Thursday, March 11, 2010

Shutting People Down?

I am a bit surprised at the amount of time and energy is being spent discussing whether outdoor speakers should be mounted at the renovated city hall, or whether they should be portable. Should they be painted white or not?

I acknowledge that at some level, there are practical considerations that need to be decided. I am rather miffed that two of the Stoney Creek Councillors (Mitchell and Pearson), seem to have fixated on this. Perhaps other councilors have been as well, and to the extent that they too are spending an inordinate amount of time on this, I would suggest that they need to rethink priorities.

Particularly curious, I found Clr. Mitchell’s argument that providing for outdoor speakers would lead to community advocates using the speakers to hold rallies/forums which would , in his view, disrupt the business of government in Hamilton. It’s a democratic right to conduct peaceful protests and I am surprised that he would put that forth with the significance that he has. The ability to protest peacefully is part of our democratic fabric.

Coupled with a recent report that stated that council was seeking legal advice to find a way to curtail the right of appeal under the Expropriation Act, for property owners who may be displaced by the notion of a West Harbour stadium site, one is left to wonder if the principles of democracy and free speech are being respected in Hamilton. Recently, as the Community Chair of a Secondary Planning group, I was denied my request to meet for 15 minutes with my community membership prior to an upcoming meeting.

It is chilling that in this day and age the establishment is threatened by long held democratic principles and right to free speech. Many have died in battlefields to allow us to enjoy those rights.

What is happening in Hamilton? Are we being shut down?

8 comments:

  1. Michelle HruschkaMar 11, 2010 10:10 AM
    Cal: This is a very interesting subject you have picked today.

    So Councillor Mitchell is worried that if speakers are put in place that community activists could possibly use them to get their message out, yet the powers to be seem to think it would disrupt business as usual.

    So let me pose this back to you. We are told that so many died in world wars so that we have that right to free speech, to engage in peaceful protest but when you really look at what is going on in the real world, it brings all this illusion into perspective.

    So if the people do not agree with the government we are just suppose to take it, lying down, no questions asked, is this to be the future.

    Sounds really Orwellian if you ask me, it seems that the powers to be, may have something else in store for us.

    Something to think about.
    ReplyDelete
  2. What...I can't believe some of our councillors would want to stifle any dissent on their work performance. Who needs electronic speakers? Bring back the old soap box and have a speakers corner on the public City Hall property where we all can rant about our dissent.
    ReplyDelete
  3. Here's a link to a video taken at the old forecourt at city hall. I wonder if the Councillors mentioned above thinks this activity is disrupting government business?

    "Stupid is as stupid does", right Forrest?
    --
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-139301959615416736&hl=en#
    ReplyDelete
  4. Stalin would have been proud.

    Turf em out. Get out and vote. Can't shut ya down at the ballot box!

    Elvis P.
    ReplyDelete
  5. Brian Henley +Mar 11, 2010 06:04 PM
    The threat to free speech is definitely something to monitor closely - just look at what is happening with the federal government in recent years.
    As regards the city, I was told by an applicant to one of the city's boards/committees that members of the selection committee very unsubtly let it be known that independent advice by committee members was not what was wanted. What was wanted was what council wanted to hear.
    Also the message was conveyed that city committee members were not to go to the media on issues, but were only report to council. When those suggestions were not endorsed by the applicant, guess who was not selected for the committee in question?
    Secondly as regards events in the city hall forecourt, I believe that in the past there was a protocol as to who was allowed to use that area for events, an application process and all. I'm not sure exactly how that worked or whether it would still be in effect when the renovated City Hall is open to the public. It would be interesting to find that out.
    Finally, as regards the time spend on the outdoor speakers and computer terminal matters at open council, I believe there were a few matters going on. First of all, there was an understandable sensitivity to avoid a repeat of the embarrassing "wow" factor proposal that went over like a led balloon.
    Secondly, both the politician in charge of the city hall renovation committee and the senior bureaucrat in charge have been very inept on many matters in this project, most notably co-ordination with appropriate city committees (both citizen advisory and political standing committees.)
    Also communication to the public on the project has been abysmal. (Admittedly, if the boasts are true that the project is well ahead of time for completion and substantially under budget, great! But there have been several unnecessary glitches, like the matters last night, things that simply need not have happened.)
    So what unfolded last night was that full council was dealing with issues that should have been dealt with at a committee level and that took time.
    At the same time, the individuals in charge of the project, politician and staffer, were trying, under the guise of timing, to short circuit proper procedures and process. Many councillors, rightfully in my view, were taking them to task about that.
    So - sorry for the long post - I fear threats to free speech as well although not so much at the municipal level as at the federal level. And I lament the fact that the City Hall project has been repeatedly tainted by poor consultation and communication - the end result may well be a "success" but at what cost to the respect citizens, at least this one, have for the City of Hamilton municipal operations?
    ReplyDelete
  6. Councillor Mitchell is way off base making such a statement to the very people that pay his undeserved salary. This guy has his foot in mouth more times than he has it on the ground. I will never forget the article in the Stoney Creek News a few months back where it reported Mitchell calling his constituents names at a public meeting. He should have been fired for that one, not to mention all the other unethical stuff he has done since being in office, that has hit the papers.

    As for the amount council is spending on disucssing speakers at the "new" city hall, enough already people. Surley there are more important things to focus on than the location and colour to two speakers - like the 550 jobs being lost in Hamilton from the relocaiton of Siemens to the USA. Wake up councillors!

    Albert
    ReplyDelete
  7. Disgusted in the WestMar 12, 2010 06:04 AM
    Mr. DiFalco. I think you hit the nail right on the head. There is this whole thing now in Hamilton where people's views are not REALLY being counted. These committees and "set Ups" are just that- set ups. The poor struggle while the city sits up these "consultation" meetings that they could not care less about. Why waste money on them then? Why not put that money where it can be used, like helping those children who live in poverty in Hamilton? Disgusting. Eevn more disgusting is that city staff are also know towing the linme and keeping people hushed. What a mess this city has become.

    Disgusted, in the west

    Great blog. One of the only things left for real talk
    ReplyDelete
  8. A yes the "free speech" debate, unfortunately The right to free speech is a myth.

    You can say whatever you like sure, but you can still be punished for it. So for those worried about losing their right to free speech take a closer look at your history books and you'll see we never really had it anyway. Most countries' free speech laws are written along the lines of "no prior constraint", meaning they can't stop you from saying it but they can throw you in jail for saying it... Is that free speech???

    I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying there is no use crying for the loss of something we've never actually had.
    ReplyDelete

Your comments are welcome. Please abide by the blog's policy on posting. This blog facilitates discussion from all sides of issues. Opposite viewpoints, spirited discussion and even pointed comments are welcome, provided they are respectful. Name calling is not allowed and any posts that violate the policy, will simply not be authorized to appear. This blog also reserves the right to exclude comments that are off topic or are otherwise unprofessional. This blog does not assume any liability whatsoever for comments posted. People posting comments or providing information on interviews, do so at their own risk.


Comments posted on this blog, may be used as excerpts in whole or in part, in other media sources .
This blog believes in freedom of speech and operates in the context of a democratic society, which many have fought and died for.

Views expressed by commentators or in articles that appear here, cannot be assumed to be espoused by The Hamiltonian staff or its publisher.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)