A quick guide to Winnipeg protests

I'm a regular reader of David Watson's Waverley West and beyond blog and find it engaging, well-written and a valuable addition to the community. Lately, however, I've been following with some amusement his attempt to uncover some grand scheme behind last week's P3/city budget protest, made notorious by one attendee's ignorant attempt, via a sign, to put Mayor Sam Katz on par with Hitler.

Watson seems desperate to find a smoking gun showing that the provincial NDP or some other political organization organized the protest as part of some larger strategy to take on Katz. Is offensive sign holder Steve Mack an "NDP operative," he asks? Is protest spokesperson Mike Lennon an NDP-paid-for "protest leader"? (oops, he's already scratched that one off the list). Is the fringe Canadian Action Party "involved with the Katz defamation"? What if the "agent provocateur was sent by someone else in City Hall?" Watson also wonders, as he seems to struggle with just why Katz would be hiring people to film the protestors, is the plot "why Sam Katz was having the protestors photographed"? The drama has all of the twists and turns of a good conspiracy theory movie and I'm almost disappointed to see each new lead turn up with, well, nothing surprising.

It's been some time since I've attended any sort of political protest and I wasn't at the one at City Hall, but what happened seems pretty straightforward to me -- along the lines of the many hundreds this city has seen before:

1. For obvious reasons, unions and their allies dislike contracting out, P3s, privatization, and right-wing politicians who support such things.

2. Political demonstrations are not all that effective in swaying public opinion. Unions and other organizations organize protests to communicate with the public and with political leaders when other avenues are limited. If you can elect your people to public office with ease or get what you want through negotiation or simply by asking without having to protest publicly, why would you go to all the trouble?

3. The provincial NDP, especially when in power, does not bother to organize demonstrations as a political strategy because they have other, far more effective avenues for getting things done. If the provincial NDP decided that Katz was a thorn in the province's side (which they do not), they'd use their communications machine to back it up or recruit someone sufficiently high-profile to run against him.

4. No political organization or protest organizer with any brains or experience directs people to compare politicians they dislike to Hitler. How much ground did Katz's political opponents gain after the incident? Absolutely zero. If anything, the incident lost them ground. It's obvious that the sign was not the brainchild of any organization seeking to defame Katz.

5. Rallies against political policies are usually open invitation events held in public spaces. As a result, they may attract all sorts of people, including political organizers, members of any number of major or fringe parties, activists who regularly attend protests on any number of issues, people elected to public office, people who want to be elected to public office, people who have lost or who risk losing a job should proposed political changes pass, people whose philosphical or ideological sympathies are consistent with the protest's objectives, people who like crowds, lonely people, smart people, dumb people, people who are there for the free coffee, etc. For this reason, it seems pretty reasonable that lone individuals attending a protest cannot be said to speak for or represent the protest organizers or the entire collective body of protestors.

6. People attending political protests are motivated enough to take time out of their day and hang out for an hour or two regardless of the weather or other committments they may have. It shouldn't be surprising then that many attendees are dedicated political activists who are also avid participants in the political process in numerous other ways to support a range of causes or organizations.

7. Filming or photographing participants of strikes and political protests is nothing new. It's an extremely well-established and often-used technique throughout Canada and the US and elsewhere for (a) making participants feel "watched" and uncomfortable, so that they'll keep a low and non-militant profile and hopefully stay home next time; (b) discourage bad behaviour, by ensuring that photographic evidence will be available if things get out of hand; and (c) provide beautiful opportunities to shift attention away from the policies being protested to the protestors themselves when, for example, some clown shows up with an inappropriate sign.

8. As much as City Councillor Lazarenko is right to be shocked and offended at the sign one protestor chose to bring, trying to ban or limit protests isn't going to solve anything. Lazarenko, who according to the CBC, feels the city may have grown too lenient over the years in terms of what it will tolerate in a demonstration, is quoted as saying, "It gets to be like a mini-riot. It comes to a point where we lose control. The courtyard is for a peaceful demonstration."

Settle down, councillor; it was a peaceful protest, like one of many that happen in Winnipeg all the time.

Photo: A less-recent protest at City Hall. Depicted is a crowd gathered outside old City Hall, at Main Street and William Avenue, during the Winnipeg general Strike. Visible on the left are the Union Bank of Canada building and Leland Hotel.

The devious Mr. Katz

The mayor's office has released its detailed Service Based View of the budget. The document, which is available here, outlines a range of cuts to city services.

Shockingly, it was released just before the long weekend and a mere six days before the budget vote on the council floor. Its release also comes days after a public meeting in which citizens were invited to express their views on the budget. The Free Press covers the story here.

Can it all be coincidence that the mayor's office has released the bad news with virtually no time for the public to digest it, let alone debate it? Or, more likely, was this a sly attempt by our mayor to sneak some nasty cuts past the council floor when no one in the public is really paying attention? If the latter, it's more than just the usual lack of vision or fear of open debate; it's a wilful abuse of power.

Policyfrog has a great post on our mayor of "none" here. I'm personally keenly interested to see how each of our city councillors reacts to this one -- kudos to Councillor Gerbasi for drawing attention to the issue quickly.

Photo: Winnipeg's modernist City Hall (aka Civic Centre), completed and opened in 1964.

Another myth busted

Tories always like to go on about how they're the most fiscally responsible of the parties. A lot of Tories even identify this one issue as their reason for being Tory. It's not surprising then that Tories seem to always be convincing themselves that the NDP is secretly spending wads of money and driving us ever closer to bankruptcy and economic ruin. Popular culture even seems to support this: supposedly, if you're on the left, you're a do-good spender; if you're on the right, you're a prudent saver.

If the current election campaign is any indication, the idea of fiscally prudent Tories is a myth. With ten days to go in the campaign, the Tories are well ahead of the NDP in spending promises. According to Michael Benarroch, chair of the department of economics at the University of Winnipeg, the value of Tory spending and tax cuts is now up to $888 million. Promised tax cuts and new spending by the NDP, in comparison, total $400 million. Even the Liberals, who have no hope of achieving official party status, much less of forming government, have promised less than the Tories.

These are big numbers, but what do they mean? Well, the 2007-8 Manitoba budget forecasts $11.8 billion in revenue (to $11.6 billion in spending). Tory promises add up to 7.5% of budgeted revenue, more than double the NDP's 3.4%.

The real question is how will the Tories pay for their promises? I'd like to know what programs they'll axe, what assets they'll sell, or what taxes they'll raise or user fees implement to make up for their 7.5% bite out of the provincial budget -- or do they even know? If the Tories aren't that serious about winning, it would explain how they feel they can promise the sun, the moon, and Winnipeg Jets stars to anyone and everyone in the hopes of picking up a few seats. So much for Tory prudence, fiscal or otherwise.

It's the sort of Tory campaigning that makes even Tories not want to vote Tory. Just ask the federal Conservative Party, whose apparent embrace of social spending, Quebec and the environment has some party loyalists mulling over whether to refound the old Reform Party. No word on whether they've also approached Jean Chrétien to succeed Stephane Dion as Liberal leader.

No, the reality is that Tories don't mind spending our tax dollars at all. They don't even mind pouring those dollars right out the window, as long as they're going to pay for the right things. I'm still working out the Tory list of good and bad spending, but here's a summary of what I have so far:

Bad spending: social programs, housing, water stewardship, public education, poverty-reduction, pro-active solutions to crime

Good spending: tax cuts for Tuxedo-ites, selling off public telecoms at firesale prices, overpriced American health care consultants, new jails, bailouts for venture capital fund investors, $180 million private sports franchises

Ten days to go and the Tories are at $888 million. Will the Tories' promises surpass the $1 billion mark? In this election, just who should we worry about breaking the bank?