Facebook > Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament

and oh yes... if you haven't joined already, that's the group in the subject header. Of course you could always be less virtual and more tangible...

VANCOUVER, BC
RALLY
Date: Saturday, January 23rd
Time: 1:00 pm local time
Location: Vancouver Art Gallery, March to Victory Square

It's true - this group is an

It's true - this group is an elegant display of the effectiveness of digital advocacy. With grassroots organization and participation being vital to a functional and perhaps healthy democracy, facebook is providing an effective catalyst to unite peoples concerns all around the world. Perhaps limited in scope by it's inapplicability to those who likely need their voices heard the most, such as those without access to internet or digital media - it still is an effective scaffold for others to voice concern on their behalf. Look at the response to the earthquake in Haiti. Without digital advocacy, there likely wouldn't be such an emphatic and generous response from so many people in such a short interval of time.

Who's Really Paying Attention in MSM, or Ottawa?

Doesn't matter, the official media focus has shifted to Haiti. Harper will play it out until it dies down, then he can focus on the olympics.

Facebook???

First let me say i am not familier with facebook. So my question is, how many of these 200,000 people are actually Canadian???

Second: Didn't i hear correctly that once that there were over 400,000 people signed up to a Facebook page for a woman to not give birth, or something like that?

Obviously, it is pretty easy to sign your name to a page on a computer screen. You are practically anonomous. Just like here, we are all anonomous.

Before we all parade around quoting the numbers from Faceback and trumpeting our bravery for standing up to the Prime Minister, lets wait for the "Real" test. Wait and see how many people actually attend the planned rallies.

Then and only then will anyone actually be able to say if this type of speaking out actually means anything. I will wait before i make that leap. We could all end up looking pretty foolish next week otherwise.

I don't put much faith in a web page. I put my faith in people.

The proof is in the pudding.

What share of the 0.61% of the population who put forth the extraordinary effect to click on a group invitation will actually take the extra step to actually vote or become politically active?

It's actually quite a large step from clicking on a group invitation to actually joining a political party and paying membership dues.

It's just as easy to over-estimate the power of social media as it is to under-estimate it.

Proof

That's why i will wait to see what actually transpires on the 23rd before i pass any judgement.

I have seen this type of "Facebook" protest try to take off before over different issues, and they have never materialized into people taking physical action. The "people" always stay home.

Will this one be any different? Lets wait and see. I will reserve judgement before putting any faith in this ahead of time.

Democracy at Work

When citizens don't participate, they're dismissed as apathetic sheep. When they start to become involved and express concerns about our elites, like joining a political Facebook page, they are dismissed again. Gee, if we listen long enough to the elites, we might as well do away with democracy altogether.

Democracy has SO many drawbacks: inefficiency, surprise outcomes that can't be controlled, new ideas that take elites great effort to understand and then reject, general disobedience and refusal to follow orders.

And look how effective non-democracy is under Harper. He can order to the military to invade Haita at will, er, I mean, send our private army to 'keep order' (after we helped undermine and destroy Haiti's democracy). We can do anything and everything without parliament. So let's get rid of it. Life will be SO much simpler.

More Fox news anyone? Please pass the CanWestGlobal...

I wonder

just how many of the 200,000+ realize that nothing illegal transpired and that it was only immoral if one had some point that one wished to belabour further but couldn't.

Sorry, but at this stage of the game i think it's just a tempest in a teapot.

Jan 23 at Centennial Park, one o'clock, Victoria

I will be there....will you? And I got the info from the Facebook Folks.

Democracy at Work

Yes, they are dismissed again when the join a Facebook page. Because right now that means next to nothing. People will stop being dismissed for this type of involvement when they start taking the next step.

Clicking a button on a facebook page is a very very small statement. Anyone from anywhere can make that kind of statement. It is when the people actually take the next step, and back up their statements with actions, that Democracy works the best.

Without that next step, any "protest" means absolutely nothing.

As for Haiti, how can anyone find fault with how Harper has handled this castasrophe? There is not a lot to like about the man but i find absolutely no fault with the man on this issue.

I think the most significant point about this issue

I think the most significant point about this issue relates to the consanguinity of two events.

First, the face book reaction - which clearly indicates a high degree of public awareness and concern about the role and effectiveness of so called representative government and second, the lockstep decline in Tory fortunes in recent polls.

Say what you like about the magnitude of the virtual protest, it would seem fairly obvious that the same negative response to Pee Wee's actions is equally reflected in the supposedly scientifically representative polls.

Whether or not the decline of Harper's 'popularity' has any sticking power IS a valid question but the final result may be more a function of the fact that the alternatives to a continued Harper government are not particularly attractive either.

In my view, the real problem(s) here are the result of the fractured and dysfunctional nature of the current system, the disappearance of an independent and professional press and the economic handcuffing of the poor and the working class by an elitist and mal-administered tax system which serves only to reinforce the hegemony of a small minority of Canadians.

If the internet could be harnessed as an effective way to induce real change, there are plenty of targets upon which its power should be focused.

As for Pee Wee and Haiti - Canada's reputation on this file is so besmirched by its past actions and inactions (including being a player in the deposition of President Aristide) that there is little he can do today to improve it.

$50 million is a drop in the bucket - Harper and Flangan piss more than that away in a heartbeat when they're buying up the big banks unproductive mortgages.

Aspers end proroguing of CanWest writers

Little is more refreshing than watching the Aspers' yoke being removed from the writers and editors of CanWest. For your viewing pleasure:

http://www.theprovince.com/news/proroguin-blues/index.html

I think the most significant point about this issue

Still, statements have to transform into actions to actually mean anything.

With all the things people sign up for on facebook, no facebook dissent will ever mean anything to me, until one of these events actually take the next step.

I will gladly give this facebook protest it's due, if and when the people actually show up in any kind of significant numbers on the 23rd. Otherwise, it's just another fad.

As for Canada's reputation on the Haiti file, unless i am mistaken, that would have been a liberal government in that all of that time, would it not?

Even if we do not like our current government, we cannot blame him for everything... and when he actually does something right, we have to give the man his due.

little clicks with big implications

This Facebook campaign is essentially an effort to market an idea (rather than a product). The first commandment of marketing on the Internet is thou shalt harvest an email address. Joining a Facebook group means you are 'opting-in' to being messaged about further developments on an issue and allowing further contact. When spam is so universally reviled, this act (opting-in) is significant.

When the Friends of the Burrard Bridge created a Facebook group in support of the protected lanes I was curious to see just how many people would join. I expected a few hundred. We now sit at over one thousand. While that figure may not have influenced City Council in their decision to implement the lanes, the ability to message members of the group, keep them apprised of developments, and ask them to send personal messages to decision-makers was an important facet of the campaign (of which I was a part).

Just because something is easy, doesn't mean it's insignificant. There are literally millions of web pages out there that will deliver information to your inbox on a regular basis with a click or two. Yet, how many do you take up on the offer?

I think Michael that you

I think Michael that you missed the point. These pricks in Ottawa are so arrogant they don't give a damn what people think. We can all join facebook, attend a march on Saturday, stamp our little feet, hold our breath and turn blue, it won't faze them. Make_up_another comment is right on; the mass-media is now focused on Haiti, not proroguing Parliament.

great point upthread

"When citizens don't participate, they're dismissed as apathetic sheep. When they start to become involved and express concerns about our elites, like joining a political Facebook page, they are dismissed again."

This is an excellent observation deserving of repeition.

Facebook is the beginning of What?

OK, Facebookers show up en masse Jan. 23. What will they be asking for? What will their signs say? I'll be curious to see how many haul out their infants or kids. There's always that righteousness that we're doing something IMPORTANT but the suits in the Leg don't pay much attention.
Remember the protests when our BC government ripped up health care contracts? Protests about logging old growth? Not much changes.
There has to be something beyond protests unless of course the whole city of Victoria shows up.

The Beginning of the End

The best-case scenario: the demos are well-attended, the groundswell of support continues, Harper continues to drop in the polls, emboldening the opposition to take him down during the budget debate. Ignatieff/Layton minority govt ensues....which turns out to be better than what we have now.

Simple, n'est pas? ;-)

little clicks with big implications

Yes, i agree, Facebook can be a tool for passing on information about issues, and can keep people up to date for those that are interested in following a certain issue.

But how do you identify on facebook those that are actually interested in the issue versus those that just clicked for the hell of it?

Now "That" is where the size of the rallies will bear out the answers. And by all means, if you care about something, then click that button.

But do not confuse all button clicking with everyone actually caring.
But also, if the people actually DO show up to put voice to their "Outrage" then that is a great thing for Democracy and i will gladely give these facebook type outrages their due. Until that happens, it is still feigned outrage to me. What happens if the people who are so outraged do not show up? What do we say then? Again, i will wait and see first. If you care at all, then at the very least get involved. Don't tell me you care because you can push a button. Show me you care by actually being there.

Facebook statistics

"With all the things people sign up for on facebook, no facebook dissent will ever mean anything to me, until one of these events actually take the next step."

It's actually a small number. Two groups a month.

http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics

For Steppeup

"I will gladly give this facebook protest it's due, if and when the people actually show up in any kind of significant numbers on the 23rd. Otherwise, it's just another fad."

"Show me you care by actually being there."

It's odd that you consider this single metric (and the most time-consuming one to boot) the only important signifier of somone's opinion. Why doesn't an email to a MP count? Or a letter to the editor. Not wishing to march or chant isn't proof of anything.

"Even if we do not like our current government, we cannot blame him for everything... and when he actually does something right, we have to give the man his due."

When Harper actually shows up at Parliament.... :-)

Finally, out of 33 million Canadians, only 5 million voted Conservative in the last election. So, that's how few people were willing to take that 'next step' despite millions in advertising over an extended period of time. Comparatively speaking, this Facebook group would only have to pull 30,000 on a budget of pretty much zero to have a proportional impact... with the caveat that showing up to a protest is no guarantee of action, whereas voting has a concrete 'benefit' to the voter. In reality, it would only take a few thousand people to show up to a Pro-rogue Protest to demonstrate that Facebook is very effective at 'getting out the vote.'

For Steppeup

Ah, Chris, i do not think attending this protest is the Only way to show you care. Sending an e-mail or a letter to your member of Parliment is also an excellent thing to do. At least it shows you are willing to take the time to get involved. Clicking a button on a facebook page is not taking the time to actually do anything. That takes a second to accomplish with no further thought involved. At least if you take the time to write a letter or e-mail, then you are actually giving your 'Time" to an idea or purpose. You actually have to think. There is no thought in just clicking a button.

So no, attending a rally is not the "Only" way to show you are envolved. But until you can show me that enough people actually can spare a thought and a bit of time to write about it, or attend a rally, or whatever else requires more than a second of time, then there really is no outrage now, is there....

It is too bad that there was never any kind of outrage when Cretien shut down Parliment over the SAMALIA inquiery, which was much more blatent than this one. He had a Majority government and did it to stop an inquiry into murder by a Canadian soldier. Where was the outrage over that? So if we cannot be consistant in our outrage, then it is feigned outrage at best.

"But how do you identify on

"But how do you identify on facebook those that are actually interested in the issue versus those that just clicked for the hell of it?"

People are swamped with information these days and constantly looking to stem the flow of messages coming their way. Ask anyone who uses the Internet for marketing/PR purposes and they will tell you in no uncertain terms that people almost never join a Fbook page or opt-in to an email list 'just for the hell of it.'

If people are joining the group, it's because they care to some degree. That degree may be debatable, but the percentage of people joining without reason probably hovers somewhere around zero.

Social Media is a game-changer. That debate is long over.

Steppeup

People are not anonymous on Facebook, when they join a group all their friends and relations know about it.

Its actually a very public statement. Moreso than voting or protesting.

Thoughts and clicks

"There is no thought in just clicking a button."

Actually there's a huge industry built around getting people to click a button. Getting that buy-in is much harder than you think. Getting people to do so, tell their friends, and open themselves up to addt'l messages for a nominal cost is the kind of outcome that most marketing efforts would kill for.

But how do you identify on

I remember some kind of "Outrage" in the media last winter, i think it was, and Rallies were planned all over Canada. The outrage was so significant that i cannot even remember what it was for. All i do remember was that there were about 25 people or so who showed up for the Ottawa rally, close to 20 people at the Edmonton Rally, 40 or so people at the Toronto rally. Yet i remember that there were so many people who were "Outraged" on facebook.

So no, you cannot say because someone looked at a site and clicked a button that it was all done for a reason. Nobody can say for certain. But a facebook page does not prove you care. It just doesn't. But it also doesn't mean that just because it's facebook that you don't care. Of course a lot of the people who signed on maybe care somewhat. But how much? Who actually knows? But i think this rally will be a good indication, will it not? You certainally cannot tell who is so "outraged" versus who just thinks " you shouldn't really have done that" by how many times a button was clicked on a site. Maybe most didn't like the idea, but bottom line, don't really give a damn. Who knows?

Ramona777

What do you think people should do when government ignores them? Are you advocating revolution? Shooting our politicians?

We live in a democracy which means the government is free to ignore us.

Steppeup

So you're saying you don't care about any issues because you're posting on the Tyee instead of setting tires on fire in the street?

clickety-click, that's the shtick

"So no, you cannot say because someone looked at a site and clicked a button that it was all done for a reason."

An opinion you're welcome to, but one that gets disproved pretty easily by learning more about people's behaviour on the Internet. They may not be outraged, but they care/are interested and are making a concrete decision to demonstrate that fact. Sorry, but that's a fact that's well documented by research into the medium and people's behaviour using it.

The reason billions of dollars are spent on Internet marketing is not because it's easy to click, but because it's so hard to get people to click. Anytime you follow a link it's a conscious decision to find out more. When you take an action like joining a Facebook group it's proof positive you are interested in the issue and are willing to add your voice to the chorus.

Frankly, the effectiveness of social media at mobilizing groups to political action isn't really up for debate anymore. It works. To varying degrees, depending on how good your content is and how important the issue, but suggesting all those clicks don't add up to something is a position that can't be maintained once you take a hard look at how people behave online.

Frank

No Frank, i am not suggesting that at all. But please, don't tell me everyone is so outraged because they clicked on a site. Thats just so contrived. It means nothing. How many letters were sent to MP's?? How many people spoke out or called their MP. to protest?

I care about issues. That's why i always Vote!!! How many people actually voted last time?

At least when i care about an issue i will talk about it or voice my displeasure for it when i am against it. I will vote against the party that took me for granted. I just don't see that yet with this paticular issue. I will not pretend otherwise. I will not feign outrage and then do nothing. I am not yet convinced.

Steppeup

How is anonymously marking an X that huge a thing compared to clicking a Facebook button.

At least your family and friends know where you stand based on your joining a Facebook group whereas they don't know who you voted for or if you voted at all.

Voting is private, joining a Facebook group is public.

If clicking a button means nothing then so does anonymously marking an X.

clickety-click, that's the shtick

I am not saying that the social media sites do not have a place and do not work. Again, it's all in the reaction.

Look at last year, and the attempted toppling of the government. Then the outrage was there. There were millions of people signing online petitions. I think there was one that had close to a million signatures the very first day. Never mind in a week or two. It was discussed on radio talk shows everywhere. People talked and called and voiced their displeasure.

So yes, social media can work and make a difference. My question would be this. Do you see the same outrage happening here? Are the radio call in shows talking non stop over this? Can you feel the peoples anger?? I just don't see it for this issue.

I just don't see people up in arms over this. I see people just a little upset, and then forgetting about it. I don't see the outrage some people are trying to tell us is there.

Steppeup

"It was discussed on radio talk shows everywhere."

That's to be expected as all the talk radio shows are right-wing hosts catering to right-wing audiences.

Conservative radio-show hosts are not going to encourage people to get angry with his party over closing parliament.

Steppeup

Radio host's will talk about anything when what happened is outright wrong. Don't blame the media because an issue does not carry enough weight to get talked about constently.

It's so easy to say they are all "right-wing" to explain away the lack of discussion on any paticular issue. The issue will stand on it's own merits, and will be discussed if enough people find it important enough.

Steppeup

Its naive to believe radio show hosts aren't human and don't have biases. Compare a Bill Good interview with Glen Clark to one with Gordon Campbell. Compare how Charles Adler or John Gormley treat climate change skeptics compared to how they treat environmentalists.

CKNW's fan base didn't rise up when Christy Clark was hired, in fact they loved it. But when Glen Clark was being considered for the job they set their hair on fire.

You can claim talk radio is neutral till the cows come home if you choose to ignore the fact of why so many left-wingers stopped listening to it.

Besides, I have trouble understanding why listening to talk radio is proof of caring about issues but joining Facebook groups isn't.

Don't count your chickes just yet, Mr Geist

This represents a shocking underestimation of the power of digital advocacy, which today is an integral part of virtually every political or business advocacy campaign.

And I charge you of representing a shocking over-estimation of the power of digital advocacy!

I agree that social media is an important part of today's political process, but mere virtual signatures to a Facebook petition does not a successful political campaign make!

My guess is that all these planned rallies will be grossly under-attended because all those virtual activists who signed up will be too busy updating their FB status reports and tweeting about the latest pop culture gossip. A little tongue-in-cheek here, but I think we need to curb our enthusiasm a bit and define what successful political action really means? Does it merely mean a lot of signatures in a short period of time to a social media site? Partly, yes, but I want to see the follow-through, the end results to be sure this isn't just a lot of tweeting and viral FBing.

I define successful political activism as the sort that gets actual political results, like shutting down a WTO conference, or getting 10% of eligible voters actually, rather than virtually, signed up to force a referendum on a city council's bid to build an expensive, unnecessary new bridge. Or picket lines preventing scabs from entering a workplace, that sort of thing. FB can be an important part of all this, but it will never replace real activism. And therein lies part of the danger in your enthusiasm - leaving people with the impression that FB campaigns are political action ends in themselves. If Twitter Nation can be convinced that they need only join a FB group or send a tweet to affect change, then the powers-that-be pretty much have a lock on blank cheques and willful corruption.

"I am not saying that the

"I am not saying that the social media sites do not have a place and do not work. Again, it's all in the reaction."

Joining the group is a reaction. This seems to be the sticking point. It may not meet your list of approved methods of political action or have the appropriate amount of outrage for your taste, but it's a very real response that's actually pretty significant. You don't want to believe it and whoever might be a target of political dissent is loving you for attempting to perpetuate the 'it means nothing' meme, but the fact that a technology makes it more convenient to speak your mind or ally with a cause doesn't lessen the significance of the action. People may or may not feel more passionately about a cause, but there's no doubt Facebook et al allow them to demonstrate their views more easily. This is a good thing. By blowing it off, you are discouraging the very actions you say you'd like to see.

barney

"My guess is that all these planned rallies will be grossly under-attended "

So what if they are? Voting booths are grossly under-attended too yet the media is pretty interested in election day.

People know protesting in the streets is ignored so they don't bother wasting their time.

Hi Barney

"My guess is that all these planned rallies will be grossly under-attended because all those virtual activists who signed up will be too busy updating their FB status reports and tweeting about the latest pop culture gossip."

I'm wondering what percentage of Fbook anti-proroguers would you define as an appropriate attendance level and what would be your rationale for choosing that number?

I would say any turn-out over 5% would be pretty good.

Hi Barney

5% Would be good for you? That would show you the outrage??? 10,000 people in total spread across all of this country?

That will really show everyone how outraged we are over this issue.

Yup..

5% will show me how little a facebook campaign really matters....

5%

Based upon what Internet marketing experts expect of things like email campaigns and other online initiatives, 5% would be a very respectable outcome. Considering the whole effort isn't costing a penny because the 'customers' are promoting the 'product' gratis, the cost-effectiveness of the campaign is amazing.

Your emphasis on outrage is kind of funny. You're the only person talking about it. Everybody else seems to realize that there's a spectrum of dissent from uncaring to revolution... and one needn't meet your criteria to be a concerned citizen.

Put up some numbers. You're focused on numbers but so far haven't given a single indication of what you would consider an impressive turn-out.

Popularity contests

Judging how important protests (or support rallies for that matter) are is a bit of mug's game.

It is always sobering for those who contend that certain arbitrary levels of support or disapproval mean much in a population to be confronted with the historical and 'democratic' fact that Hitler's governments were duly elected and received, in a number of plebiscites (the same ones which stripped Jews and other minorities of their rights and property), the approval of more than 90% of the population.

Surely the fact that approaching one quarter of a million citizens – most of them young I’d wager – have bestirred themselves on this issue is not a good sign, as Michael Geist observes, for the Harper government and its agenda. In the period preceding an election – which is likely what Pee Wee has in mind before the inevitable increase in interest rates destroys the false impression that the economy has recovered, such news cannot be good.

It may not have bothered our interlocutors here at Tyee – I assure you it has come to the notice of Pee Wee’s anti-democratic 'brains trust' in Calgary.

As Lynn always reminds us here, it is wise never to forget who is pulling the strings behind the 'dear leader'...Tom Flangan will not have missed the fact that a significant number of Canadians are beginning to wonder about Harper's agenda and intentions.

Good article, one number is

Good article, one number is off though.

Recent estimates found 42 per cent of Canadians have a Facebook account with more than 50 per cent under the age of 45 on the social network.

I got the same 42% of all canadians have Facebook accounts (used more than once/month), however over 86% are under 45 yrs old.(or 30.6% of all Cdns). 58% are under 30 yrs old. I don't believe any of these numbers include those under 13 yrs. of age.

Facebook shows they have 7,724,800 between 13-30 yrs.

StatsCan shows we have 7,771,400 Cdns. 13-30 yrs.

So, who still wants to argue Facebook numbers don't mean anything!

Good article, one number is

If 42% of all canadians have a facebook account, that means there are approx. 14,000,000 canadian facebook accounts. Which means that less than 2% of these canadian facebook account holders make this a revolt. What does that make of the little over 98% of the canadian facebook account holders who did not log any protest over this issue?

If we have close to 5% of these protesters show up at the planned rallies, approx. 10,000 people, across this entire country, out of a population of 33,000,000 or 0.01 of one percent, what do these numbers really tell us of what some consider a "revolt"?

Steppeup

You really want to use the Chretien government and Somalia as your example?

The Libs launched an effective public inquiry and disbanded the Canadian Airborne. What has Harper done about the torture issue besides prorogue Parliament two years in a row to serve his own interests?

Admit it, a public display of dissent on Facebook is more than you've ever done.

Frank

Yes, those wonderful Liberals started that inquiry. The Libs also turned around and Pro-rogued parliment to quash that same public inquiry, when the questions got to intense. That would make that inquiry not so effective. To turn around and Pro-rogue Parliment to cancel that same inquiry that you started tells me everything. To say one government was right for that and the next one is wrong for doing almost exactly the same thing is the qwhole point now isn't it?

As for what i have done.... at least i didn't just push a button to register my displeasure or pleasure with anything. I am actually here taking the time to engage people with my opinion. If pushing a button means you are doing more, in your eyes, then so be it. If being open to discussion and listening to another's opinion, and taking the time to state your own means i am doing "nothing", then i guess i am doing nothing......

Outrage and revolt

If we have close to 5% of these protesters show up at the planned rallies, approx. 10,000 people, across this entire country, out of a population of 33,000,000 or 0.01 of one percent, what do these numbers really tell us of what some consider a "revolt"?

I thought the numbers meant nothing according to you?

Talk of outrage and revolt is a red-herring. Neither this article nor the Facebook group make any claim to either.

Having said that... ask any company or marketer if they'd like to see a result of 200,000 people supporting their business or other initiative stem from an initial investment of about five minutes of copywriting. It would be considered a total success. Getting even a few hundred to donate an hour or two of their time to further the cause would probably be considered a pipe dream.

Steppeup

Now why should I (for one) bother to show up, when all I got for my efforts in 1997 was a faceful of pepper spray:
http://preview.thetyee.ca/News/2009/10/22/MercerPepperSpray/
And you can be sure that, should Harper deem any protest "serious", he will authorize suppression by any means, such is his cointempt for any opposition at all - which is a great segue to your next coment:

The Federal Libs and Cons are virtual Tweedledums and Tweedledees. Harper and Chretien may as well be clones under the skin.
That's why the "powers behind the powers" brought in Iggy -- because it won't make any difference to them which of them occupies 24 Sussex Dr. It will continue to be "business as usual".

Some numbers to consider

Speaking of revolts.

Population of Russia 1904 = 141,600,000

Number of (peaceful) protestors, St. Petersburg, Jan. 22, 1905 = 150,000 (no doubt a rather chilly day to be outside and protesting btw, it's -22 Celsius today)

Percentage of population = 0.001

Eventual outcome for Tsar Nicholas II = less than optimal.

Outrage and revolt

Chris,

How can talk of outrage and revolt be a red-herring in this discussion. Scroll back up to the top and read the header of this article.

"Dinosaurs Laughed at Facebook Revolt"

Hence, talking of this is the whole point of this entire discussion, isn't it??? The Author of this article used the above header to discribe his article. So i would think it has everything to do with it.

Revolt

The author may or may not have chosen the headline. As for the article itself, it's about the efficacy of the Internet and Facebook as a tool for political change. The Facebook group doesn't ask for revolt or claim one must be outraged to join up.

Virtual Public Spheres: Building A New Political Culture

Explore this topic in much more detail by reading my Masters research paper.

Young adults, facilitated by the Internet, are building a new political culture that is more fluid, decentralized, diverse, and global than cultures of the past, which may move society beyond traditional political oligarchies towards greater participatory democracy, flexible coalitions and networks managing political affairs, and communication and information processes that are more influential than in previous generations.

Young adults are using the multi-faceted, online media platform to inform themselves, discuss public policy, and organize political activity. From texting and email, to chat rooms, discussion boards, blogs, wikis, interactive web sites, and virtual worlds such as Second Life, youth and young adults are building new local, regional, national, and global, virtual public spheres with thriving democratic debate and effective political organization.

Full paper: http://sunshinecommunications.ca/articles/virtual_public_spheres.pdf

Alan Rycroft

Canada's hoary political institutions were implemented almost 150 years ago, when electricity was scarce heard of. This newest generation of Canucks is not content to wait months and years when communication around the world can be counted in seconds. Ottawa might as well be on Pluto as far as most Canucks (event hose in Ontario) are concerned.

I'm an 'old geezer', who can (just) remember the heyday of Joey Smallwood, but I agree with today's Canucks -- quit stalling and DO something!

Stephen Harper's popular?

Stephen Harper's Facebook group has less than 100,000 people in it even though all a right-winger has to do is "click a button" to show their support.

Only $10 and a heartbeat to join the Conservative party yet Harper was chosen as leader of the party with only 17,296 votes.

I think that's about 183,000 less people than think he's a jerk for proroguing parliament.

Democracy?

I find it more than a little troubling that you seem to equate good democracy with the fact that our military now has desert camo. Would this be the same military that is engaged in an illegal, preemptive war against a nation that has never attacked Canada? A nation that has, in fact, never attacked the US either. A war that the MAJORITY (a very important term in the concept of democracy) of Canadians adamantly oppose. The same military that is costing us record billions of our tax dollars? And this somehow equates, in your mind at least, to democracy? If joining a facebook group has even a tiny effect on the dissolution of this morally corrupt government, then that is the least we can do.

The Flip Side of the Coin...

Doug McArthur, New Democrat, former key advisor to the BC NDP government of the 1990's as well as a deputy minister therein, is absolutely astonished over the uninformed commentary and reactions over Harper's move to prorogue.

McArthur further notes that Harper is fully within his constitutional right to ask the Governor General to prorogue.

Read McArthur's post entitled:

http://www.policycentre.ca/2010/01/05/1218/

Former BC NDP Premier Glen Clark talked gleefully about the need to "jam" the Opposition whenever possible.

http://www2.canada.com/abbotsfordtimes/news/opinion/story.html?id=84e5faed-5a28-4724-ac38-c7d488106d45

Well I'll be damned.

And I'm a 'blue' Liberal.

As for Facebook, here's another Facebook Page entitled "Canadians Against A Liberal/NDP Coalition Government" with 125,993 members:

http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?gid=51442165364&ref=search&sid=583576807.2050728493..1

And methinks that my ol' buddy Frank will surely join another Facebook page entitled "Carole James Needs To Stop Whining About Everything": :D

http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?gid=31228575674&ref=search&sid=583576807.2233603422..1

There's a "Hole" in the Plan

As for the value of Facebook groups, how much thinking did it take the 1,089 people who signed onto the Facebook group "People who want a Tim Hortons in Sooke"?
Facebook groups are a dime a dozen .... nothing more than a virtual billboard.
As someone else already said, take pen to paper; write an intelligent letter to your mayor, MP, MLA.

Ramona777

Please tell me what percentage of letters to your MP results in government policy changes and explain why that should be seen as being more effective than a public registration of dissent?

communication breakdown

I remember back when McCain and Obama were busy with their respective presidential campaigns. In stark contrast to McCain, whose wife took care of all his E-business, Obama couldn't keep his fingers off his Blackberry. Didn't Obama even first announce his candidacy on youtube? At the time, I wondered how effective a leader McCain would have made: surely his inability to grasp modern communications technology created a huge gulf between himself and the public he wanted to lead.

So when I read, "...how poorly the Canadian political community understands social media and digital advocacy", I immediately began drawing parallels between the bulk of our political community and McCain, a dinosaur in his own right. And I still wonder: without a firm understanding of the way people connect and build relationships, how can we ever hope that our government will try to connect with us?

Steppeup: the very first thing you said is that you are "not familiar with Facebook." Maybe you should try to familiarize yourself with it so that you can better appreciate its functionality.

One more thought...

what would it take to propose a bill that limits a government's opportunity to prorogue only once per term?

Frank, let's be frank

Writing a letter requires thought. A good letter contains logic, intelligence and perhaps solutions.
It may not achieve more than a public registration of dissent but I'm pretty sure the odds of a good debate with a letter writer are higher than with a Facebook clicker.
And from good debate come plans and from plans may come action.

Re: writing letters to MPs and MLAs

Whenever I have written a letter, it was never even acknowledged for its content nor was it ever responded to with anythiing other than, "We got your letter. Thanks."
At least with the facebook group, I know I have been counted and i can write online and people respond.

Ramona777

I'm not pissing on those that write to their MPs (and MLAs) to voice a protest in spite of the fact you get back a form letter.

What I am pissing on is the idea that joining a Facebook group represents nothing more than a "click of a button".

My point is it doesn't because others can see what groups you belong to. Its a public statement (unlike a letter to an MP or voting or not voting) and that shouldn't be dismissed lightly.

Prorogue or democracy?

Which would you rather choose?

Regardless of how one wishes to wank the numbers, what is completely missing is the inability of our society to give effective voice to everyone in that society. Instead we have popularity contests out of convienience. (give me convienience or give me death!)

Democracy is not evolving to meet the needs of those who wish to exercise it. There is a serious pandemic of distrust of the elected leaders, elected by the same machinery as 200 years ago. Democracy does not have to be expressed by the easiest way out FPTP. Easy ways out of real effective representation need to include all the vehicles and media that can support real representation. Including internet voting, where all citizens can register to vote on more than just a shot spot deal every 4 or 5 years.

Can you imagine if the electorate at large were able to vote on the bank billions bailout, or invading Afganistan? Or how about the choice of BC citizens to have the Oil-limp-ix, or not? I know of many individuals that are vehement on supporting democracy and are probably better informed than the MPs or MLAs on many important issues. Why not have citizens vote directly on issues, instead of continually voting with their noses?

Also, since the article is about the merits of numbers, how about including those that didn't vote, as well as giving a choice on the ballot, "None of the above", ie. count "spoiled ballots". The level of dissatisfaction in what is presented as democratic choice would much more accurately be accounted for, so, for example, no candidate gets voted in with "36% of 48% of elegible voters, but rather, " no candidate received a majority of votes as 55% of elegible voters voted "none of the above".

The above is not convenient, and slows down so much of the process, but really, so what. The haste inherent in our society is killing us like fast food.

".....until this me first attitude changes."

How do you propose to do that? The way the ancestors of your commie masters did, by laws enforced by violence?

I tell you… you… whoever you think you are, decide to come out from the security and anonymity behind your keyboard and come to me and try to force me to put you or anybody else first, you better be ready to die because I will.

laws and violence

"The way the ancestors of your commie masters did, by laws enforced by violence?"

All laws are enforced by violence. In every political system. All governments place the collective population above the individual. Some just do it better than others, or cherry-pick which groups get the most benefit.

G West

The number 200,000 is relative. In this case it stands for the number of people making a mountain out of a mole hill.

From Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology

"The main idea of Sigmund Freud's crowd behavior theory is that people who are in a crowd act differently towards people from those who are thinking individually. The minds of the group would merge to form a way of thinking. Each member's enthusiasm would be increased as a result, and one becomes less aware of the true nature of one's actions."

Good point about laws and violence...

Enjoyed your posts Chris Keam. Confess I am not sure about "All governments place the collective population above the individual." I would argue that in fact, some governments privilege friends, or insiders, or various other bootlickers above the collective good of the populace...in any event the "collective good" is fraught with the peril of whose defines it.
Thanks for your paper Alan Rycroft; I am researching some of these same ideas.Social media and other aspects of the web will change democracy forever, and my sense of where this is most profoundly so is in this very idea of the collective good. Instead of a group of largely male, largely privileged, and upper-income people gathering mostly far away from their constituents to decide what might constitute a benefit to society, we have in online communities a vast array of voices and opinions and conversations - and genders and socio-economic realities - that contribute to the discussion. At present the conversation is perhaps a little excited (there is a lot of information out there) but we should not lose sight of the fact that it is the metaphor of the conversation that holds promise for a genuine democracy.
Canada's political elites should be paying attention. It may be a bit soon to herald the revolution, but the days of a government dictating to its populace are beginning to fade away.

Excellent points VivianLea

And I think your concluding para. is mostly right.

Whether or not our current interlocutors choose to recognize the reality, the collective concerns of a quarter million people in a country the size of Canada are not something which can be ignored for long.

Will the current crop of manipulation-friendly politicos respond in a constructive way?

I'd say that's the question of the moment.

And on form, I'd suggest the most likely short-term outcome will simply be an attempt by the usual backroom girls and boyos to harness social media and the web to their own selfish ends.

I'm not sure how we get out of the mess we're in, but although I acknowledge the nascent power of the web I'm not at all sanguine that it's going to lead us over the hills and past the storm clouds into the bright light any time soon...

Those largely male privileged upper-income folk are still one hell of a big problem.

Dinosaurs didn't become extinct over night.

Viv's eutopian vision

VivianLea,

I'd like to share your view, but it's a bit too naive and idealistic for me. Yes, social media = more access to venues for debate and discussion, but is this really translating into greater democratic empowerment and rights among the people??

Also, there's a flip side of your coin. Social media and Internet is also enjoyed and used by the people that hold the keys to the kingdoms. Governments, corporations, hierarchical institutions are adapting to this new reality, and they are adapting very well, despite the odd FB campaign. And what you neglect to mention in your reverence of this new media is that all this great technology is also at the disposal of those big power elites, giving them a much easier means of tracking, monitoring and spying on citizens and dissidents. It's not all the anarcho-collectivist democratic utopia you seem to believe it is. I don't know why we are getting all excited about a successful Facebook petition here and there. The proof in all this is in the larger pudding. Social media has had a good decade to get going, the Internet and WWW even longer, and the the trend has been toward less democracy, more concentration of power (globalization), diminished civil liberties (especially in the Homeland Security south), less participation in elections (BC election had lowest turnout ever, despite digital advocacy!), and on and on... Show me the money! Show me the fruits of this great democratic social media flower you are waving in front of us!

All I see is a lot of hype around social media, and a world that is going to hell in a handbasket faster than ever. New media brings a new kind of debate, yes, agreed, but it also brings a new kind of oppression and abuse of power. I'm much more fearful of this abuse than I am of the rights to stand on a virtual street corner and say PM Harper sucks.

I am not sanguine...

I enjoyed Alan Rycroft's paper, think you might too G West. Although he is researching communication and I marketing, there is much overlap in our findings. But a longer reply wil have to wait, as I am off to the bricks-and-mortar library.

:) smilies all around, gang.

Anti Prorogation rally (our molehill)

Harper was in Toronto today, and their Anti prorogation rally (inspired from facebook) that was held had a grand total of 35 people show up, in the biggest city in the country. That's the facebook revolt.

That gentlemen, is my molehill.....

irrelevance??

"....editorials point to other large groups to demonstrate the group's irrelevance..."
".....political leaders and analysts blithely dismiss the relevance of Facebook advocacy."

I saw a few of the analysts on t.v. political panels warn us not to read too much into the Facebook petitions as the writer states. They suggested people on the street protesting would be a better indicator of national mood.
I thought they were on the wrong track and polls released a week later confirm this. Harper was slipping slightly before prorogation, but his 15% lead has vanished now.

T.V. analysts and newspaper editorial boards better wake up fast; they continue to make THEMSELVES IRRELEVANT as they stubbornly cling to social dynamics 30-40 years old.
Do they realize this is what is killing them in the market?
That "easy click" they have such contempt for can easily make them disappear.

If Poll Results........

....commonly use somewhere in the neigbourhood of 1000 people, and are considered accurate 19 times out of 20, plus or minus 3% (or some such qualifiers), then a "poll" of 200,000+ should reflect a similar accuracy, n'est pas?

You continue to just not get

You continue to just not get it.

You think that if people don't protest in the streets then it means they don't care in spite of the fact there have been very few well-attended street protests in Canada no matter what the issue.

Yet you resist the idea that the fact you've never protested in the street means you've never cared about anything.

You should re-evaluate your logical processes.

Steppeup's distorted molehill

Eyewitnesses who attended the hastily-called, short-notice rally today, a working day, say that the number was actually somewhere between 60 and 80. The G&M reporter who reported on the event was there before today's impromtu rally was going full swing. The official rallies are on Saturday. No matter how many attend, the facebook group is the largest of it's kind in Canada.

Anti-prorogation/anti-Harper sentiment has been running fairly consistantly at about 4.5 to 1 against Harper's proroguing parliament in all the comment sections of all of the major online newspapers. The people are speaking loudly and often and they are angry. Harper's arrogance is beyond any apology.

Here's the story in the G & M and be sure to read the comments - all of the comments if you have the time.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/pm-gambled-wrong-on-prorogation-michael-ignatieff-says/article1437837/

SharingIsGood

[quote}Anti-prorogation/anti-Harper sentiment has been running fairly consistantly at about 4.5 to 1 against Harper's proroguing parliament in all the comment sections of all of the major online newspapers. The people are speaking loudly and often and they are angry. Harper's arrogance is beyond any apology.

So now we're gonna run the country from the comment sections of on-line news sources. Sounds really democratic to me.

A long time ago G West, or was it Alcibiades, or both, opined that mining the comments to establish public opinion was essentially worthless. Hmmm, I wonder what they think now?

snert

A long time ago, when GWest opined (according to you)that mining the comments to establish public opinion was essentially worthless, were you saying that the counter was true?

Were you saying that public opinion in the comments were relevant?

If so, were you wrong before and have changed your mind, or have you not changed your mind.

Here at the Tyee, you are mining public opinion in an online newspaper when you choose to argue with me.

I think that it is all unravelling a little too fast for PeeWee and his very own dinosaur-hugging treasurer, stockboy. It must seem surreal for a some of true believers in the sanctity of make believe money for the already anointed. I can hear them all hearkening back to that black time a couple of decades back moaning, "Aw, Brian, say it ain't so!" Maybe Harper will find a new Kim Campbell to ride out the heat - maybe that "sexy" lady that used to run the nuclear portfolio.

An interesting piece I thought I'd share

From the Owen Sound SunTimes' Michael Den Tandt

"And there's another issue, overriding all the others: That is, very simply, cowardice.

Prime Minister Harper prorogued Parliament last winter to get himself out of a serious political jam of his own making. Now he's done the same thing again, and for the same reason.

It's actually about "recalibrating" the government and reforming the Senate, the government spin tells us. That's a crock, and everyone in Ottawa knows it.

Harper was taking serious fire on the detainee issue, and he was beginning to find it uncomfortable. The mess in Copenhagen didn't help. He didn't want to come back to more controversy. So he closed the doors, hoping the Olympics would take our minds off the workings of government.

He had an opportunity to rebut Richard Colvin's points about detainee handling. Instead he fled and sent Parliament home. He ran away, rather than face his critics in a stand-up, public debate.

Conservative apologists for this have been saying, as has become their habit: What's the big deal? Jean Chretien prorogued a few times too. It's routine.

Except it's not routine in a minority Parliament. It's not routine when you have dozens of bills on the table and work left undone. And it's not routine to do it two years in a row, and in both cases when you're under intense political pressure from the opposition. "

http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2252352

Many of you on here still don't get it....

It doesn't matter if all or none of the people in this group actually show up to a rally on Saturday. What they are doing is warning the government that they are unhappy and doing it in a very visual way. At the very least, it has brought this issue to the attention of many people who weren't paying attention before, and lots of young people. What matters is that these people remember this issue next election and make the effort to vote. That's how FB changed the US last time and how it will change Canada soon, if not this time, the next, or the next.

On another note, Bill Tieleman, you should be proud. CAPP has going on 250,000 members nationally, while your NO BC HST group has over 130,000 provincially. Way to go!

Still can't quite figure out how anyone

Can seriously suggest that more than 200,000 people doing anything at the same time are a mole hill.

As for comments sections of online news boards like Tyee, I haven't changed my opinion - but that's not what we're talking about.

And all that earthmoving equipment - somebody tell Vanoc, they're going to need it to move the ersatz urea-soaked 'snow' around the top of Cypress Mountain...

Others on the subject

175 political scientists and legal scholars etc also believe Harper's decision to prorogue two years in a row is bad for democracy in Canada. I realize they're only professors and such and willing to sign their names and therefore not as important as an anonymous poster in a comments section or a street demonstrator but I'll accept it anyway.

From the article :

""Given the short-term, tactical and partisan purposes served by prorogation, and given the absence of any plausible public purpose served by it, we conclude that the prime minister has violated the trust of Parliament and of the Canadian people," Weinstock wrote in the letter which will appear as an op-ed in many Canwest newspapers today.

"We emphasize moreover that the violation of this trust strikes at the heart of our system of government, which relies upon the use of discretionary powers for the public good rather than merely for partisan purposes. How do we make sure it serves the public good? By requiring our governments to face Parliament and justify their actions, in the face of vigorous questioning.""

http://www.globalnational.com/Scientists+philosophers+protest+proroguing/2432825/story.html

Frank

Where did I say I didn't care? I also never said it wasn't important. On your browser got to Edit and select the Search/Find function and check the page. I certainly didn't use the word care.

If I didn't care I wouldn't be wasting my time trying to prevent at least one person from waltzing down this ludicrous path.

If I thought, for one instant, that any harm was going to come to Canada from this prorogation I wouldn't be taking this stance. All I see is a bunch of bruised egos.

fantastic article: the makeup of the FB anti-prorogue group

Snert and Steppeup:

Here's an article which I believe you may find humiliating as well as informative:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/anti-prorogation-activists-engaged-voting-and-older/article1438807/

:) and the smilie award is for SIG...

Great article SIG, thanks. There are many more posted on the facebook page of CAPP, but for those not on facebook a little googling will pull up a fair bit of commentary and analysis of that group...
All political parties are taking a geat deal of interest in this phenomenom...although it is probably safe to say that most of them don't get it. Old-style politics follows old-style marketing: push a message at people until they scream, or go numb, or completely tune out...the fact of the matter is that people want to have a conversation about issues and ideas (or for that matter, purchases that they may make) and then to make up their own mind. What an enormous difference between joining the conversation versus pushing your message over and over ad infinitem... Perhaps this thread may show the contrast.

SharingIsGood

"Democracy and accountability are the key issues

Lastly, when asked why they joined, just over half (53 per cent) of respondents indicated it was because “proroguing parliament is undemocratic” and another 33 per cent said it was because “Parliament needs to investigate the Afghan detainee matter."

Yes I read it.

If proroguing parliament is undemocratic then it's not Harper who is at fault. Seems to me that something must be changed somewhere to actually make it so. Good luck on finding a party that will do that.

I have already dealt with the other matter mentioned. If it is as important as people make it out to be it will not fall through the cracks.

Oh ye of little faith in the opposition, which BTW should still be there when parliament resumes.

I also found it quite fascinating that by far the largest component of Facebook recruits are from Ontario, a whopping 62.3%. Hasn't this province taken one of the greater hits economically because of the recession. I wonder if there is a hidden agenda.

Nope not humiliated, sorry.

Imagine 53% in Ontario - snert

Yep, Snert, 53% of the Facebook respondents were from Ontario. Ontario is a must-win Province for Harper if he has any hope of getting out of the minor leagues. He's getting long in the tooth and he chokes when everyone is counting on him. Not only does he choke, he doesn't even show up for the game: he think he owns the league. Like many losing team owners, Harper has forgotten who buys the tickets. He thinks he can treat the fans any way he wants.

Snert, you failed to comment upon the finding that if an election were held today, the Libs would form a minority government. Yep, with 53% of the angry Facebook anti-prorogue members coming from Ontario, things are looking bleak for King Stephen. I remember a time years ago when Charles I of England lost his head for failing to heed the wishes of the majority in parliament. The reasons for the big 3 revolutions in regards to Canadian History is taught in all the public schools; chief among those reasons: leaders not following the wishes of an educated, yet taxed and ignorred populace.

I think we may have reached the tipping point, don't you, Snert? The public gave Harper a second chance to work with Parliament, and he has failed - they won't forget this, non?

To refresh your memory, the last election results.
http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

Whoops, 62.3% from Ontario

I made an error, Snert. I'm glad you caught it. I was thinking about another set of figures and talking with my family while I was typing. 62.3% bodes even worse for Harper than 53%, n'est pas?

Reality Check...

Federal Ekos Poll Out Today for BC:

CPC - 36%
Liberal - 25%
ND[inosaur]P - 20%
Green - 15%

So it's obvious that 80% of BC'ers are not in jive with the repetitive posts by NDP'ers in this thread. :D

reality Luke

The reality is, Luke, Harper had 44+% support in the last election. Now (using your poll numbers) he's down to 36%. Chances are, he'd lose a few more seats seats in BC if an election were held today. As Harper's conservatives are like the BC Liberals, that means Campbell Inc. probably has even less support than it had just 3 weeks ago. Great news, thanks!

@VivianLea

Enjoyed your posts Chris Keam. Confess I am not sure about "All governments place the collective population above the individual."

Good point. I should have prefaced that statement with "In theory"

SIG...

Do your math... ol' boy.

NDP down from 26% to 20% (hell the NDP ALWAYS had 33% in BC during the 1960's and 1970's)

Cons down...

And guess what??? Cons and NDP lose seats and us Liberals pic up Con and NDP seats. ;)

Gotta love it!

Rally success

So, considering the naysayers expected almost nobody to show up at the rallies, the real-world support, i.e., people on their feet, pretty much shuts up those who carried such sentiments as:

Here is a quote from the CBC website:

That's impressive.