Friday, April 8, 2011

Election Day minus 24 - Nominated


Day 14 - two weeks in: There I am signing my nomination papers after having sworn an oath. My returning officer is strictly by-the-book, quite formal but courteous. All the papers required are in (except I need to deliver an original of a fax on Monday) and she has time stamped my documents, like I was punching in for work.
 Looks like I am the fifth candidate: there is a red incumbent, a blue challenger, an orange, a green and me, a Libertarian, much like the last time.
This time I've ordered some signs as well (thanks to money from the party). The incumbent Liberal has already posted many of his signs, but I've seen just a few Conservative signs. My riding is quite "ethnic," loaded with newly arrived immigrants and recently minted citizens. To break through the Liberal headlock on the immigrant vote will be daunting for anyone. The Liberal incumbent doesn't even live in my riding, he lives in Oakville at least an hours drive away - in good traffic. He is so entrenched here, that he just has to "mail it in" so-to-speak. It is difficult to understand how he knows what's really going on here in my riding where I have lived for 36 years.
I mentioned signs. Well, you would think that is fairly straight forward, and you would be wrong. My town has a booklet that contains the "Election Campaign Sign Regulations." Yesterday I ordered 100 lawn signs and today I discovered that they are too small to place on roadways, I need bigger signs or the Town will cash in my $250 sign permit deposit. I quickly cancelled the first order and substituted big signs for a much bigger price.
So far it has been like a race with hurdles, I never really liked hurdles.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Election Day minus 25 - Done the 100+

Day 13 - I'm done, 120 signatures should be enough to satisfy the Returning Officer in my riding district.
At this point I've already spoken to hundreds of people, most have accepted my pamphlet, but many refused to sign their consent to my nomination. After trial and error, I might have developed the elusive 30 second elevator speech (in rough) answering: "What is a libertarian?" How do you summarize a political concept that involves principles and ideas that are really foreign to most of the electorate? Nearly 100% of the people I spoke to, never heard of the Libertarian Party, and had no idea what it stood for. In fact, many refused their consent on that basis alone, which is understandable, I too may have refused. Eventually I realized that people need a reference point in order to understand who and what we are. I started telling them that we were far more fiscally conservative than Mr. Harper (Conservative Party) (then I added: we think he is in fact a big spender) AND we are more socially liberal that Mr. Layton (NDP - Socialists). I used that line on many of the people I thought might understand and be aware of the current Canadian political scene. I also elaborated on it with examples. Many did understand, in fact a few suggested that we were "off" the right-left political spectrum, so I knew they were getting it. They were even surprised that a party like that existed, it was very heartening to me.
My 120th and last signature was the best, a bright young man, recently graduated from the University of Toronto in business but was unemployed. He told me he assists his family during elections in deciding how to cast their ballots and he has been for a while. We started talking about the war(s) and how pointless and ineffective they seemed, and he was surprised that we were against them (there goes my comparison with Harper above), he was against them too. Our talk ranged all the way to how we would "create jobs." "We wouldn't" I said, and explained just how jobs are created and how governments get in the way, he actually liked that explanation. It was a great way to end the day.

The times they are a changin'

With any luck Canadian television NEWS will never be the same again. Starting April 18, in the middle of a Federal Election campaign, the SUN NEWS Network will start broadcasting across Canada.
I hope that it is better than the pap that passes for NEWS that we get now on the major and minor networks, it couldn't be worse. It's no wonder that the most popular NEWS channel in Canada is CNN, and that is pap with drug commercials. Sickening!
Bring it on, here's a peek:

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Election Day minus 26 - Making a federal case out of it......


Day 12: As I've been saying for days now, the hunt for the 100+ nomination signatures continues. It's not just me, but my colleagues find this to be a hurdle as well, and the weather has not cooperated. So this morning I got an email from a Hamilton ON, candidate and helper that collected signatures at a local mall. They were hassled by mall security, but the candidate countered that they were allowed to be in a public area like a mall, for the purposes of campaigning as outlined in the Elections Canada Act Part 6. Who knew? The two were taken to mall management (I had visions of those dumb movies - Mall Cop or something) and after some checking, the mall people let them go and they continued their hunt. Apparently there is a $2000 fine or 6 months in prison or both, for obstructing a candidate in an ordinarily public place like a mall. (see section 81.1(1) below) I know, it sounds ridiculous, because malls are private property, but this law supersedes that idea. Dumb, eh?

Rights of Candidates
Campaigning in public places

81.1 (1) No person who is in control of a building, land, street or any other place, any part of which is open without charge to members of the public, whether on a continuous, periodic or occasional basis — including any commercial, business, cultural, historical, educational, religious, governmental, entertainment or recreational place — may prevent a candidate or his or her representative from campaigning in or on that part when it is open without charge to members of the public.

Exception
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of a place if campaigning in or on it would be incompatible with the function and purpose of the place or inconsistent with public safety.
S.C. 2007, c. 21, s. 12.


At my wife's suggestion, I decided to head for my local library (see idyllic picture above); it's a public place, its warm, there are seats, a washroom, and it's a place of learning. What better place to educate my neighbours about libertarianism, right?
Well, upon entry I first introduced myself to one of the library workers, as a courtesy. After about 20 minutes of begging for people to sign my nomination papers, a tall librarian approached me and said I must stop because I was breaking library policy. No soliciting! I showed her my letter from the Chief Electoral Officer, but that didn't phase her, library policy is library policy, rocks beat scissors. She took me to the head librarian, same story. At this point I'm feeling that the law is on my side (dumb as it was) for once. I sat down, she said she would call the police, I heard myself saying: "go ahead." As I sat there thinking: "I'm wasting my time here, the cops will take there sweet time and I have a deadline." So I retreated to the library foyer (out of sight) and continued soliciting. After another twenty minutes, and very few signatures (many people were from outside my riding district) the police arrived and I showed them the letter. They left me to confer with the librarians, and I continued collecting signatures and handing out my brochure. They returned and suggested that I should have asked permission first, I apologized, then said I didn't really need permission but I would next time. They left and I apologized to the librarian (I am trying to get votes).
The upshot of the whole thing is that I was right, but no one had ever tried this in the library system. When I got home I spoke to the library CEO, who apologized to me, and said he will send an email warning other branches that I might arrive. Tomorrow is another day.