CANADA MILITARY NEWS-Many Golden Oldies are not voting in this sham ....WHY SHOULD WE- Canada and Canadians deserve better than the same ole same ole bullshit that running and not changed in 50 years.... IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT THE PARTY.... not about Canadians... instead of working together - like a family - f**k our beautiful nation for the glory of the dysfunction and evil United Nations that harbours guns and war over humanity and people- IF CANANDIANS REALLY MATTERED- all parties and their hidden backroom cronies would sit their arse down and get working- UNIONS OF THE 80S AND 90S HAVE SUFFERED IN VICTORIES 4 US.... we need a plan that works for all- imho -IE THE WORD POVERTY WAS NOT MENTIONED ONCE

 Poor Canada's political choices- 3 parties choose troop killer khadr over troops and two parties indifferent 2 us all

QUOTE:   The word “poverty” was not uttered 


once during the recent federal leaders’ debate.

Canada is one of the wealthiest countries on earth, yet poverty and inequality are systemic and are increasing in many areas of life. According to the most recent National Household survey, about one quarter of Canadians live in housing that is overcrowded, unaffordable, substandard, or a combination of all three. Forty per cent of indigenous children in our country live in poverty. Ten per cent of Canadians cannot afford to fill their medical prescriptions. All this, in a country that, according to Harper, is the envy of the developed world.

Why won’t politicians address the poverty problem?

The word “poverty” was not uttered once during the recent federal leaders’ debate.

 By: Desmond Cole Published on Mon Aug 10 2015

In Thursday’s federal election debate, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair successfully pushed the Conservatives’ Stephen Harper to concede that the Canadian economy has shrunk in each of the last five months. Mulcair triumphantly followed up, “you’re not denying we’re in a recession, that’s good.” It was a moment that he, Green party leader Elizabeth May and Liberal chief Justin Trudeau had all been angling for — an acknowledgement from Harper, who has led the country for nearly a decade, that economic times are tough.

While Harper’s contenders hammered him with the “R” word, they never once uttered the word “poverty,” the state people find themselves in when jobs are scarce, or when the jobs that exist don’t pay the bills. Trudeau and Mulcair are especially prone to speaking as if recession is a temporary problem, rather than a fixed and cyclical reality in our global economy. Like Harper, they speak as if they expect the best for our economy, and in their false optimism they are failing to prepare Canadians for the worst, to speak up for those who are worst off, including the many whose fates have become disconnected from the ebb and flow of the economy.

Canada is one of the wealthiest countries on earth, yet poverty and inequality are systemic and are increasing in many areas of life. According to the most recent National Household survey, about one quarter of Canadians live in housing that is overcrowded, unaffordable, substandard, or a combination of all three. Forty per cent of indigenous children in our country live in poverty. Ten per cent of Canadians cannot afford to fill their medical prescriptions. All this, in a country that, according to Harper, is the envy of the developed world.

Opposition parties are eager to connect these problems to the prime minister, but not to the economy itself. Trudeau has been preaching for months about “strengthening the middle class and those hoping to join it.” For the Liberal leader, this second group is a nameless, aspiring mass of humanity, a group that can achieve stability with a little help from caring politicians. He suggests he can elevate them from their current state of poverty, instead of promising to help them manage it.

The NDP’s Mulcair is promising to implement a $15-an-hour federal minimum wage by the end of his first term of office. This policy would only apply to a small percentage of those currently making minimum wage, but its true failing is that it is not indexed to inflation. A $15 minimum wage will be a lot less to celebrate in four years, and if it doesn’t increase with the cost of living, it will soon represent a new standard of poverty.

May goes further than her counterparts in acknowledging systemic poverty in Canada. “We can’t just sit back and think that the current stagnant economy is going to fix itself,” May said in Thursday’s debate. She wants to spend billions of tax dollars to upgrade energy inefficient homes, repair infrastructure, and build sources of renewable energy. What’s more the Greens are campaigning on a guaranteed minimum income, a safety net for all Canadians similar to what we currently provide seniors.

Yet May didn’t mention a guaranteed income during the debate, even though the Green party website labels poverty as “the single largest determinant of ill health” in Canada. She too is trapped in a conversation that labels the eradication of poverty as unrealistic. As May fights to be included in debates and election coverage, she faces pressure to sound more like her opponents, who are allergic to the language of structural suffering.

No one who has followed Harper’s career would expect him to flinch at the prospect of a recession. In keeping with his neo-liberal religion, the prime minister has spent the last 10 years cutting taxes for individuals and corporations. When those measures have failed to insulate Canada from a volatile global economy, Harper has insisted the public should be grateful that things are not even worse. He has never concerned himself with entrenched poverty, and he likely never will.

But we could hope for more from his potential successors, especially the two so-called progressive leaders most likely to replace him on Oct. 19. Mulcair and Trudeau need to present long-term plans that don’t take an economic resurgence for granted. We are poised for a second recession in the last seven years — Canadians who continue to struggle cannot live on the false optimism of our politicians.

Desmond Cole is a Toronto-based freelance journalist.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/08/10/why-wont-politicians-address-the-poverty-problem.html

---------------

This could set up our First Nations Peoples for life Canada-  AUSTRALIA-  The economic cost of Australia’s asylum policies

3

Articles / Asylum Seekers / Featured

By Asher Hirsch

Australia’s asylum policies are not just inhumane, cruel and a violation of international law, they are also ridiculously expensive.
An analysis of last year’s budget found that in the 2014-15 financial year, the Australian Government spent $2.91 billion on detention and compliance-related programs for asylum seekers who arrived in Australia by boat. This includes $912 million spent on detaining people in unsanitary, cramped and deadly offshore detention centres.
The most recent statistics, released in May 2015, show that there are 634 people in Nauru (including 81 children) and 943 on Manus Island. A 2014 Commission of Audit found that the costs for holding people in these remote centres – where women and children risk abuse and two people have died – is over $400,000 per person annually.
It would be cheaper to put each person in a luxury Gold Coast hotel – not to mention safer.
In order to convince Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Nauru to host these detention centres, Australia has also given significant aid packages to these countries, including $420 million to PNG.
And don’t forget the $55 million deal made with Cambodia to resettle just four refugees.
We are also spending over $100 million on regional deterrence programs, which are designed to “detect and disrupt irregular movements of people from source and transit countries”. These programs involve working with law enforcement in Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Malaysia to intercept asylum seekers in countries of first asylum, making it harder for people to flee from persecution in their homeland.
The costs of detaining asylum seekers within Australia are also outrageous. In 2014-15 Australia spent $1.99 billion towards the 33,000 asylum seekers in Australia currently detained or in the community awaiting the outcome of their asylum claim. The 2014 Commission of Audit found the cost of onshore detention centres per person was $239,000 a year.
To put Australia’s spending in perspective, the total expenditure for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in 2014 was AUD$3.72 billion.
Australia is spending more on detaining and deterring a few thousand asylum seekers than the UNHCR spends on supporting around 46.3 million refugees, internally displaced and stateless people around the world.
Loss of potential economic benefits
Many people who are in the community on bridging visas and are awaiting processing of their refugee claim are denied work rights. While a deal was made late last year with crossbenchers to grant work rights to asylum seekers in the community in return for passing the Asylum Legacy Caseload Bill, the process of granting work rights is taking an unnecessarily long time.
Denied the right to work, asylum seekers are forced to rely on 89 per cent of the Centrelink Special Benefits rate – $462 a fortnight, or $33 per day. This rate is well below the poverty line and forces people into destitution.
Australia’s asylum policies also prevent future economic opportunities. Studies show that refugees make substantial contributions to their new countries – they expand consumer markets for local goods, open new markets, bring in new skills, create employment and fill empty employment niches.
The success of former refugees shows that the experience of losing everything can foster an even stronger will to succeed, and this drive has the potential to substantially contribute to growing Australia’s economy.
The late Graeme Hugo’s comprehensive study on the Economic, Social and Civic Contributions of First and Second Generation Humanitarian Entrants noted that former refugees are often entrepreneurial. Compared to other migrant groups, they are more likely to set up their own businesses and their children are more likely than the children of Australian-born parents to obtain tertiary qualifications, to be professionals or managers, and to own their own home — all activities known to positively impact Australia’s economy.
Likewise, a recent report by AMES and Deloitte Access Economics found that the resettlement of 160 Karen refugees from Burma in the small town of Nhill in regional Victoria contributed $41.49 million to the local economy.
Why do we deter and detain would-be refugees when we could allow them to contribute to our economy instead?
What are the alternatives?
The alternatives to these wasteful policies are clear: abolish offshore detention, return all asylum seekers to Australia, put legislative time limits on detention and allow people to live and work in the community while their claims are being processed.
It costs around $40,000 per year  for an asylum seeker to live in the community on a bridging visa, which is 90 per cent cheaper than the exorbitant $400,000 it costs to lock them in offshore detention centres. And if asylum seekers are supported to find sustainable work, this could positively impact our economy as well.
It is important to recognise that our taxpayer dollars are being used to systematically abuse and torment asylum seekers. Not only are we ethically compelled to find humane alternatives, it also makes simple economic sense. 

—

Asher Hirsch is a Policy Officer with the Refugee Council of Australia, the national peak body representing 200 organisations & thousands of individuals who work with and for refugees & asylum seekers.
Feature image: Manus Island Detention Centre/Greens MPs/Flickr

Tweet

http://rightnow.org.au/topics/asylum-seekers/the-economic-cost-of-australias-asylum-policies/




-----------------

QUESTIONS AND THOUGHTS:



Why isn't the election in Canada about the promise of all parties to work together for the good of all Canadians?

-------------

Why Can Canadians live abroad for years and years and years without paying any taxes or facing our hardships... and still have the audacity 2 think they should vote.... WHEN less that 1% ever does?

-------------

If u ride a bicycle over 16 why don't u require a license and pay taxes like the rest of us have 2?

-----------

Why do governments all levels still sponsor- booze, gambling, smoking and doping and whoring and live off the avails of such when they cause so  much grief?

-------------

Why isn't education and all levels of health and dental free for all Canadian Citizens in Canada?

--------------

After 50 years of this political free for all and elected indifference - do elected politicians still care more about the 'privilege' and 'access' of debating VERSUS ' actual co-ordination and co-operation in actual goals and results and working together for we, the Canadians and our Canada first ?

----------- \

u pontificate freedom of the press- who couldn't fall over facts if they found them,  that actually creates the deliberate murder and butchering of our nations troops and the innocents fighting to the point that 75-90% of youth will not sign up for duty and serving our nation.  ie: Omar Khadr is cuddled whilst our troops - our children were at YOUR war on the fields of Afghanistan against vicious baby killing machine killing muslims in the most evil ways...

--------------

Why is aggressive 'sexual degrading' of minors and destructive  abuse of women, girls and boys - see no deliberate laws and protection?

--------

Why are tv, internet games of violence and music that degrade women, girls and rape not stopped?

----------------

Why do we still have archaic media that just refuses to change with the times ?

--------------


Where are the bluecollar folks that built this country... and why are politicians all for middle class dumping bluecollar and the poor, disabled, broken, children and aged thrown in the trash?


-----------------

WHY IS THE UNITED NATIONS STILL LEGAL.... and why does Canada still belong-   women equal men by law in Canada... how can we belong legally to UN?

--------------

Why is there so much black on black murder in Ontario street?


---------------------

Why can't politicians who want to be elected.... actually act like they truly give a sheeet about Canadians and work together....

---------------


Why are our youth NOT given all opportunities and care- and every opportunity to grow and help our Canada prosper ?

--------------


Why can't we look after each and all Canadians first....  and our farming, fishing, mining, logging and nature..... and do it like our forefathers and mothers did.... CANADA is extraordinary because of First Nations AND Immigration.... make no mistake about it.....


---------------


Canada is young, beautiful, and free.... we deserve better politics on all levels..... instead of newage hippy transplant from USA; namely Elizabeth May,.... why can't we have a truly wonderful Green party that is young, fresh hard-working and pure Canadian?....   why can't we have NDP that gives a sheeeet about the troops and actual jobs for all Canadians over union greed???.... why can't we have a liberal government that isn't just for middle class... and troops matter???.... why can we have a tory party that is not so reform and actually cares about each and every Canadian.????....   and why can First Peoples do better for themselves cleaning their own houses and let the youngbloods step up along with government to actually make change- and why can't First Peoples let Canadians who truly love them (over 90%) help them prosper and grow.


-----------

Our Canada is glorious, beautiful and free and well educated.... we deserve more for our children and their imho..



----------------

WHY CAN'T WE CASTRATE PAEDOPHILES.... 


-------------------

And why can't we save abused girls, women and boys in our Canada in 2015 instead of the archaic laws and slow old men and women pontificating ... whist our kids get raped and murdered....


--------------

And why can't we take better care of our troops, cops, RCMP, Warriors of the North, firefighters and first responders 

------------------

Why can't we do right by seniors who worked so hard 2 often LEFT with nothing 2 to look forward to in their last days because they gave all .... it's the least we can do dammit


---------------

Why can's we do better by mental illness and physically disabled who are often - with the right care and medication brilliant and capable 2 hold any office in the land?

------------

-----------------------

---------------------------

AUSTRALIA.... this article shows us all that First Peoples/Indigenous/Aboriginal are fighting the world over... for their rights STILL...IMHO..

Reclaiming (White) Australia? Talk about a redundant exercise

1

Asylum Seekers / Indigenous People / Opinions / Race & Discrimination

By Senthorun Raj

A couple of weeks ago, I was excitedly exchanging emails with a guy on Manhunt (I know, how retro?!). As we began to discuss weekend plans, he informed me that he had a busy night ahead: making signs to protest fascists from Reclaim Australia. Apart from satisfying my midnight procrastination appetite and restoring my faith in online dating, this brief textual intercourse prompted me to ask: is Reclaim Australia a unique threat from white supremacy?
Quite simply: no.
Let’s start with the slogans that underpin Reclaim Australia. The movement stakes a “claim” over a country has been “lost” to multiculturalism and Muslim immigration. Sure, the sloganeering of “no non-white immigration” and the presence of bodies, tattooed with swastikas, brandishing the Australian flag is frightening. Yet, these hyper visible scenes of xenophobia tend to distract us from the banal racisms that violently cut across the country.
Hate is not the language of those wanting to “reclaim Australia.” Most of the people who rally under the banner use the language of love – of country, of community and of “our way of life” – to galvanise public support.
But such emotional appeals are not unique to Reclaim Australia. Most recently, the government’s rhetorical use of “Team Australia” was used to mobilise antipathy towards Muslims who failed to assimilate and repudiate terrorism when required to do so. This was followed by a suite of law reforms that would strip dual citizens of their Australian citizenship for conduct deemed to be inconsistent with “allegiance to Australia.” This ranges from fighting in declared terrorist zones to vandalising government property.
By expressing concerns about immigration and repudiating non-white migrants, Reclaim Australia forgets something quite significant about our history: the only people with a right to “reclaim” the country are the Traditional Owners, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, who are dispossessed as a consequence of colonialism. Yet, this whitening of national memory is not confined to Reclaim Australia. There is still no formal recognition of Indigenous Peoples in our constitution. Despite compelling advocacy, successive governments have resisted a formal treaty with First Australians. Instead of recognition or treaty, those seeking basic services to live on their Homelands have been castigated for their “lifestyle choices.” Even a conversation about changing the date of Australia Day – a day that marks trauma instead of celebration for many people – is met with glib dismissal.
We hear constantly that asylum seekers or Muslims are threats to our community. But often overlooked are the far more banal institutional and political actors responsible for perpetuating an epidemic of racist violence. Indigenous incarceration rates exceed those of Black Americans. Aboriginal young people are 26 times more likely to be jailed than their non-Aboriginal peers. Recently, the death of Ms Dhu was another painful reminder that, for some people, having unpaid parking tickets can result in a death sentence. Across the seas, asylum seekers who come by boat remain caged indefinitely in places where they are raped, get sick, self-harm and die. More asylum seekers have died on Manus Island than have been properly resettled. Now, instead of closing down such facilities, the government has made it so that people working in detention centres could be prosecuted if they disclose these forms of institutional abuse or neglect.
The destruction of life – in the literal as well as metaphorical sense – should shock us. Yet, as Amy McQuire astutely articulated in a recent article, some lives are deemed more expendable and less grievable than others. This is not because Reclaim Australia has changed public discourse. Rather “border security” rhetoric and “tough on crime” policy as it impacts on Indigenous communities come about from the way whiteness (as a political and cultural system) governs Australia.
We should challenge neo-Nazis who sloganeer about “reclaiming Australia.” But, remember, there’s something far more insidious that we need to reclaim Australia from: institutional racism.

—

Senthorun Raj is a doctoral researcher at the Sydney Law School and a Right Now columnist. Follow him on Twitter: @senthorun
Feature image: No Room for Racism rally, Sydney. By Joshua Meadows/Flickr
This column has been assisted by the Australian Government through the Australia Council, its arts funding and advisory body.

Tweet

http://rightnow.org.au/topics/asylum-seekers/reclaiming-white-australia-talk-about-a-redundant-exercise/


--------------