Civic Election 2009

Another three year term is over for our mayor, municipal councilors, and school board trustees. It is time for us as citizens to exercise our right to vote. The sad reality is that in the past four elections an average of over two-thirds of Reginans chose not to participate. In the 2006 civic election 36% of eligible voters voted. In 2003, voter turnout was 24.9% - most likely due to the fact that Pat Fiacco was voted in by acclamation. 38% turned out to mark an X as Fiacco challenged Doug Archer for his job in 2000. Only 25% of voters came out in 1997. Voter turnout increases when the position of mayor is contended and this year three individuals are vying for the job.

Why is voter turnout at the municipal level drastically low? 1. My vote really doesn't count. If every person thinking this question voted who knows what the results would have been. Over 82,000 eligible individuals did not vote in 2006; nearly double the 42,000 citizens which did vote. Do you not think the outcome would have been different if they had voted? 2. I don't care about city politics. Have you ever complained about construction zones, property taxes, public transit, garbage collection, crime, snow removal, school closures (that's me)... Your voice makes a difference and council will act accordingly if electors raise valid concerns and lobby. 3. It is just a civic election, it doesn't really matter who runs the city. Do you have vision of what you want your city to be like? Perhaps more green space, clear sidewalks in the winter, or a cleaner city. There are candidates who share your vision and they are counting on your support. 4. access to polls: Technology has improved the methods in which we vote. Citizens can now vote in person, on-line, by mail, or by phone. Mobile polls are available for people with disabilities. Advanced polls allow us to vote prior to election day if need be.

Top four reasons to vote: 1. Millions of people worldwide have no say.* We take our right to vote for granted. In some areas of the world people are fighting for such rights. Women in western nations haven't even been voting for one hundred years; Aboriginal women less than sixty years. Voting was even a privilege for men in the late 19th century as only those with property were permitted to vote. 2. It is your say, your time, your opportunity. This is the day we as citizens are given to scrutinize city council. Did they work with dedication and passion at their job? Did they keep their last election promises? We have the ability to say yes or no to the next three years. 3. A way to improve or change our city. We can all point out aspects of our city we don't like or agree with. By voting we give permission to those we elect to represent us and our concerns. 4. We must set an example for younger generations. "Children are great imitators, so give them something great to imitate." Children frequently do what they see their parents, and other adult role models, doing.

Please mark Wednesday, October 28th on your calendar. In the next three weeks research your candidates, ask them questions, listen to debates, and find your polling station. On election day you will vote with confidence knowing you made an informed decision and exercised your right.

Visit www.regina.ca for all voting information.

*This map is based on civil and political rights and not entirely on the right to vote. However, it gives the reader an idea of where voter rights are lacking in the world.

"Shameful Chapter in Canadian History"

Last Thursday two hundred people packed a university lecture hall to hear Mr. Alex Neve, Secretary-General of Amnesty International Canada, speak on behalf of Indigenous people around the world. Two years almost to the date, the "most neglected and overlooked people of the world" were finally acknowledged after twenty-two years of negotiations and debate. On September 13th, 2007 the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was supported by 143 nations in the assembly. At the time only four countries voted against the proposal: Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and most surprisingly of all - Canada. "It was a source of great shame and embarrassment that my own country chose to stand on the wrong side of this human rights milestone," Neve asserted.

Neve began by providing a brief history of how the declaration and Canada's decision came to be. In 1945 national leaders came together to ensure that the human rights atrocities of World War II would never be repeated. This led to the founding of the United Nations (1945) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). The International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights followed in 1966. Neve accentuated three important aspects involved in these declarations. First, all were universal in nature; guaranteeing rights for each and every individual. Secondly, they were government-driven rather than originating from grassroots lobbying. Finally, governments laboured to create these documents under "challenging Cold War circumstances."

Governments soon recognized that particular rights and individuals needed more attention due to their vulnerability or nature. Conventions on racial discrimination, discrimination against women, against torture, and on the rights of children and refugees were formulated in the '60s, '70s, and '80s. In 1982 the United Nations perceived that Indigenous peoples across the world were among the poorest, unhealthiest, and least educated in their respective countries. The push to develop a declaration of their rights began.

By 2005 the draft of the declaration had nearly halted and there were fears of it remaining unfinished. Nation members of the Working Group persisted in accomplishing the job. Canada, which had previously been indifferent in contributing to the draft, became more active in the drive to complete the declaration. However, three key events in 2006 turned Canada "from bridge-builder to foe of the declaration." The first was a change in government; the Conservatives defeated the Liberals in the January 2006 election. Secondly, in March the United Nations called for an overhaul and the Commission of Human Rights was dismantled and replaced by the Human Rights Council. Lastly, and most significant was Prime Minister Harper's first international visitor in May of 2006. Australian Prime Minister John Howard, staunchly opposed to the document, persuaded Harper to his side. The new government "which had not uttered a previous word" about the convention was now against it. Leading up to the fall 2007 vote on the declaration, Canada along with Australia, New Zealand and the US did all they could to lobby against it.

Why? Why did Canada become hostile to the declaration? Neve argues that there was never a clear public answer. A few arguments include: it is inconsistent with the Canadian Constitution, it risks reopening treaty negotiations, collective rights of the document would undermined individual rights, or that it violates national defense acts. Regardless, these answers are vague and never elaborated on. In fact the constitution counters most of these excuses.

Who cares if Canada did not sign the Declaration? To begin with, Canada's reputation as a human rights leader has been tarnished. Our nation has been a consistently powerful voice for the protection of human rights, starting with our central role in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Secondly, rejecting the declaration suggests that it does not apply to our country. Thirdly, in a world lavish with human rights abuses, we need international leaders. As a country with a significant Aboriginal population, Canada's voice matters in setting an example to other nations. Finally, Canada has not done enough to alleviate "the gravity of injustices" experienced by our Aboriginal population:

• Since 1971, the Lubicon Cree of northern Alberta have been in opposition with governments over rights to the land on which they live.
• The disappearance and murder of Aboriginal women is so prominent in Manitoba that the government formed a joint police task force to review cases of missing women last month.
• Aboriginal child protection agencies receive less funding than non-Aboriginal protection organizations.

Neve urged all attendees to "bring this shameful chapter in Canadian history to a close." Please call or write letters to your Member of Parliament, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and encourage your friends to do the same.

Take action

Find your Member of Parliament

N.B. In April 2009 the Australian government, under new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, officially approved the Declaration. The United States and New Zealand governments are currently rethinking their positions.