally in Ottawa. I had e-mailed the premier’s office, inquiring as to what Newfoundlanders in Ottawa should do. I’ve since received a reply, indicating that Danny’s flight information has not been confirmed yet and they had no indication of whether any rally had been planned for Ottawa. If anyone catches wind of when Danny’s flight arrives, or when might be a good time to show up at the airport, please post it! I would be more than happy to hoot and holler (or at least clap and cheer) on Danny’s and on all of our behalfs at the airport here in Ottawa tomorrow evening.

   Comment by Andrew Ryall — 1/26/2005 @ 5:27 pm

3. Kevin: First of all thanks for the link and the comments.

   “Foster” would be too strong a word and if I initially may have felt that way, my view has mellowed with exposure to the people who post here. In fact, I went back and wrote a comment on my site that talked a bit about this site and the genuine, heart-felt convictions of the people who post.

   I think your site is a valuable source of information and an exchange of ideas and opinions. It doesn’t foster very much of anything, actually. In true Internet-democracy fashion, it gives an outlet for expression of views that come from the individuals who visit the site and those who post messages.

   What I took from many of the posts - rightly or wrongly - was a litany of failures and the tendency to blame others for those failures. I have always felt that a more sober view would find many more faults closer to home. Having said that, I don’t believe we are a miserable lot by any chance. We learn from our mistakes and we have changed, individually and collectively over the past forty and more years.

   I think there is a tendency here (in Newfoundland and Labrador) to talk too much about mistakes of the past to the point where we become blinded to other things, the positive things about this place and its people. In its extreme form, we become closed off to how the rest of the world sees us and hence we miss the opportunity to fix what needs fixing. We call into the trap of stereotyping Mainlanders as easily as we believe they are doing the same to us.

   A Mainlander who makes the mistake of calling me a “newfie” is my opportunity to open their eyes and their minds to the richness and diversity of our culture, the inventiveness of our people and the fact that there is more here than people who speak with vaguely-Irish accents and are perpetually on the dole. For example, I sent Margaret Wente an e-mail that didn’t chastise her; rather I offered to introduce her to my Newfoundland and Labrador when - and if - she visits again. For any Newfoundlander who thinks it’s alright to be called “newfie’, well, then I’ll introduce them to some things I know about this place. More often than not, in the process, I change and they change. After those sorts of encounters, both sides can speak with some knowledge and sensitivity of this place and its people. And we can open up our society to those who come from somewhere else, and to be frank, may often be intimidated by the passion which we all feel for it.

   Comment by Ed Hollett — 1/26/2005 @ 9:05 pm

4. A federal communications campaign: it would be nice if somebody actually put out some solid information instead of the inflammatory, self-serving half-truths that we have been hearing on this issue since day 1.

   Of course the province, and Danny, would have the most to lose from a wider and clearer understanding of the underlying issues. As long as Danny keeps his campaign on a strong we-are-victims based emotional pitch, his support will maintain. As many have stated before, sunlight is the best disinfectant. In this case, casting a strong light on the dispute would make the provincial position blow away in a cloud of dust.

   What is most offensive are the insessant calls to “support our premier” and “stand behind our leader” at any and all costs. It is the same kind of lemming-like corporatist mind set that has lead us down the path to trouble before. Anytime I’m encouraged to join the political parade and not exercise my critical faculties of independent thought, my bullshot-detector light starts an insistent red blink. There is no time that we should all be encouraged to turn off our minds and blindly follow anybody anywhere.

   Most discouraging is the kind of vicious reaction against anyone who raises a question: since when has Danny Williams become the great conquering hero deserving of uncritical political mass worship? And since when has anyone who questions our glorious leader deserved to be labeled a traitor, a sellout or a Quisling?

   As for the “The Rally For Our Rights”, this is just more of the same kind of populist urge to get on the train before it heads out of the station.

   This entire process has not cast our provincial political culture in an attractive light; we have little to be proud of.

   Comment by Simon Lono — 1/26/2005 @ 9:30 pm

5. Hello Kevin;

   Short note to let you know that I plan on attending the public forum at MUN on Wednesday evening. I’ll post a few comments Thursday.

   Cheers.

   Comment by Brenda S. , St. John\\\’s — 1/26/2005 @ 11:03 pm

6. Simon, no one is forcing you to join any rally behind Danny Williams. It’s a free country. Of course, you have every right to stand up for federal position and support Martin, a man who is daily losing credibility across the country on more issues than the offshore. The fact that Martin has lied need not colour your opinion. Go ahead, Simon, support the feds; it’s a free country.

   Comment by Anne — 1/27/2005 @ 10:20 am

7. Thank you very much, Anne, for presenting yourself as the living and breathing example of my previous point: that the public discussion has degenerated into a WE vs US dispute with no middle ground or any possibility of taking an independent view.

   I’ll try to break this to you gently: Anne. . . you are wrong and so hopelessly locked into the battle as a partisan participant (the Danny party) that you are blind to the possibility that any other side may not be evil.

   Now I know that you and others will now rejoin with “we are not partisan, we are just behind our premier”. In fact there are two new parties shaping up in this province: the Danny Party and, as defined by the Danny Party, the Party of the Evil Traitors (federalists). And there is no middle ground possible.

   You, as a card-carrying member of the Danny mob, have not only have abdicated your basic responsibility as a thinking citizen to look at political announcements critically but you have reached the point where you can no longer conceive that any else can either. Therefore, according to you, since I am not a member of the Danny party I must automatically be on the other side because that’s all there is (????).

   I believe it was Christopher Pratt, the architect, who recently said on the radio: “When I hear my premier call the Prime Minister a liar, I will stand behind my Premier.” (that’s a very close paraphrase but perhaps not exact.)

   I totally reject that point of view. It is weak-minded, lazy and hopelessly naive.

   When I hear the premier call the PM, or anyone else, a liar I have to wonder what new and low political game he has embarked upon now. It makes me wonder how and why we managed to elect yet another scrappy irresponsible provincial premier without the basic grace or courtesy required to work well with the other premiers or the federal government. And make no mistake about it, federal-provincial negotiations is the kind of game where it takes two or more to tango.

   Only children can assume that if they hold their breath long enough then they will get what they want.

   Again, Anne, thanx kindly for taking your role in your dark and comfortable little pigeon-hole in this teapot tempest.

   Comment by Simon Lono — 1/27/2005 @ 4:13 pm

8. Hi,

   Who is the communications company hired by the feds?

   -John

   Comment by John Kent — 1/27/2005 @ 4:44 pm

9. “Ed thinks this web site fosters an island-wide inferiority complex”

   What island?

   Comment by WJM — 1/27/2005 @ 5:45 pm

10. Simon Lono: “Now I know that you and others will now rejoin with “we are not partisan, we are just behind our premier”. In fact there are two new parties shaping up in this province: the Danny Party and, as defined by the Danny Party, the Party of the Evil Traitors (federalists). And there is no middle ground possible.”

    Shades of Quebec.

    I half wish we all spoke French; it would avoid the inconvenience of having to come up with appropriate English equivalent for “vendu".

    Comment by WJM — 1/27/2005 @ 5:47 pm

11. Simon “If the shoe fits” wear it. Methinks you protest too much.

    Comment by Anne Marie — 1/27/2005 @ 7:25 pm

12. Simon;

    Christopher Pratt is an artist. Philip Pratt is an architect. Please confirm which of these gentlemen made the statement and could you be more specific regarding your source?

    Cheers.

    Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 1/27/2005 @ 11:01 pm

13. My mistake, I believe that would be Philip.

    It was on On The Go (CBC aft news show) just around Christmas.

    Comment by Simon Lono — 1/28/2005 @ 12:47 am

14. It was Christopher Pratt, the man who designed our provincial flag. He was on the current and a portion of the interview was played on ON The Go. He likened the Canadian flag to a logo, that has little meaning for him. More representative of a certain political party than a nation.

    Comment by Gary Thompson — 1/28/2005 @ 7:04 am

15. WJM I don’t fully understand your use of the past tense of the
    French verb vendre = to sell (vendu = sold) in the context you have chosen.

    Is it in that ‘everybody’ has ‘bought’ what Danny is ’selling’?

    Shades of Quebec - as in ghosts, memories?

    It’s all a touch cryptic don’t you think?

    Plus it’s not all that transferable in this situation, in my opinion. I fully understand where Simon is coming from about blind support, and I lived in Quebec during at least one referendum but I don’t see a remarkable resemblance to their situation. I lived in the most separatist region of Quebec; the majority of people who would speak with me [a “Maudit tete carree” or “Maudit bloc” which meant “goddamn blockhead or squarehead” (their derogatory term for Anglophones)] about the topics were less informed about their topics than the people who have chosen to share in this blog. I am a bilingual Anglophone but as much as it’s noticeable here that I speak with a “mainland” accent it was even more noticeable in French. It was even humourous when I went to the Quebec Winter Carnival and overheard someone talking about me. Translated it was, “Oh my God, an English guy who talks like a blueberry.” The region where I was living and learning my dialect, the people were referred to as “bluets” or blueberries.

    A radical separatist threatened me on two different occasions and I was subjected to racism over 4 and a half years but that is not the norm in that or any other region of Canada. The vast majority of Francophone people that I met were appalled by my stories of name-calling and the near violence that some of us had experienced. Most of them (including my Franco friends) felt it was all about their desire to retain their language and distinct cultural heritage. Their politicians had convinced them that these were the issues.

    What I learned after the fact was that once again it was about politicians. They wanted full control over everything in the Quebec legislature. They call it the National Assembly not the Provincial Assembly. Not just natural resources, they wanted it all, more federal money as a “have not” province plus the right to spend it however they wanted without any federal input. Oh yeah, plus the ability to go back for more federal money so they could create “special joint projects” too. So in effect by not separating they wanted the full control and the anonymity to act as an independent state within Canada. Of course Canada said no, it was ludicrous.

    Are your comparisons then simply about rallying behind any premier or are you saying that the people here in this blog are just as uninformed as the common folks in Quebec? And that our government is asking for the same things as Lesvesque, Parrizou, Bouchard and Bourrasa?

    Au contrer, mon ami. Most people here haven’t included a shred of a desire to keep their “distinct society”; most of them are willing to give it up because they feel it portrays them in a bad light to the rest of Canadians. The people in Quebec didn’t care in what light Canada viewed them, so long as we would leave them alone. (And their politicians wanted us to provide to them their share of federal funding to provincial coffers.)

    Just wondering since you reminded me to employ critical thought while remaining a little more emotionally detached.

    I think too that there is much less discussion about separatism here. You probably have better connections to the pollsters though. Are you aware of what the percentage of separatists is here in N and L? I’d like to know.

    As passionate as many are about this issue I can’t believe it’s anywhere near 49%-51%. I doubt that it’s even 20%. It’s mostly people who were hurt and are blowing off some steam. I don’t believe there is a real movement afoot to separate here. Most recognize the folly of leaving Canada, which is still the best country in the world by far.

    Lastly, your comment in another forum in these blogs stated that, “[You were] tired of this kind of politics.” I take it you were again referring to the JFK, Winston Churchill, “cult of personality” style you were describing. Only you didn’t use those two men as examples. Perhaps Evita Peron and Golda Maier would be better examples. I’m not sure I follow you there either way. Were they bad leaders? Or are the other ones like Martin, Mulrooney or Bush just better “managers”. It’s the age-old argument that natural leaders are born and good politicians/managers are trained.

    I on the other hand despise liars, they can be either born or trained, especially the ones who are voted in by us and who are supposed to be acting on our behalf. I do not vote for liars a second time because that is not representative of me. Often it is too late and the damage is done. That’s why there should be mechanisms in place for the people to oust elected officials for boldfaced lies. I’m sick of it and I want some accountability! Someone said in another blog something along the lines of, ‘What, a politician didn’t live up to a something they said, what a surprise.’ Well if people keep voting for liars then they deserve to be lied to. Well, not really… There’s putting a spin on issues, and there’s unabashed lying. Yes there is a difference, I know that much about public relations and politics.

    Fred from CBS

    Comment by Fred Harris — 1/28/2005 @ 8:16 am

16. Simon, I have lived on the mainland for over 20 years. I need no lessons from you on how the federal government operates. Living in Ottawa offers one a great education on how things are done. The PM wants to get re-elected. That means keeping Quebec and Ontario happy. As far as he is concerned, N&L is a minor player in Canada, hardly worthy of his attention. That’s why he is prepared to offer N&L less than what he promised last June. Premier Williams knows this and is trying to get a better deal while the government is vulnerable as a minority. No matter what happens with the offshore, N&L has elected a statesman in Premier Williams. If the Prime Minister had the class and integrity of Premier Williams, there would have been an offshore deal back in June when the PM made his promise.

    Comment by Anne — 1/28/2005 @ 11:45 am

17. Simon, I know you wil parse my words, so just to be clear when I say “better” deal I mean the deal the PM promised last June, not the crumbs he is offering now. Thank you.

    Comment by Anne — 1/28/2005 @ 11:47 am

18. “He likened the Canadian flag to a logo, that has little meaning for him. More representative of a certain political party than a nation.”

    Funny, I have similar feelings about the flag HE designed. I will forever associate it with being a school kid, getting handed one to wave for the benefit of Brian Peckford a few weeks after his government adopted it. To me it says “Peckford era", “frequent elections", and “bad-fitting suits".

    Comment by WJM — 1/28/2005 @ 12:43 pm

19. “WJM I don’t fully understand your use of the past tense of the French verb vendre = to sell (vendu = sold) in the context you have chosen.”

    vendu is also an adjectival noun, roughly translatable as “sellout". It’s a common insult hurled by Quebec separatists at anyone who is less Quebec-nationalist than they are, let alone full-out federalist.

    Another common one is “fédéraste", which is a really obscene portmanteau/pun that concatenates being a federalist with being a pedophile.

    You see, that is the state of public discourse in Quebec, at least on those issues that polarize on federalist-seperatist axes.

    And that’s the way it’s headed in NL, thanks to the overblown and self-serving nationalist rhetoric of certain provincial politicians who shall remain nameless.

    Comment by WJM — 1/28/2005 @ 12:47 pm

20. “Not just natural resources, they wanted it all, more federal money as a “have not” province plus the right to spend it however they wanted without any federal input. Oh yeah, plus the ability to go back for more federal money so they could create “special joint projects” too. So in effect by not separating they wanted the full control and the anonymity to act as an independent state within Canada.”

    How is that so different from Danny Williams’ government?

    More federal money… no strings attached… more provincial powers… more federal money for “special projects", even if they are under provincial jurisdiction (think tunnels and trans-Labrador highways)…

    What should “Canada’s” answer be? The same as the answer it gives to Quebec? Or a different one?

    Comment by WJM — 1/28/2005 @ 12:49 pm

21. “Lastly, your comment in another forum in these blogs stated that, “[You were] tired of this kind of politics.” I take it you were again referring to the JFK, Winston Churchill, “cult of personality” style you were describing.”

    I would NOT put JFK or Churchill in the same class as Smallwood, Peckford, or Duplessis.

    The former had popularity; the one primarily from having been murdered/martyred; the other from having been a wartime force. The latter had cults of personality. There is a world of difference between the two.

    “I on the other hand despise liars, they can be either born or trained, especially the ones who are voted in by us and who are supposed to be acting on our behalf. I do not vote for liars a second time because that is not representative of me. Often it is too late and the damage is done.”

    Which is why Danny “I-will-recognize-the-Labrador-Metis", “I-will-release-government-reports-within-30-days", “I-will-have-a-Premier’s-office-in-Labrador", “I-don’t-want-royalties-and-equalization” Williams should not be voted for a second time.

    “That’s why there should be mechanisms in place for the people to oust elected officials for boldfaced lies. I’m sick of it and I want some accountability!”

    What are YOU doing to hold Danny Williams accountable for his lies and broken promises?

    Comment by WJM — 1/28/2005 @ 12:53 pm

22. As a newly relocated person to this province my view of the provincial politics is not quite as wide as my federal view to Newfoundland and Labrador as an overview. I will become more aware over the next few years and I will review my options before provincial election time.

    In other words, I apologize but I’m just getting warmed up. Even though I admit that I am not fully aware of the Premiers other internal promises, my knowledge of Newfoundland and Labrador’s history in confederation drove me to support him in this cause. Time, speeches, news, and the web will bring me up to speed before I vote for anybody.

    This issue helped to muster my support for the Premier partially out of my mistrust of the PM who was finance minister when, in my honest opinion, the most undeniable examples of Pandering Gone Wild (under the Group Actionne sponsorship scandal) took place; he held another position of great trust and authority when expense accounts and purchasing through Public Works got blamed on one person, when not fewer than 10 MUST have known (it’s not like it was any different from when he was finance minister on that one either) and to top it all off, he manages a landslide party victory with at least some cause for public concern on how he got there. And capping that it all off that they had the gaul to waste all that money on a “leadership” convention. I mean give me a break, what a waste of money.

    OK, I may be naive about “How things are done.” I haven’t been hanging around rubbing shoulders with the people who have expense accounts but I can assure you even though I’m not a multi-millionaire I’d be paying for many of the “expenses” that should be reclassified as “luxuries” which can ONLY be purchased from a personal account and which tax-payers money does not reimburse. That would included meals in excess of $20 at any time of the day, all beverages included. And that’s only the days where work forces you to be unable to eat your brown bag lunch like everybody else in the country is preparing for themselves. You want anything beyond a nutritious inexpensive meal, pay for it out of your own money like the rest of us! I don’t want a single nickel of my tax dollars being spent at fancy restaurants where the “guests” at the table chuckle about who’s government expense account is going to cover the $40-50 bottle of wine with lunch. It makes me wanna throw-up.

    I’m truly just getting warmed up here…

    Fred from CBS

    Comment by Fred Harris — 1/28/2005 @ 5:26 pm

Leave a comment

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.