On March 22, 2002 I quoted this in an article I wrote, perhaps it may edify us all as to the meaning of corruption.

Furthermore, given the yet legally unarticulated & vague bundle of citizens democratic rights, which are beyond just the mere right to vote, I assert that the legislative sections of the BC Elections Act that allows corporations and unions to make donations to political parties is likely unconstitutional - and if not, should certainly be - and thus declared void and nullity. Would it not be great to challenge the constitutionality of that Elections BC law and in so doing begin the legal process of clarifying the bundle of democratic rights belonging to citizens...beyond the mere right to vote---and limiting the rights of corporations and unions to interfere with citizen's democratic rights.

Anyways..check out this:

According to a World Bank report titled "Anticorruption in Transition - A Contribution to the Policy Debate" (2000), there exists a typology of corruption

"…based on the distinction between two types of corruption - state capture and administrative corruption. State capture refers to the actions of individuals, groups, or firms in both the public and private sectors to influence the formation of laws, regulations, decrees, and other government policies (i.e. the basic rules of the game) to their own advantage by means of the illicit and non-transparent provision of private benefits to public officials.

There are many different forms of state capture. Distinctions can be drawn between the types of institutions that are captured - the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, or regulatory agencies. Further distinctions can be made on the basis of who does the capturing - private firms, political leaders, or narrow interest groups. Once could even distinguish between the nature of the benefits provided to public officials in exchange for capture - direct bribes, illicit equity stakes, informal control rights. Yet all forms of state capture are directed towards extracting rents (or advantages) from the state for a narrow range of individuals, firms or sectors through distorting the basic legal and regulatory framework, with potentially enormous losses for the society at large. They thrive where economic power is highly concentrated, countervailing social interests are weak, and the formal channels of political influence and interest intermediation are underdeveloped."

"Who can capture the state? Often, the captors are individuals, groups, or firms from the private sector seeking rents or other advantages from the state. Yet any actor with access to public officials and the capacity to provide private benefits to those officials in order to obtain advantages in the governing process can be seen as potential captors. Indeed, public officials themselves can capture the state if they abuse their authority to shape institutions and laws primarily to further their own private financial interests at the expense of the broader public interest, through identifying and indeed measuring such conflicts of interest are nearly impossible…"

"The influence of private interests on the decisions of the state is a normal feature of all political systems. What separates state capture as a form of corruption from conventional forms of political influence, such as lobbying, are the mechanism by which private interests interact with the state. State capture occurs through the illicit provision of private gains to public officials via informal, nontransparent, and highly preferential channels of access. It can also occur through unclear boundaries between the political and business interests of state officials…In all its forms, state capture tends to subvert, or even replace, legitimate and transparent channels of political influence and interest intermediation, reducing the access of competing groups and interests to state officials."

"While state capture encodes advantages for particular individuals or groups in the basic legal or regulatory framework, administrative corruption refers to the intentional imposition of distortions in the prescribed implementation of existing laws, rules and regulations to provide advantages to either state or non-state actors as a result of the illicit and non-transparent provision of private gains to public officials…..

At the root of this form of corruption is discretion on the part of public officials to grant selective exemptions, to prioritize the delivery of public services, or to discriminate in the application of rules and regulations. …State regulatory agencies are said to be "captured" when they regulate businesses in accordance with the private interests of the regulated as opposed to the public interest for which they were established."

"Both state capture and administrative corruption can cut across different levels of government. Both can be initiated by state officials, private businessmen, or other non-state actors. ..In capturing the state, actors prejudice the rules to their own narrow advantage, which subsequently constrains the actions of others in the economy.

Through administrative corruption, actions obtain individualized exceptions to or a favorable application of those rules. The difference lies in how deep the corrupt transaction reaches into the operations and functions of the state and the extent to which the advantages of the corrupt transaction are institutionalized into the basic rules of the game. Though there will be many specific cases where the borderline dividing these two forms of corruption might be difficult to draw with a high degree of certainty, the distinction nevertheless has important analytical and practical implications for the potential effectiveness of different anticorruption strategies."

Just a small point. Can the media please put to rest the phrase "unavailable for comment" when someone refuses to be interviewed. How about just that- "refused to comment", or even "declined to comment". "Unavailable for comment" makes it sound like the refusal is something beyond the prospective interviewee's control.

wstander: from one journalist's perspective, "unavailable to comment" means they didn't return your phone call and you're not interested in burning the source just yet. "Did not return phone calls" is more accurate but has more of a negative connotation. "Refused to comment" is dangerous because it allows the source to weasel out: "I just didn't get your call...". For what it's worth, I think the Tyee has little to gain from currying favour with a Liberal source and could use "did not return phone calls", but that's just me.

And ... uh ... none of the top donors are in organized crime?? Na-a-a. Crooks wouldn't invest part of their annual illicit $6,000,000,000.00 in political activities, no way, not even if if it meant more casinos, fewer police, and citizens desperate enough to join their ranks.

There's a kind of society in which organized crime flourishes. It can happen through neglect. Or it can happen by design.

Actually JIm the Liberals seem to be pretty good at hiding their donations, at least federally.

Besides, I doubt the NDP's indirect donations even match those of the Libs, let alone exceed.

Let's see some numbers if you think I'm wrong.

squishy

Since when are "the BC Liberals" a "source" that would be "burned" if they didn't like the way you described their failure to comment. And apparently they wouldn't be too "burned" or concerned anyway, given the way they blew off last night's Voice of BC program.

Do you have some proof Jim? How about the money spent by the BC Business Council on advertsing for the Liberals? Are you factoring that in as well?

Frank, the BCTF has a war chest of 5 million dollars. What is the largest corporate donation to the Liberals, $750,000 over a couple of years. Using the logic that donations lead to political favors, you can imagine the wish list the BCTF is going to receive. Already there is talk about changes to bargaining rights and the Labour code. Looks like the indirect donations are paying off. Jinny Sims has said many times on CKNW and in other media sources that she has a 5 million dollar war chest. That is only 1 union, imagine them all combined. That’s a lot of influence peddling.

BC Mary enough of your conspiracy theories. I would say that the NDP is looking to benefit off the proceeds of organized crime. The NDP wants to ban donations made by legal parties so that they can get all their illegal money from organized crime through the back door and the Liberals wouldn't get any. Sound ridiculous, look at your own posts.

I'm not naive enough to suggest that political donations don't in some way shape government policy, but the fact is if your going to attack the Liberals you need to attack the NDP. Isn’t that what journalism is all about? I didn’t think journalist were supposed to be subjective. I was under the impression that journalist strive for objectivity. Present both sides of the story, that's all I’m asking for.

Let me get this straight. The Tyee is writing a story about the top 5 contributers to the BC Liberal party over the past 10 years, and if you do the math right the sum total of these 5 contributors is $1,910,000. This equates to 6.6% of the total corporate donations to the Liberal party over that time period, or 4.5% of the entire donations made to the party, corporate and personal. Where is the story in this?

Now, if the top 5 donors collectively contributed, lets say, 50, 40, 30, or even 20% of the corporate support, one could argue that those corporations might be attempting to exert some sort of influence over the BC Liberals. But 6.6%, split between 5 companies? How much influence could that possibly buy?

On an individual basis, Teck Corporation, apparently the largest single corporate donor, contributed 2.6% of the corporate donations, and 1.8% of all donations to the Liberals. Over 10 years this amounted to $75,000 per year.

Granted, that is a lot of money each year, but in order to put it into perspective we need to compare it with something.....so lets look at the numbers provided for NDP donations.

According to the information supplied above, of the $3.8 million in donations received by the NDP in 2004, only $414,310 came from corporate/non-individual donations. ("Corporate" in this instance is referring to union support for the NDP.) The BC Federation of Labour contribution of $135,000 works out to be 32.6% of that amount, but only 3.5% of the total NDP fund raising effort in 2004.

If one were to interpret the BC Federation of Labour's single year contribution as their "average" contribution to the NDP coffers over a 10 year period, then the BC Federation of Labour could possibly have contributed $1.35 million to the NDP cause over the past 10 years. A much larger sum than Teck's total contribution to the Liberals, but I don't see any real discussion in this article regarding what sort of influence this level of donation the BC Federation of Labour has obtained from the NDP.....

With the lack of any similar 10 year NDP data to work with from this article (a serious flaw in the story, in my opinion), a similar assumption/calculation of the total NDP personal and union contributions over the past 10 years works out to be about $38 milliion. If true, that amount equates to just over 90% of the funds collected by the Liberals. Relatively close, in terms of fund raising ability, if you ask me.

I note that if the Tyee is concerned about Teck's 1.8% contribution to BC Liberal finances over the past 10 years, does that your readership should be twice as concerned about the BC Federation of Labour's 3.5% contribution to NDP finances?

I would be interested to see Scott Deveau take a similar look at NDP finances, and apply the same type of analysis he did above to that data. After all, that should only be fair.....

I remember attended a ribbon cutting ceremony at an exclusive golf course attended by corporate big-wigs and senior ministers of the provincial liberal govt. (Richard Neufeld and Gary Collins to be specific)
Anyhow all these guys were laughing and eating fancy snacks, lots of back patting etc etc
What a joke. I could'nt believe what I was seeing, these guys were in one big circle jerk! At one point one of the main speakers made a joke about the new "regulatory" requirements brought in by the liberals Minstry of Sustainable Resource Management. He called it the "Ministry of Rubber Stamps"!!!!!
HA HA HA. Everyone in the room(except me ofcourse) had a real good laugh at that one, neufeld and collins were slapping their knees. Imagine 100 Monty Burns all laughing maniacly and contemptously at the same time and you have some idea of the surreal atmosphere.
Yes they asked me who I was several times and I just told them I was a reporter which is exactly what I am doing now. I'm reporting on the culture of corporate/ government corruption that defines the gordon campbell goverment.
Gordon Campbell and his flunkies are traitors to the people of BC. I hope people remember that FACT on May 17.

VICTORIA(CKNW/AM980) -- The BC Government Employees Union says for the ninth time, a United Nations agency has condemned the Gordon Campbell government its labour practices.
Union President George Heyman says the International Labour Organization has used blunt language to criticize the Campbell government for trampling on workers rights.

At issue were three contentious laws passed in 2003 that created union-free zones for private health companies, set up BC Ferries as a private corporation and allowed the government to intervene in the ferry workers' strike.

Heyman says "I think this gives BC a black eye in the rest of the world, we get a reputation as being confrontational and investors don't like to invest in jurisdictions with that kind of reputation."

Heyman says the government should take action but they've ignored six similar findings in the past.

JIm is comparing apples and oranges when he attempts to equate direct donations from corporations with indirect war chests such as the BCTF's. What about the BC Business Council's war chest?
Intellectual dishonesty? Or can't you tell the difference?

Same thing for boondocker. The BC Federation of Labour is a collection of unions, and you're comparing to individual corporations. A realistic comparison would total the BC Fed and all union contributions against business groups and all corporations.

Hey Danceman, I am just trying to work with the information contained in the article, nothing more. But if the BC Federation of Labour is just a 'collection of unions', then why does Scott make such a big point of singling out the International Contractors and Businesses Association? It is after all, just a collection of contractors. What is good for the goose is good for the gander!

He who pays the piper calls the tune, and none of the comparisons of business vs. labour contributions, nor the BCTF's ads, change the urgent need for campaign reform in BC.

The BCTF ads are closer to the truth than the LIberals' propaganda, by the way, JIm. They also wouldn't need to spend THEIR own money on ads to set the record straight if the Liberals weren't using OUR tax dollars for advertising campaings that mislead the public about how they've hurt our kids' schools.

And if you think the right to strike is against our interests, how about companies raping our resources, polluting our lands, killing our wild salmon and corrupting our political system? How about the millions cut from school budgets, the scores of schools closed around BC and our kids struggling in overloaded classes? That worries me a lot more than the thought of scrambling for a sitter for a few days every decade.

Besides, I believe both parties accept that both business and labour have a contribution to make in BC. Both accept that business owners are free to promote their interests through industry groups, lobbyists etc. Why do you and the Liberals deny equivalent rights to workers? If employers can lay off workers--why shouldn't they have the right to strike?

Would your type finally be happy if we just returned to the abuses of the early industrial revolution? Why not slavery? Or perhaps feudalism? Maybe a nice little banana republic? The hills should be all cleared and the weather about right for that if we just "stay on track" for a few more years.

The most highly organized "class" group in our society ia, the ruling class: street merchants associations (Granville St. Merchants Association), manufacture and industrial owners associations, sectoral business class groups and associations, local Chambers of Commerce, leading to regional business structures, Western Canada Councils "on this and that business interest", and national Chambers of Commerce, National Council's on Business Affairs, and organizations of CEOs etc, National Bankers Association.

Pay attention you Brownshirt, rightist goofs. The most highly unionized sector of society is the ruling class. But then, you really know that. You are going to lick their boots, and follow them around like star struck wannabes anyway, in the hopes that they will sweep some of the crumbs from their table your way way. You are like the chickenshits who follow the schoolyard bully around, getting in kicks on his victims as they lie on the ground, in the hope he will pat you on the ass and let you share in his glory.

Pathetic little boondoggles and whining Irwins.

Corporate influence over government vs union influence are NOT two sides of the same coin. The question is: what are the goals of corporations, and how do they differ from unions. Corporations have very specific objectives. Number one: corner your market if at all possible. While working to acheive a monopoly (the holy grail of corporations), reduce the cost of labour; reduce government "red tape" and "regulation"; increase your access to raw materials; externalize the costs of production. Donating to "business friendly" parties is the most efficient way to get laws changed.

And remember, the controlling shareholders of corporate Canada/USA make up a tiny percentage of the population, and own most of society's wealth. In BC, the top 10% of our population own 54% of the wealth. The top 30% owns 84% of the wealth. The bottom 50% owns a grand total of 4.3% of BC's wealth. BC also has the largest gap between rich and poor.

And what do unions aspire to? Fair wages, minimum working standards, pensions for working people. And remember, unions represent thousands and thousands of working people. Whose interests are far closer to a "public interest" than those of corporations. We could do much worse than have a pro-union government. Which has rarely occured. Unions have never advocated that people can't get rich. And nor have they stopped a good business from prospering. But they can hinder venal greed, and are thus vilified by large monopolies.

The difference between the aims of unions vs corporations is like night and day. There is no comparison. Give me a society with strong benefits for workers any day of the week.

Corporate influence over government vs union influence are NOT two sides of the same coin. The question is: what are the goals of corporations, and how do they differ from unions. Corporations have very specific objectives. Number one: corner your market if at all possible. While working to acheive a monopoly (the holy grail of corporations), reduce the cost of labour; reduce government "red tape" and "regulation"; increase your access to raw materials; externalize the costs of production. Donating to "business friendly" parties is the most efficient way to get laws changed.

And remember, the controlling shareholders of corporate Canada/USA make up a tiny percentage of the population, and own most of society's wealth. In BC, the top 10% of our population own 54% of the wealth. The top 30% owns 84% of the wealth. The bottom 50% owns a grand total of 4.3% of BC's wealth. BC also has the largest gap between rich and poor.

And what do unions aspire to? Fair wages, minimum working standards, pensions for working people. And remember, unions represent thousands and thousands of working people. Whose interests are far closer to a "public interest" than those of corporations. We could do much worse than have a pro-union government. Which has rarely occured. Unions have never advocated that people can't get rich. And nor have they stopped a good business from prospering. But they can hinder venal greed, and are thus vilified by large monopolies.

The difference between the aims of unions vs corporations is like night and day. There is no comparison. Give me a society with strong benefits for workers any day of the week. But don't worry, there will still be room for lots of rich people.

...indeed unions, per se, are different than corporations...on all the points that you raise Jeffrey. ...indeed the biggest "union' is the oligarcy...or the ruling class as Coyote states.

...in a democracy only citizens have the legal right to vote. Why then should collective legal entities including corporations, unions, churches, whatever...have the legal right to make donations to political parties and thereby meddle in citizen rights to be free of all the propaganda, pressure, puffery and pure BS...that spins around and around during election campaigns. In my view the money from that collective influence should stay the hell away from the political process...but likely, if prohibited you can bet it will sneak back in, under the table, etc. as we are witnessing via the Gomery inquiry.

What needs to be pondered are such questions as: (1) what is the extent of citizen's democratic rights under the Canadian Constitution - from a 'minimalist' perspective all the way to an expansive perspective (2) are they sufficient; (3) how are those rights interfered with, meddled with, trespassed upon and by whom; (4) how can those rights best be enforced; (5) does sovereignty vest directly in the citizens of Canada or where?...etc.

Good stuff peoples...gives me good fodder cannon

Though I have some residual loyallty to the trade union movement that educated me, along with the radical left :-), and made a decent standard of living possible for me and my family, I find your perspective on this entire issue of democracy and the trade union movement most thought provoking, Peter D..

The trade union movement has changed over the years of just my life, and I suspect many of the early "militant" founders of it might even have difficulty recognizing their original intent and creations in it-, given the degree to which it has and is being co-opted and absorbed into mainstream capitalism; as its labour management arm, for large scale enterprise especially.

I'm early into thinking about this, I confess, but it's clear to me,even at this point, that in the future "democratization" of society, especially the economy, the role and place of trade unions is certainly going to have to evolve, at the very least. As it is, while changes are still possible within it, assuming a quite differently "indeologically" motivated leadership, which I don't actually immediately see on the horizon, to be a major contributor and organizer of this new "democratization" of society, I fear in its current content and form, it contains as much or more "a risk" of playing a road-block or interfering role. That is, if it and/or its leadership chooses to continue to embed itself, and seek to further ingratiate itself with the ruling oligarchy. (A reflection of its "social democratic" (NDP) ideology and loyalties.)

Part of the problem they face of course, in my view, is even the ruling class has and is loosing respect for them, and doubting their further need of them. This being why as much as anything, they really need us radicals around, if they really think about it, and may be why they are tolerating us at levels they would previously never have (at the height of the cold war): We are the bogeyman they need again, I suspect they have discovered, to strike renewed fear in the hearts of the ruling class, so that they will turn to the labour bureaucracy again and bring them in from the cold, and give them a new role as being part of the solution to the problems of capitalism. :-)

Ya think maybe there's a wee bit o' that going on here Tyee, and the Fed support for ye? :-)

Nonetheless, it is all extremely interesting, and as possible for them to miscalculate as ourselves.

I must confess , though possibly erroneously, I don't worry a great deal about this issue of how much cash the oligarchy throws to its political arms, and its media. Propaganda only really works as a control mechanism, for so long as it actually bears some resemblance to the real lives of people. And the demonstration of that was the old USSR and current China, which possessed/possess certainly no less extensive propaganda/ ideas/ message controls over those societies, and yet in the end, even that did not save them.

When it came time, the people weary of their lives as they were, and the objective conditions within society had sufficiently matured, the State-Run Capitalism of those societies (here applied the misnomer of Communism, I would contend) was still brought down in quick order. (And for Frank's attention note-, no war. Wellll, except for defeat in Afghanistan :-)

Nonetheless, I think you get my point, that when folks are sufficiently pissed, understand the source problem of their material and spriritual lives, and still achieve sufficient levels of organization for themselves, and weakness of the regimes that rule over them, it will take more than cash and propaganda to stay the course and drive for change.

So really, frankly, I consider the issue of campaign financing a more secondary issue, more like an annoying insect. Which is not to say that I think cash is completely unimportant. :-)

I can certainly sympathize with your views on labor unions - while the rationale for their creation is certainly different than that of major corporations - I am no fan of most of the labor elites that run the show. I remember full well, the rally at the Vancouver Art Gallery, the issue being the HEU strike, and a certain member of the BC Fed leading the crowd into chanting the slogan repeatedly and very enthusiastically "We Shall Not Back Down", and as workers from other sectors walked off the job in many parts of BC, within a day or two, indeed Labor, especially the big time labor bosses did back down. But then, to counteract that, there is the story of STELCO -which is going through 'creditor protection' proceedings and in that instance the union rank and file and leadership have maintained high solidarity in opposing the plans of Capital. That is the Canadian context, then of course, we have Venezuela, where the old guard in the old union actually sided with the Opposition neo-Liberals/ Chamber of Commerce to carry out a coup in April 2002 - thankfully, military forces loyal to Chavez plus thousands of people (many women) were able to apply pressure to have him returned and the constitution upheld.

Be all that as it may...if the goal is to extend democratization into the economy through worker owned co-operatives, consumer & producer co--operatives, through changing the role of the state from allying with and fostering Capitialistic firms and a capitalistic economy to allying with forces seeking to establish more of a co-operative economy outside the confines of neo-liberalism,...then if unions persist, and they indeed may, likely will, the role ought to change. To date virtually all union-leadership in BC/Canada have primarily sought to negotiate with Capital, if need be to strike where necessary, so as to obtain better wages, benefits, safer working conditions, pensions, etc....this is certainly within that context, replete with tensions & contradictions, the correct role of Labor, also to advocate for government policies that are Labor friendly or at least "balanced" as Mr. Moderate man might advocate. In the global, neo-liberal age, with the hypermobility of Capital this has not worked that well, as Capital is continually flee to distant shores where labor, environmental, human rights laws are lax, to better facilitate Captial's private accumulation of profit.

If the goal is to over time create a predominantly non-capitalistic Economy", where workers together with consumers, members of a community, own and control a productive co-operative enterprise or asset, and where each member of the co-op has one vote irrespective of the quantity of capital invested....then unless present day union leadership accept that goal and get on with that task...they are indeed hinderances to the expansion of democracy within the economic sphere...and in my opinion, most of them are blocking and hindering that developing, seeking instead to maintain the tension/antagonism between Capital and Labor.

To go beyond this tension/contradiction, rather than bargin for wages, benefits, is it not time for Labor to bargin for actually 'ownership' rights, and to withdraw use of their pension investments in Capitalistic firms, and risk investing them more within the Co-operative sector. Once Labor does this of course, elitist union bosses will no longer be in control as the rank and file will demand greater democracy and say in the operation of co-operative firms as well as the investment of their pension funds.

Finally, on the BC scene, it has perplexed me considerably, why it was not possible for the workers at the Port Alice mill, supported by a national union, together with the township of Port Alice, and perhaps one or two First Nations, could not have raised the capital to co-operatively purchase that venture...instead most of those assets have again been bought by a Capitalistic firm. Opportunity missed...and where was Labor's leadership there - answers to which it would be interesting to learn about.

Presently, within this election context, there is a large opportunity, if the public can be educated as to the benefits, namely, rather that risking the sale of ICBC by the Fiberals if and when they get re-elected to some multinational Insurance firm, why not pressure to transform it into a co-operative, owned by the citizens of BC, and then use, some of its $6 billion in resereve funds to stimulate the 'co-op' and 'non-profit' sector. Thusfar, except for my articulation of this idea within several public forums, neither Labor nor the NDP have adoped such a possibility . C'est fini -Peter Dimitrov/bcpolitics.ca

Cause and effect hardly adds up to a conspiracy theory, much less an "attack", JIm.

I don't have much respect for anybody who tries to "win" by shutting down a conversation. Especially by using cliches as their blunt instrument.

If you know where the illicit $6,000,000,000.00 is being used, JIm, tell us. Meantime, when money is being shoveled out the back of campaign trucks touring the province, don't try telling BC voters that they have no right to be asking questions.

Now then, did I say whose trucks? Nope. You're the whistle-blower on that scoop.

I appreciate this elaboration of your view, Peter. It makes clear to me that actually, we do not differ on this issue of the current and hopefully, future role of trade unions so much at all. There is much contradiction clearly, in this role they have carved out for themselves-, and legitimate concern about what will be their chosen course IF, this issue of the democratization of the economy, actually not a new idea around the labour movement or the left at all, ever succeeds in rising to the top of the social agenda.

What is different is, this new approach to the economy is being talked about with a new sense of urgency, provoked by the new neocon direction of capitalist development combined with worker actions especially in Latin America, also at a deeper level and certainly in a way I have not heard over the years of my involvement in the trade union movement, and around the political left. I think it is a most interesting development, holding out interesting possibilities for the future.

Regards, my friend, I have a full day ahead.

My goodness Jim is here for some real debate, is it my old friend Jim from the Van Sun
Sound off's. What a joke that turned out to be (what can we expect form CanWest) They refused to post over 16 of my comments, not because of bad language or any hateful message just plain and simply censorship. Most fluff gets posted and anything with substance well , its CanWest.
Sorry I digress, Carole James asked for all corporate and Union donations to be banned, and to put limits on individual donors(that way folks like Jimmy Patterson cannot put up big cash)
Guess who rejected that idea, I wonder why the liberals are so scared to have a level playing field. Is it because maybe they only get 18% or so from just plain citizens once you remove their special interests groups. We're not electing the BC Liberals, we're electing Tek Cominco and others. Just look at what the liberals have done, the forestry and mining industry is pretty much regulating itself, they have cut and removed all enforcement, the entire Sunshine coast has only one officer . Follow the money, the big union thing is a joke, I wonder how many union members voted liberal last time before they were attacked and lied to. Gordo has a change to mend fences and he just blew it.

People who vote should be allowed to donate to political parties in my view. Not unions or corporations, as they are not allowed to vote.

Thanks Coyote & Peter D. for the great discussion of the current state of unions. I'd only like to add that the "old guard" of the unions is being gradually replaced by a new generation. Hopefully they are just a little better educated, more aware, and better informed, thanks to sites like this one, and forums like this, and bring change to the unions, which are still needed IMHO.

If we can all help to spread the word, counter the spin and open people's eyes a bit, we may have a hope of real change.

Chuckstraight is right, only registered BC voters should be able to donate to parties, say each person has a cap of say $ 1000, plus we should pay maybe each party a 1.50 per vote, this way we get the dirty money out. The NDP suggested this but we all know who is going to oppose it, one is the party of individuals vs big media and big money. One example, remember Telus who was coming under pressure about a 1.5 yrs ago due to their massive downsizing which caused terrible backups, anyway notice how all that public pressure went away. Guess who donated 56 K to the Fiberals.

If we get a left wing gov in lets rip open the media. Start community radio and TV stations , newspapers all over the province. Send the aspers packing.

The great natural tendency of course, is for all life to renew itself, and pressure from the real world, to evolve to different and, hopefully, higher forms. (Though reverse evolution is not unknown either. Penguins, whales and a number of other species.)

Doubtless, the new generations just beginning to come to the fore, in the trade union movement as elsewhere in society, formed in the cauldron of their own experience, will have their own unique impact on society and these working-class institutions. I wish you and your work-mates well, brother.

I am pleased, of course, as I'm sure is Peter, that you feel we have made a worthwhile contribution to the evolution of your own ideas and approaches.

The future is out there! Seize the day!

There seems to be a fair bit of agreement in this Tyee forum that business & labor donations to political parties should be fini. That certainly is now the case federally and also in a few provinces.

The question that arises, in the event that the Fiberals get re-elected, and given the boon of mega-bucks they receive from the Corporate BC - they likely will be loathe, as they have been in the past four years, to pass legislation ending corporate and union donations.

So then what? Bluntly, I am not as much in favor of legislation banning those donations -although that would be great--as I am in favour of a court application to determine if the bundle of democratic rights that Citizens possess are sufficient to strike down those provisions of the BC Election Act that allow said donations. Prohibitive legislation is one thing, but legislation can be re-enacted in some modified form or another - whereas an action that strikes down as unconstititional the provisions of the Elections Act becaue it violates citzen's democratic rights....starts the ball slowly rolling to clarify the scope of citizen's democratic rights implicit within the Constitution and the notions of natural and fundamental justice.

If said lawsuit failed it sure would be an eye-opener to citizens who would then realize how little democratic rights they possess - which ought not to be. Surely, citizens have legitimate expectations - beyond the expectation that they can vote, that their vote will be fairly and accurately counted. Any feedback here, joiners, volunteers, suggestions?

From the CHARTER:

Democratic rights of citizens 3. Â* Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
Maximum duration of legislative bodies
Â*

Equality Rights
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15. Â* (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

26. Â* The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

Mary. I don't doubt this claim about that much dirty money is floating around BC, But I would like to see some links to where these numbers come from.

I don't think this is some conspiracy theory I would just like to see some documented evidence. These are some links I found to this claim. This is all I have been able to find on google.

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/2005041012334170

http://www.thetyee.ca/Views/2005/03/31/DemocracyforSale2/

My god, you think I invented that number? I couldn't even have imagined that number, prior to 28 December 2003.

The quoted $6,000,000,000.00 came from RCMP Sgt. John Ward at his press conference the day after the police raid on the BC Legislature. He was explaining how organized crime in BC had reached "critical mass", how it had crept into every level of society. And how it sucked that $6 billion out of the BC economy on an annual basis.

Since then, I've watched in disbelief as the BC police budget was reduced and the annual estimate crime economy is up to $7 Billion. Remember, it was Rich Coleman who told us that some of that crime money bought guns for the international arms trade, such as for the drug lords of Afghanistan. This is big, horrifying stuff, Nationalist. Yes, verify the facts. But this is not the time to be hanging back, quibbling.

Sgt Ward's press conference of 29 Dec. 2003 provides a good basis for understanding what organized crime has been allowed to do to British Columbia. It's surely not the whole story, but it's the solid basis.

I've often thought back to that day, wondering how a top cop must have felt about having to admit that the criminal organizations had become so large and strong, and that the public could no longer be entirely sure about the safety of their own society.

It must have been a heartbreaker to admit that. And yet it seemed to me that Sgt. Ward clearly understood his duty to the public. He seemed to be speaking directly to the citizens ... speaking over the heads of our look-the-other-way officialdom. And awful as the information is, I have felt grateful to the RCMP and Victoria Police, ever since.

Much as I hate what we're eventually going to find out -- it's the only path toward the clean-up.

mary wrote :Rich Coleman who told us that some of that crime money bought guns for the international arms trade, such as for the drug lords of Afghanistan.

This claim has never been proven. this is just another fear tatic by government to get on side with the propoganda of the DEA of the USA.
If all these guns are comming from BC where are the guns from BC comming from? I'll tell you its from the good ol USA.
I can give you documented evidence that the CIA was and still is involved with drugs, and yes there is alot of evidence that the opium fields in Afganistain are going stronger now than they were before the US invaded Afganistan. If you believe anything Rich Coleman says to that regaurd then you are mislead. I'm not saying you are wrong, its just getting old, post after post saying the same thing but nothing to to back it up.
I don't doubt for one second that organized crime has a foot hold in government. On the other hand policing is a business like any other so governments and police will give inflated numbers to instill fear into the poulation to rally support to hire more police.
Everything has 2 reasons one is the real reason and the other is the offical reason.
I have not heard ONE report on guns being brought in from the USA, you allways hear about how bad Canada is for giving the Americans that bad Marijuana and we never hear about the cocaine being brought into Canada from the US when cocaine is a much bigger problem in both countries.
One thing that really pisses me off is the police will not accept any kind of direct questioning, they allways have a press Conference . Nobody from any media can ask any real questions we just have to accept their statements and assume they are true if the media were to question the police directly and ask the hard questions like "We hear alot about pot going south of the border what are we doing to stop guns and cocanie from entering Canada?" if anyone asked that question on TV it would look like we are questioning authority and I would say that they are doing NOTHING to stop the flow of coke and weapons and they are doing nothing to defend Canada's position on drugs and crime or do anything to make the US look bad for having no control of their own drug problems. The right winged solution to this problem is put people in jail for one joint, pose as a dealer and arrest small time users while the big time dealers operate without any problems from police. I'm glad we live here because down there prisoners are a Commodity and the companies that run the prisions are listed on wall street (basicly a legal money laundering system) more people in jail the more money they make. I have no doubt that the raids on Victoria were big time corruption scandal and it wouldn't suprize me either if big time players are involved in smuggling people ,drugs,weapons but there seems to be little evidence to support any of these claims.
if there is so much evidence showing corruption in all levels of government in Canada and USA then someone somewhere must have something solid on BC government at present that isn't in the hands of a judge someplace keeping this a secret.
We all know our province has dirty players and allways have but how dirty is yet to known.
I just want to see an offical report on how much money is in BC alone that is dirty, i haven't found alot that tells me anything more than the who's who I want to know how much.

Without that $6 billion in the BC economy what do you think will happen? if we were to get rid of it tomorrow what would happen to your mutual fund?

I want to see links, if anyone has some that I may have over looked please post them because i have looked for a long time now and i can't seem to find anything real solid on this issue of how much dirty money is acually in this province. I would say if anyone wants to start looking maybe think about your investments and findout where the money for that is comming from. The stock market is a haven for dirty money. Your bank is a bigger player in oganized crime than the puny BC Liberals your bank just hides it better.

Why not ask Rich Coleman for the proof of his public statement about guns for Afghanistan? Why are you asking me?

Honestly, I've been waiting with dread, hoping you wouldn't try that brainless ploy about organized crime money propping up the economy ... you surely can't be serious. It's as if you're apologizing for them.

Are you really thinking organized crime in the 21st century isn't modern, global, and cruelly efficient?

Are you really thinking that bigtime crime is just a nice little Mom & Pop cottage industry enabling families to shop with their proceeds at the local village? No, Nationalist. It's 18-wheelers. It's deep sea freighters. It's guys with guns who bribe, threaten, beat, murder; who deal in human traffic, drugs, prostitution; who offer your kids jobs you don't even want to know about. What a bonus to the economy.

You're twisting the elements around if you think that "the puny B.C. Liberals" are organized crime; then you pose as defending them by declaring that you "can't seem to find anything real solid on this issue of how much dirty money is actually in this province."

Get real. Do you think organized crime prepares Annual Reports and pays Income Tax? Why would you even imagine that their clandestine workings are available for study? That's the problem, Nationalist; they answer to nobody.

But when you try to silence people like me, you're not helping. Is this some kind of neo-con thing where all the proof and signed confessions are necessary before a problem can be discussed? Just wondering, really, why you're so darn steamed over a problem which threatens us all collectively.

Enough of your brow-beating, Nationalist. Accomplish something on your own.

Me, I'll continue to track the subject as a social problem which needs fixing. I may even write more comments about it.

I hope you do, BC Mary. The "puny" BC Liberals are backed by some pretty big money and interests wouldn't you say Nationalist? Not to mention its ties with the federal Liberal party through Basi and Virk. The raid on our legislature was unprecedented in Canadian history, surely Nationalist, doesn't the continual hush surrounding it give you concern, as well as how little the public knows a year and a half later and what about that court date that keeps being moved forward, now conveniently placed well past our provincial election date?

looks to me like the story of this campaign so far has been about who has more passion in their beliefs.

Mary i'm just trying to get you to see that saying the same thing over and over again gets old, i just want to see where the $6 billion dollar figure came from. i'm not sayin that there isn't any coruption or dirty money I'm saying that it is a definate reality and that your hardware store that gives joe blow a full time job could be front for a drug operation.
The liberals that are invoved in any investigation in this raid are just a small cog in a larger wheel. this is what I found at the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia

http://www.ocabc.org/cgi-bin/index.pl?pagename=/publications/moneyinbc1.html

Generally, in Canada most organized crime groups tend to operate in small cells, with a small number of clients, insulating themselves from direct contact with their illegal activities as independent entrepreneurs, and collecting tremendous profits. This differs significantly from other geographical territories where the entire control of importation, manufacture, and distribution of criminal goods and services are centralized, often under corrupt systems of public officers and law enforcement. In Canada there is often open competition between a large number of small criminal networks which very in size, race and ethnicity, criminal background, and the type of criminal product provided.

(open competition between a large number of small criminal networks)

This illegal money DOES help pop-up the economy. it is hardley mindless. i'm just pointing out that if that money disapeard tomorrow what would happen?like or or not They buy the trucks the steros eat at the resauraunts,buy gas, smokes, beer it is a reality. They launder the money and buy investment funds to look legit making it harder to find them. here is another article with proof that this money is a reality in wall street.

Citigroup, the Largest Drug Money Laundering Bank in America Buys Mexican Drug Laundering Bank Banamex
Asa Hutchinson Appointed to Head the DEA
All Hell Breaks Loose

By

Michael C. Ruppert
http://www.copvcia.com/free/ciadrugs/053101_Citigroupandasa.html Banamex owner Roberto Hernandez is overtly connected to drugs. He will now join Citibank's board.

http://www.copvcia.com/free/pandora/forest_service_c130s.html CIA and Subsidiaries Exposed in Court Documents As Active Drug Smugglers Using Military Aircraft Washed Through Forest Service
----------
December, 1998 Investigations Latest in Legacy of CIA's Drug Operations and Corruption of Government

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CELERINO CASTILLO III, (D.E.A., RETIRED) FOR THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
http://www.copvcia.com/free/ciadrugs/contra1.html

April 27, 1998
For several years, I fought in the trenches of the front lines of Reagan's "Drug War", trying to stamp out what I considered American's greatest foreign threat. But, when I was posted, in Central and South America from 1984 through 1990, I knew we were playing the "Drug War Follies." While our government shouted "Just Say No !", entire Central and South American nations fell into what are now known as, "Cocaine democracies."
While with the DEA, I was able to keep journals of my assignments in Central and South America. These journals include names, case file numbers and DEA NADDIS (DEA Master Computer) information to back up my allegations. I have pictures and original passports of the victims that were murdered by CIA assets. These atrocities were done with the approval of the agencies.

Over a decade then, between $2.5 and $5 trillion criminal proceeds have been laundered by U.S. banks and circulated in the U.S. financial circuits. Senator Levin's statement however, only covers criminal proceeds, according to U.S. laws. It does not include illegal transfers and capital flows from corrupt political leaders, or tax evasion by overseas businesses.
http://www.copvcia.com/free/economy/053101_banks.html

Effects of money laundering on the economy
Oct 2004
Fedelis Tembo, Senior Internal Auditor, Government of Zambia
http://www.accaglobal.com/publications/audit/ideas/2261293

Money launderers use front companies to mingle the proceeds of illicit activity with legitimately acquired funds and in the process obscure their illegal gains. They may have access to huge illicit funds, allowing them to subsidise these front companies and to offer products and services at below market rates. This gives such front companies an advantage over their competitors, who have to rely on legitimate sources of funding.

http://www.unodc.un.or.th/money_laundering/
During this stage for example, the money launderer may begin by moving funds electronically from one country to another, then divide them into investments placed in advanced financial options or overseas markets, moving them constantly to elude detection, each time exploiting loopholes or discrepancies in legislation, and taking advantage of delays in judicial or police cooperation. http://www.unodc.un.or.th/money_laundering/

U.S. Banks and The Dirty Money Empire

Washington and the mass media have portrayed the U.S. as being in the forefront of the struggle against narco trafficking, drug laundering and political corruption: the image is of clean white hands fighting dirty money. The truth is exactly the opposite. U.S. banks have developed a highly elaborate set of policies for transferring illicit funds to the U.S., investing those funds in legitimate businesses or U.S. government bonds and legitimating them. The U.S. Congress has held numerous hearings, provided detailed exposés of the illicit practices of the banks, passed several laws and called for stiffer enforcement by any number of public regulators and private bankers. Yet the biggest banks continue their practices, the sum of dirty money grows exponentially, because both the State and the banks have neither the will nor the interest to put an end to the practices that provide high profits and buttress an otherwise fragile empire
http://www.copvcia.com/free/economy/053101_banks.html

Mindless eh? Looks like I got more evidence saying that dirty money Does pop up the economy.

"The fact that $6 billion a year is generated by this industry shouldn't surprise anyone that many people are susceptible to being corrupted," said RCMP Sgt. John Ward.

Ok I found it, i stand correceted.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/29/bcleg031229

(we can't forget about these guys..)
He is cousin of Ravinder Dosanjh, a Victoria police officer suspended Dec. 15 while allegations of breach of trust and obstruction of justice are investigated.

Also charged with drug conspiracy offences are B.C. residents Michael Doyle and Jaspal "Tony" Singh.

Throughout the investigation RCMP have stated no politicians are under investigation.

Today, the value of the illegal marijuana trade alone
is estimated to be worth in excess of $6 billion. http://www.rcmp-bcmedia.ca/pressrelease.jsp?vRelease=4218

The Organized Crime Agency is fighting for its life after the politics of policing hijacked its budget.

http://primetimecrime.com/columns/Columns%202004/20040107.htm

but still the corruption runs alot deeper than these Liberals.

As long as we elect MPs that are following a party leader and not the People who sent them in the Parliament this thing will happen over and over again no mater what party gets our vote. The concentration of public power in the hands of the power elites in Ottawa is the only problem.
http://www.wegovern.ca/john_oprea_2004_election_cambridge_ontario_canada.htm

I will continue my search on this.
I know Mary will too ;)

You're doing much better today, Nationalist. But please stop defending the Liberals (provincial or federal) because, fact is, their campaign workers got caught; so it's Liberal campaign workers who may provide access to the wider story ...

I've said elsewhere that I hope Dave Basi sings like a canary when -- if ever -- he comes to trial. As you've seen for yourself now, it's not easy to dig up the facts, analyse and correlate them into a readable narrative. I'm glad you took the trouble to do some of that.

Dave Basi is probably our living, breathing narrative of what went wrong inside the Liberal parties, both federal and provincial. Of course, organized crime is bigger than the Liberal Party, no need to be pompous about explaining that -- except perhaps to admit the difficulties it presents to police, too.

I'd be the first to applaud a plea bargain which lets Dave Basi walk free if he tells British Columbians everything -- everything! -- he knows about organized crime functioning within government (but sending him right back into court if it's later found that he withheld information).

You didn't speak to the electorally important aspect of the problem: Was the provincial and/or electoral system re-worked to thwart the rights of the voters? Were Liberal decisions such as the sale of BC Rail affected by improper means? Was the government able to function effectively despite the alleged pressures of organized crime? These are questions we need to keep asking until we hear the answers.

Organized crime is bigger than the Liberal Party, you're so right, but (a) in Canada, there's not much that's bigger than the Liberal Party, and (b) we gotta start somewhere ... and the RCMP provided that much-needed opening when they raided the B.C. Legislature.

See you in the records, Nationalist. Good luck!

Over a decade then, between $2.5 and $5 trillion criminal proceeds have been laundered by U.S. banks and circulated in the U.S. financial circuits.

I'm not defending anyone in this. 2.5 trillion bucks is bigger than Canada's budget.
the drug dealers use the same banks the rest of us do. i wouldn't care what party it was i would still say the problem is not a new one and it is bigger than any political party provincial or federal.

I happen to know some small comunities that if it wasn't for the pot trade alot of people would be out of work, many of these people hire others to do landscaping, building, car reparis etc. If it wasn't for that illegal money the stores would close for the winter because they wouldn't be enough people to buy the paint, lumber and so on. Like it or not each and everyone of us in someway has an indirect benefit from the drug trade. If you take note everytime the markets go up there is a rise in crime and a lower standard in some neighbourhoods such as rise in drug trafficking and use. You can't remove $6 billon out of the province and not have a cause and effect action. It would take along time to recover from a missing 6 billon in a already sensitve econmomy.Its a big problem and its going to take a long time before anyone finds a real solution. This is a world wide thing and it isn't going to go away anytime soon. we just have to start by not useing our credit cards and doing painfully long research on anything you are going to invest in and say no to any kind credit like The Bay Cards, Canadian Tire Cards or any like them all at high interst that may very well have links to Citi Group. Thats where I would start to battle the problem. But it is always good to keep the government on their toes too to keep them honest...ya right...but keep them on their toes either way.

RCMP Sgt Ward wasn't saying organized crime is "a new problem" either, Nationalist. He was saying that it had escalated rapidly in B.C. in the past 2 years (make that 3-1/2 years now) and had reached "critical mass," by December 2003.

I wish you could focus on the issue. British Columbians need to know: is organized crime influencing government and the electoral process? Are suitcases full of cash buying elections? Or decisions?

What? I'm to cut up my credit cards? And really show the bastards?! Puh-leeze.

Organized crime is big, as you say. It's world-wide. But so are deadly epidemics. We're smart when we decide to be smart; we do know how to protect British Columbia. Remember SARS?

You're wrong to suggest that others believe that organized crime is only about partisan politics. Nobody has said anything so silly as that all crooks vote for any special party. I doubt if they vote at all. You're not helping by repeating that over and over, without basis.

So I repeat (are you listening??) we have to start the clean-up somewhere. And the RCMP raids on the B.C. Legislature gave us our opportunity to start the clean-up. Watch for it: May 30, B.C. Supreme Court, Vancouver. Get on board, Nationalist. It makes perfect sense to do so.

Don't for god's sake, whine that aww, it'd be too much hard work, it'd be so inconvenient ... and aw, can't we just drift along doing nothing. If you aren't willing even to support the concept of cleaning up the government and electoral system, you could at very least stop knocking people who are trying.

You're wrong to suggest that others believe that organized crime is only about partisan politics.

I didn't say that.

I said the billions of dollars is in our Banking system. Any political party could recive a chunk of this money. here is some forgoten history of BC leaders past.

Bill Bennett, his brother Russell and forest company owner Herb Doman were accused of conspiring to dump half a million Doman Industry shares in 1988 before an announcement that Doman's planned $250-million sellout to a U.S. forest giant had fallen through.

Minutes after the shares were sold, the price plunged as news of the takeover failure was made public.

Doman and the Bennetts were acquitted in 1989 but a drawn-out proceeding before the B.C. Securities Commission resulted in fines, trading bans and other sanctions against the three.

Social Credit premier Bill Vander Zalm was forced to resign in 1991 under another conflict accusation. It was alleged he had used his office to help engineer the sale of his Fantasy Garden religious theme park to a Taiwanese billionaire.

While the provincial conflict commissioner ruled against him, Vander Zalm was also acquitted of charges with the judge calling his actions foolish but not criminal.

Vander Zalm's predecessor also dodged a criminal conviction for insider trading after he left office.

Former NDP premier Mike Harcourt resigned in 1995 over a charity-skimming scandal that became known as Bingogate. Harcourt said he was not involved in the scandal, but quit to take the heat for past NDP members who used charity money to build a party slush fund.

Maui police Sgt. Ken Prather said Campbell, 54, was arrested Friday at 1:23 a.m.
Campbell's statement said he will make himself available to the media Sunday at 3 p.m. PST, at a location to be determined.

Campbell was fingerprinted and photographed before he posted bail of $257, police said. But police declined to say whether Campbell submitted to a blood-alcohol test. A tentative court date of March 25 was set, Prather said in a telephone interview.
http://www.deeperwants.com/cul1/homeworlds/journal/archives/week_2003_01_05.html

ahh yes another day in BC how history seems to repeat its self. I'm sure you will agree that the information should be released before may 30th.

If we examine the state of the Proceeds of Crime legislation, first passed in 1989, the RCMP has seized or restrained $221 million dollars worth of assets. While at first glance this may seem like a large amount, conservative estimates, however, place the volume of money laundering during the same time period at between $100 and $170 billion.
http://www.moneylaundering.ca/public/law/lawcanadalaw.php

Credit Unions and Money Laundering

FACT:
The Canadian credit union system is growing at a rate of about 5% annually. Nationally, more than 1 in 3 Canadians are members of credit unions or caisse populaires. Each province’s credit unions are part of a larger national and international network. Across Canada, there are more than 780 credit unions, which operate in more than 1,800 locations and branches with in excess of 4.6 million members in the nine provinces outside Quebec. One in 14 jobs in Canada are in the financial services industry with the credit union sector being a significant employer within this industry.

The Threat from Money Laundering
Historically, money launderers have relished the availability of various opportunities to launder their illegal profits in Canada, including the sheer size of our financial system --- the larger the better, providing more opportunities to place their illegal profits. The credit union sector is particularly vulnerable given its sheer size and the number of different organizations that exist across the country. The opportunity to use such a structure is an advantage to any individual/group wishing to create a myriad of transactions across a variety of independent organizations in order to bury their funds ever deeper into the legitimate financial sector.

The Threat from Money Laundering
The community focus of credit unions and their pursuit of small business clients can potentially benefit the money launderer who uses small, cash-based businesses to co-mingle their illegal profits with their legal receipts. Using a credit union as their banker, they can gain access to the worldwide financial sector under the guise of carrying out legitimate banking through their business. Recognizing the signs of such a practice is imperative to any type of control strategy.
http://www.moneylaundering.ca/public/law/sectorcredit.php

The difference between the business elites and the supposed "union elites": the business elites are decided by those with the most money and stock shares while the union elites are elected in a democratic election by their membership every calendar year. I see a difference there don't you?

I agree with BC Mary that Nationalist is veering way off in a thousand directions. It just prevents people from focussing on the immediate serious issues in BC. I'm almost wondering if Nationalist isn't some sort of Liberal mole trying to muddy the waters, to distract us from the very serious, worrying issue of the DEAFENING QUIET surrounding the arrests at the BC Legislature.

Thanks to you BC Mary for keeping this very puzzling silence in front of us to ponder. Too bad the media and even the NDP seem to be avoiding mentioning it. Why? Maybe we should try to get on the phone-in shows to bring it up. Just a thought. That may be the only way to get "mass media" to touch the subject. Let's just do it before May 17, eh? If the judiciary wants to play "timing" games, let's try to throw a little monkey into their wrench.

Cheers all.

Well Mary I have enjoyed getting you worked up.
This was a good debate but i'm bored with this thread now.
Lets hope the raids on Victoria aren't as bad as it appears to be.
I like how some now think I'm a shill for the BC Liberals. It's my multipule political personality dis-order. I have a hell of a time on voting day.

I do agree the BC Liberals have to go.
Lets not forget the Accenture had links to Author Anderson and Accenture it self was investigated for its links to Enron. I haven't done any research to see if they are still being investigated or not.

Good luck Mary.

You're bang on, B.C. Mary. While it is true, as Nationalist said, (with, I suspect, his tongue in his cheek) that putting the criminals out of business would be a bellyblow to the economy, I would be willing to take that risk. My discomfort comes from the focus on DOLLARS, and not on the human cost. When the police are pulling ten and eleven year old kids in as "child prostitutes", we are in deep deep shit. And how can a child be a "prostitute"? A child used for sex is a victim. The politics of misogyny shown in calling these children "prostitutes" is in and of itself shocking. Personally, I have no quarrel with prostitution and feel it's just our conditioned distaste for all things sexual which taints our views. We all use our bodies to feed ourselves and our families. Whether we are cooks, servers, fishers, loggers, computer programmers..whatever job, we use our bodies. So do those in the sex or flesh trade. Maybe if we stop acting like nuns in a whorehouse and having such recoiling hissy fits, maybe if we just learn to accept the workers, they can practise their profession away from the criminal element. And maybe if we concentrated on catching the johns who use the ten year olds... and putting their perv asses in jail so they can find out just how much it hurts...

Interesting how virtually every head of the CIA started out as wall street bankers... interesting, too, that if you or I walked into any banking establishment with twelve thousand dollars we'd be up to our ears in investigation and questions about where we got it, how, and from whom but if you've got a company listed on any stock exchange you could haul it into a bank in a steamer trunk and no big deal... I enjoy your input, B C Mary! Thank you.

Anne Cameron, it was only computer problems which kept me from responding with warm thanks. It so happened that, one day, a dear friend referred to me in an e.mail as "possibly a socialist or worse" and suddenly my e.Mac screen turned a livid purple, with ominous midnight-blue printing, and a fish-eye format. Much like self. Can you imagine how it felt, not being able to reply?

The friend was happy to anticipate privatization of all BC Ferries systems. The $$$ thing, as you say. So first I had to relieve the pressure on my brain by reminding him that W.A.C. Bennett had established the government-owned BC Ferries system because before that, we'd had nothing but a mish-mash of privately-owned bits-and-pieces of rag-tag routes. And we'd probably return to that status, if various routes proved to be unprofitable to their new bosses.

Once finished with Socred Socialism 101, I'm back ... and able to appreciate again what you wrote.

When you say that a child used for sex is a victim, I agree. Also I agree that children who can't see a future, or jobs, or careers, or wholesome lives, are also victims. And my big worry is that British Columbia is creating the conditions for Organized Crime to flourish.

At University, when we studied Economics, we talked a lot about the production best suited to Capitalism. That was the Seventies and we decided that Space Travel was the best industry because the products it needed not only required massive investment but the products were used up and destroyed, constantly having to be replaced. We understood that the best industry is a wasteful one.

Now, 30+ years later, I think I see that narcotics must be the product best suited to Capitalism. It's cheap to produce. It's constantly being used up. It entraps its customers. It creates its own expanding market.

The worst goes beyond that: this product can imprison the customers in a system which makes their exploitation easy. If customers can't pay for the drugs they need, they're given the opportunity to "work" doing crimes on Organized Crime's behalf. If the kids are clever enough or strong enough to survive, they might become wealthy which is a big attraction in our $$-oriented society. The ones who fail to become successful criminals simply crash by the wayside. But all are victims, in my opinion.

And that's how I see my home province these days: breeding grounds for the exploitation of an unemployed population where the social fabric is decaying around them. This is why I feel such contempt for Paul Martin and Gordon Campbell when they shrug, saying "I know nothing!" and won't even offer the minimum condolences to a suffering British Columbia: that it's a bad, bad situation and they'll try their best to fix it. Only words, sure. But words which could mean a lot.

If these were the Dirty Thirties, the Lefties would be organizing workshops and lectures to explain these things to people, so that some sense could be made of life today, and actions fashioned to suit the need. And lots of people would gather in churches and community halls to listen and to talk and to show solidarity. We'd feel strength in being together. The kids would feel it, too. It was called "community" in olden times.

How strange it feels, Anne Cameron, to have lived long enough to come full circle, where it's once again desperately important to be a caring Socialist. And yet, where it's once again the fashion for friends to think that to be a socialist is not quite "the worst" but very close to it.

Do please keep writing. Your words seem to carry a mystic weight. Like gold.

Oh dear, B.C. Mary! To be called "a socialist or worse"! I too had a friend who was defending the privatization of B.C. Ferries, last summer, as she was campaigning for the Greens in the federal election (and I don't even think the Greens are
FOR ferry privatization). I sent her a few articles in the mail that explained what privatization of the ferries and other services would mean. She phoned, accusing me of being "angry", "trying to make her look stupid", and "not wanting to be her friend anymore". I said "That's up to you," and hung up. We haven't hung out together since. My New Year's resolution was to simply avoid relating to people whom I can't respect or who don't respect me.

I agree with everything you have said in your posting, and everything Anne Cameron said as well.