Tough times ahead for Alex Salmond, methinks. We won't be seeing too much of this in future...

This morning, on St. Andrew’s Day, Alex Salmond publishes a white paper laying out what his government would do, if only it could get the backing of the Scottish Parliament…

The Telegraph have called his blueprint “doomed” – and that’s probably right. The SNP will not get the necessary support to get the referendum plan through. The consequence of this is that we’re probably not going to see an independence vote before the next Scottish Parliamentary election, to be held in 2011.

Polling data suggests that support for independence is almost unchanged, roughly hovering between 20-30%, a lower figure than SNP support, suggesting that a large number of their voters simply picked them as the alternative government to Labour.

This is not how the SNP hoped it would work out. Upon their success of 2007, the big plan was to govern competently for two years, at which point they would have convinced enough people perhaps not of the needs of independence, but definitely that the Scots deserve the right of self-determination.

Unfortunately for them, no other Scottish party have chosen to play the game. Wee Wendy Alexander nearly did, but her deathbed conversion to the referendum cause was too little, too late. The Scottish Tories obviously want nothing to do with it.

Meanwhile, the Lib Dems have sort of toyed with the idea, but their latest leader is resolutely opposed. They’re worried that they may appear to be dancing to Alex Salmond’s tune.

But they are wrong. The Scots do have the right of self-determination. I accept that there is no clamour for a referendum, but that’s because people tend to be poor at compartmentalising things. People see support for a referendum as support for independence. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with asking people the question.

And where better for the Scottish Lib Dems – who are, let’s face it, in dire need of a little limelight – to be at the front of a public debate for the best part of a year. A year in which there will be a UK General Election.

It strikes me as a strategic blunder by Tavish Scott. Not only would he have gained the right to a little quid pro quo from Alex Salmond at some point – a favour to be cashed in – but, since the Tories and Labour had chosen to sit on their hands, the Lib Dems would have achieved all the publicity, and could have painted themselves as the true defenders of Scottish national interest, pushing for a federal UK.

But no. There will be no independence referendum. Not in this way anyway…

There does remain one last throw of the dice. A hung Parliament at the next election… the Tories pretty close to a majority… an SNP with at least 10 MPs… combining with a little Welsh nationalism… in exchange for…

Independence and more powers referendums in both countries.

It’s a long shot. But from all previous experience we know one thing.

Alex Salmond enjoys a gamble.

Switzerland held three popular referendums today, including a very controversial vote on a right-wing popular initiative on banning minarets in the country. The measures, supported politically only by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party (SVP) and smaller far-right outfit, was badly trailing in polls up till the vote, but there was a late massive swing in favour of the initiative, which led to a good turnout (53.4%) but a very strong vote in favour of the ban (57.5%).

YES 57.5%
NO 42.5%

The vote was narrowly rejected in only four cantons: Geneva (with nearly 60% opposed), the liberal Francophone canton of Vaud, Francophone Neuchatel and the urban city of Basel. Although it passed in the canton of Zurich, it was opposed by over 60% of voters in the city of Zurich and similarly opposed in Bern (with around 56% opposed). The Swiss Statistical Office breakdowns the vote by linguistic community: only the Francophones opposed it with 48.3% in favour. The Germans voted 59.7% in favour, and the Italians were massively opposed with 68%.

Really, the opposition to this measure is urban and liberal, as shown by its large rejection in places like Lausanne or Geneva. Rural Switzerland, even the more liberal rural Francophones, voted in favour. The breakdown of the vote shows the support of 54% of voters in urban areas, and 66% support in rural areas. Further breakdown shows the support was lowest in the largest urban centres, with only 39% support, and in wealthy urban areas, with 48% support.

The other interesting ballot measure was a left-wing initiative at banning the export of weapons, the third attempt since 1972 at such a ban. The measure was universally rejected.

NO 68.2%
YES 31.8%

The vote was only close in Geneva, where 48.2% voted in favour of the ban. It even almost broke 60% in the liberal Vaud.

There was a third vote on a measure which will give the revenue of aviation fuel to the aviation sector. It passed with 65% in favour, being rejected only in two mountainous districts of the Valais. Support was obviously lowest in rural areas.

Republicans in the British Commonwealth have been handed another electoral defeat with the clear rejection of a constitution which would have establishmed a republic in the Caribbean island of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. The new constitution would have vested the role of head of state and government into the island’s Prime Minister, and not an executive President and required two-thirds support to pass.

The incumbent centre-left government of Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves supported the new constitution, but was opposed notably by the main opposition – the New Democratic Party (NDP).

NO 55.64%
YES 43.13%

98.81% valid votes and 1.16% invalid or blank votes. Turnout was 54%

The republican constitution was clearly rejected, with nearly 56% opposition, well short of the ≈67% approval required. Therefore, Elizabeth II will remain Queen of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (among other things).

Romania voted for its President yesterday, on November 22 as well as in two referendums notably establishing a unicameral legislature with less than 300 members. In addition, this was the first presidential election held after a five-year term, instead of a four-year term.

In 2004, Traian Băsescu, as candidate of a shortlived alliance between the centre-right Democratic-Liberal Party (PD-L) and the National Liberal Party (PNL), defeated the Social Democrat (PSD) Adrian Năstase, running to succeed PSD President Ion Iliescu. Băsescu’s main campaigning theme in 2004 was the fight against corruption, but little progress has been made in that regard during his term, and he has also grown unpopular due to his confrontational nature, which led to the PNL falling out of the short-lived coalition between Băsescu’s PD-L and the PNL.

These elections are key to to reviving economic policy halted by a government crisis that has delayed aid from the IMF. Băsescu has campaigned on a continued fight against corruption and government graft, as well as better social protection and tax cuts. He faces the leader of the PSD, Mircea Geoană, a new-style and rather clean politician who modernised the PSD’s image, tainted by past corruption and incompetence. Most of his support is mostly opposition to Băsescu’s confrontational style and a desire for deeper social protection in bad economic times. The third contender is Crin Antonescu of the liberal PNL, who notably advocates a cut in the country’s flat tax (implemented by the PNL in government in 2004) from 16% to 10%. The other main candidates are Corneliu Vadim Tudor, leader of the far-right Greater Romania Party (PRM), who had come second in 2000 with 28% and third in 2004 with 13% of the vote. The PRM has since fallen off, though it did well-ish in the June European elections. The Hungarian party (UDMR) has nominated Hunor Kelemen, while the incumbent ex-PSD Mayor of Bucharest Sorin Oprescu is running as an Independent.

Here are the results, with 99.81% of precincts reporting:

Traian Băsescu (PD-L) 32.43%
Mircea Geoană (PSD) 31.16%
Crin Antonescu (PNL) 20.02%
Corneliu Vadim Tudor (PRM) 5.55%
Hunor Kelemen (UDMR) 3.84%
Sorin Oprescu (Ind) 3.18%
George Becali (PNG) 1.91%
Remus Cernea (Green) 0.62%
Constantin Rotaru (PAS) 0.45%
Eduard Gheorghe Manole (Ind) 0.35%
Ovidiu Cristian Iane (Ecologist Party) 0.23%
Constantin Ninel Potîrcă (Ind) 0.21%

Turnout was only 54%, notably very low in Hungarian areas (the lowest turnouts were in Hungarian-majority areas), thereby explaining the UDMR’s poor result (its results are usually between 4% and 8%, the Hungarian population is around 6.6% in Romania).

The first round was the easy part for Băsescu, but he now faces a very high-risk runoff against his Social Democratic rival Mircea Geoană. All polls in November so far have shown Geoană defeating Băsescu in the runoff with Băsescu’s polling numbers ranging from 46% to 48%. Geoană can count on the votes of the UDMR, whose voters split heavily in favour of the PSD candidate in the 2004 runoff, and also what I suppose to be PNL voters voting against Băsescu, who is pretty unpopular with the PNL.

There were also two referendums held yesterday. The first to create a unicameral legislature, which passed with 77.78% YES votes, and a second one to reduce the number of parliamentarians to a maximum of 300, which passed with 88.84%. Both were spearheaded by Băsescu’s PD-L, which held that unicameralism would make policy-making easier.

We’re quick to point out political corruption around the world. Afghanistan is corrupt. Iran rigs elections. Putin has his oligarchs. It’s all true, but rarely do we take a long hard look at the corruption endemic in our own politics. My esteemed colleague, Dr. Denny, recently penned an important post detailing Congressional corruption. Like so much of our nefarious behavior, it looks relatively civilized because we dress it up nicely. But we all know that our representatives are as crooked as any in Kazakhstan. We just call it “campaign finance”. We all know it’s a huge problem, one that’s slowly grinding our Republic into dust. We just can’t do much about it. What chance is there that the crooked politicians are going to straighten the mess out against their own, personal interests?

Well, i have an idea. Call it the Nelson Muntz Initiative…

It’s not exactly mine; many people have proposed it half-jokingly. Why just joke about it and let the grimy politicians have the last laugh when we have the power to make the joke on them?

If the quest for decriminalizing marijuana has taught us anything, it’s that the surest means to political victory is to take the process out of the hands of politicians. State referendums on that issue have spat in the face of Washington D.C. thirteen times so far, and there are more on the way.

Assuming that i’ve got my Constitution understood correctly, if two thirds of states pass a law it becomes federal law whether Congress likes it or not.

I’m shooting for “or not”.

I’d like to see Americans get together and make sure that every state in the union has a referendum by 2012 that forces federal politicians to display their sponsorships. It’ll be just like NASCAR…except, apparently, clockwise. The corporation or lobbyist or PAC that contributes the most to a politician is forced to put the biggest logo on the politician’s uniform. The smaller the contribution, the smaller the logo.

The politicians will be forced to wear the new uniforms whenever they’re are acting in an official capacity. So, they’d wear the uniforms on the floor of the Senate, House and inside the West Wing. They’d wear the uniform when appearing on television, on the campaign trail, at fund raising events and even state visits.

I want to see all the Senators who rail against health care reform do so with insurance company logos all over their expensive suits. I want to see the damned-near-monocled politicians who make the decisions about banking regulations do so with Goldman Sachs embroidered across their backs. And i damned sure want to see the names of the defense contractors on the wardrobes of all the soft-handed sons-of-bitches who send good men off to die without a damned good reason.

Dress them all up like the clowns that they’ve proven themselves — over and over — to be.

As J.S. O’Brien commented on Dr. Denny’s piece, the more mature manner of solving this problem — public financing — has more than a few devils in the details. Not the least of which is that the politicians aren’t going to give up their gravy train willingly, and the fact that rational and mature is the quickest way to political defeat in the USofA. So, fuck ‘em. They can keep the contributions and the shady relationships; we’ll at least get to laugh at them.

About the only thing most of them have is obscene levels of vanity, we might as well hit ‘em where it hurts, eh? And they wouldn’t be able to fool so many of the uniformed if their wardrobe did the media’s job.

I might be crazy, but would you be surprised if my plan worked? This isn’t a Left or Right issue. My guess is that the majority of Americans would be on board and would vote “yes” on Nelson Muntz…if for no other reason than our national love for enjoying the misfortunes of others. And who really likes politicians? Allow Americans a real chance to give the politicians a swift kick to the taint and they’ll take it.

Who’s with me? We need some lawyers to write the referendums and cadres of cynics in all fifty states to collect the petition signatures. After that we’ll let democracy decide. It may suck only marginally less than other forms of government, but i believe that it would come through for us on this.

Yesterday’s off-year elections were marked, overall, by a strong victory of the Republican Party overall and a defeat of incumbents and/or the Democratic Party. Notably, the two gubernatorial races were won rather easily by the Republicans, both of them had elected Democratic Governors in 2005.

New Jersey

In New Jersey, Republican attorney Chris Christie defeated incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine by a surprisingly wide margin, around 49% to 44.5% or so. Here are the results with almost all precincts reporting (99.6%, data from the New York Times):

Chris Christie (R) 48.7% (+5.7%)
Jon Corzine (D) 44.6% (-8.9%)
Chris Daggett (I) 5.8%
9 other candidates 0.9%

The key to the Republican victory in New Jersey was a landslide win for Christie in traditionally Republican uber-affluent counties in the northwest of New Jersey, as well as the mildly affluent coastal counties of Monmouth and Ocean. Christie broke 60% in all but one of these, Somerset, where only Daggett’s 9% kept him under 60%. In addition, he benefited from Corzine’s underwhelming performance in the Democratic strongholds of Hudson, Essex and Union. What is somewhat surprising is that Christie won this race without Bergen County, the only 40%-Corzine county. While at the same time he won Middlesex County. An odd coalition.

Corzine’s county wins were fairly predictable: easy wins in Hudson and Essex (Jersey City and Newark, both with large minority populations), Passaic (Latino area and Paterson, a rather poor area), Mercer (Trenton), Camden (Camden), and Cumberland (a significant black population, poor). Bergen County was his narrowest win, probably due to Daggett’s extremely poor performance here. Bergen is usually a bellwether.

Also noteworthy is that Daggett underperformed by a lot compared to polls, the lowest of which placed them him at 8%, he won 5.5%. This is mostly the result that his poll support was probably quite soft, and a number of his centre-right supporters voted for Christie to prevent a Corzine win. And also vice-versa. His support was highest in affluent Republican areas, and most of his worst counties were won by Corzine. So go figure.

Before anybody makes a dumb comment that this was a vote on Obama, exit polls give him a 57% approval in the state and 60% didn’t vote based on him.

In the State Assembly, not much Republican gains – indicating that Christie’s victory was based on local factors and personal factors (the unpopularity of the incumbent). The Republicans gained one seat in District 4, which would make the composition of the new legislature as follows: 47 Democrats and 31 Republicans.

Virginia

In Virginia, Republican Attorney General Bob McDonnell defeated Democratic State Senator Creigh Deeds in a landslide, with a larger margin than predicted by polls (which was already huge). Bob McDonnell replaces term-limited Democratic Governor Tim Kaine. Here are the quasi-final results (99% reporting):

Bob McDonnell (R) 58.7% (+12.7%)
Creigh Deeds (D) 41.3% (-10.4%)

The key to McDonnell’s stunningly wide landslide victory was, in addition to huge margins in traditionally Republican white rural Virginia, a strong performance in exurbs and suburbs which abandoned McCain in 2008. He won Fairfax County, Virginia’s most populated county in NoVA, an affluent-but-liberal county in which Obama broke 60%. This is probably the result of a smart campaign by McDonnell, which abandoned social issues (unsuccessfully brought up by Deeds in the summer) and focused on bread-and-butter issues, which proved successful with suburban voters who swung to Obama in 2008.

Deeds was hurt by the fact that he himself was a poor candidate who ran a lousy campaign, but also hurt by low black and traditional Democratic turnout. New Democratic voters (mostly black, but also young liberals) who enthusiastically voted for Obama last year were far from enthusiastic about pushing the lever for Deeds in 2009. I think the low black turnout is seen in Sussex County, 62% black but won narrowly by McDonnell (who didn’t do extremely well with black voters, atleast for the typical Republican). Deeds’ only wins were in liberal NoVA (Alexandria, Arlington and Falls Church), college towns (Charlottesville and so on), black areas (Richmond, Petersburg and so on) and finally the dark red counties out there in the Shenandoah Valley (Bath and Alleghany Counties), which is where Deeds is from and is part of his Senate district. Amusingly, he outperformed Obama and Kaine by far here. However, he only narrowly won his own Senate district.

Unlike in New Jersey, the Republican landslide affected downballot races as well: the Republicans easily held the Lt. Governor and Attorney General seat which they held, and had a net gain of 4 in the House of Delegates, which gives them about 57 seats by my count (out of 100, plus 2 Independents caucusing with Republicans). Most Republican gains (6 in total) came in affluent suburban areas, but also in southwestern Virginia-Appalachia, an old coal mining area with an old Democratic vote (Obama did poorly here). The Democrats gained two seats in the House of Delegates.

New York City

For a race which was not supposed to provide much suspense, it did provide a lot. While incumbent Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Ind-R), who had removed term limits to give him the right to a third term, still won against Bill Thompson (D), it was a narrow win. Here are the results:

Michael Bloomberg (R) 50.6% (-7.8%)
Bill Thompson (D) 46% (+7.0%)
Stephen Christopher (C) 1.7% (+0.6%)
5 others 1.7%

A map of results by Assembly District or even by voting district is provided by the New York Times. It’s a great mine of information.

Bloomberg won narrowly, despite facing a little-known incumbent who received little support from the Democratic Party and the fact that Bloomberg spent a fortune in this election. Voters were clearly peeved at him removing term limits, finding him arrogant. In addition, he was hurt by the resurgence of the Latino-Black Democratic coalition in a majority-minority city. He had won a landslide in 2005 due to a lot of black support, black voters not liking the then-Democratic nominee, Ferrer (a Latino). Now, with Thompson, black himself, as candidate, they massively swung to the Democrats while Latino kept voting Democratic though most areas which swung to Bloomberg are predominantly Latino areas. Bloomberg won white Catholics (Italians and the like), other white ethnicities (Russian), affluent whites, Jews and generally dominated Asian voters.

The Borough Presidents of all 5 boroughs were re-elected. All are Democrats except for Staten Island. The Democrats also won Public Advocate and Comptroller with 76-77% of the vote against Republican and third party opponents. In the City Council, which was composed of 47 Democrats, 3 Republicans and 1 Working Families (a third party aligned with Democrats) in 2005, the Republicans gained two seats in Queens (Flushing Bay, College Point, Bayside area) from retiring Democrats. The Working Families incumbent in a safe Democratic district was re-elected after also winning the Democratic ballot line.

New York’s 23rd CD

In a surprise, it was the Democrat Bill Owens who won the special election in New York’s 23rd CD, defeating Conservative Doug Hoffman who was supposed to be the runaway favourite after the withdrawal on October 31 of the Republican nominee, the liberal Dede Scozzafava. However, Owens defeated Hoffman by a narrow margin. Here are the results, with a few precincts in various counties outstanding. I am not using the AP’s count, which apparently has issues.

Bill Owens (D) 48.76%
Doug Hoffman (C) 46.11%
Dede Scozzafava (R) 5.13%

There remains a few technical issues in the count which will probably reduce the margin a bit but they don’t really put Owens’ election in danger unless there’s something major going on (which there probably isn’t).

This is a significant consolation for Democrats after losing NJ and VA, especially since this win highlights divisions in the Republican Party between hard-line conservatives and moderates-to-liberals like Dede. In addition, this reduces the NY Republican Party’s caucus in Congress from a grand three seats (out of 29) to a staggering two seats. Also, parts of this district (the northernmost parts along the Canadian border) haven’t been represented in the House by a Democrat since the Reconstruction (or, in some cases, the Civil War) so it’s a little symbolism the Democrats will undoubtedly enjoy.

California’s 10th CD

The Democratic Lt. Governor of California, John Garamendi won a seat in the House representing the Bay area seat of CA-10. He defeated Republican opponent David Harmer and third party opponents in a general election after having won an open primary (as did Harmer) in September. Although affluent, it’s a liberal area and Obama won 65% of the vote here as did its former incumbent, Ellen Tauscher in 2008. Here are the results:

John Garamendi (D) 52.98%
David Harmer (R) 42.69%
Jeremy Cloward (G) 1.85%
Mary McIlroy (PFP) 1.34%
Jerome Denham (AIP) 1.15%

Republicans will like the gains they made here in the general election. With a campaign focused on fiscal issues in an affluent economically right-wing district, as well as an unpopular Democratic candidate, the Republicans were able to reduce the Democratic margin here from 34% in 2008 to just 10%.

Maine’s Question 1

Supporters of gay marriage were handed another major setback when Maine voters overturned a law allowing gay couples to marry. Here are the results:

Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?
Yes 52.81%
No 47.19%

Despite having much more money on hand and having a larger army of volunteers, opponents of the repeal were unsuccessful since the demographics played against them, or they relied on too small of a voter base. The opponents of gay marriage won in rural Maine, most of which is usually Republican, but it’s best county was Aroostook County, a ‘populist’ Catholic-French Canadian county which is traditionally Democratic, but certainly not due to its liberalism. The Yes vote broke 65% in almost all communities of Aroostook. It also won easily in Somerset and Piscataquis Counties, which are empty rural areas. Anyway, all of the aforementioned places voted in favour of repealing an anti-discrimination gay rights measure in 2005 (which narrowly failed state-wide). It is notable, however, that the measure passed easily in the old industrial (textile mills) town of Lewiston (Androscoggin County) and even broke 60% there. This is an old Democratic area, but one which voted against the anti-discrimination repeal in 2005. The No side needed to appeal to the Democratic working-class to win. It only won in yuppie or affluent areas along the coast of Maine, areas like Portland (over 70% against), Cape Elizabeth, Brunswick, Oguinquit and Bar Harbor. These are all areas which you’d expect to vote like they did. The No side probably relied too much on these places to  put them over the top in the end.

Also on the ballot, Maine voters voted 58.7% in favour of expanding medical marijuana laws.

Other Elections

In Washington state, a referendum asking voters to approve or reject an extended gay domestic partnership measure appears to be narrowly passing, though not all the results are in yet. ‘Approve’ seems to have received 51%.

In mayoral elections across the US, there were a few interesting result. In Houston, a lesbian city controller, Annise Parker (D) came out on top of a divided field and will face black Democrat Gene Locke. If Parker wins, she’d be the first lesbian mayor of Houston and Locke would be the first black mayor. In Atlanta, there will be a runoff between Mary Norwood and Kasim Reed. In Pittsburgh, the young Democratic incumbent Luke Ravenstahl easily won against two Independents. In most major New York cities (Albany, Buffalo, Rochester), the Democrat easily won. In Charlotte, NC, the Democrats picked up the city from a retiring Republican incumbent but the Republicans picked up Greensboro, NC from the Democrats. Finally, in Seattle, the environmentalist Mike McGinn seems to be ahead of former businessman Joe Mallahan by a narrow margin. In Boston, Democrat Tom Menino has won another term in an office he’s held since 1993.

Overall, it was a good night for Republicans, but I would be careful before getting any major trends out of a low-turnout off-year election which was often fought on local and personal issues rather than on national issues, such as approving or not of Barack Obama.

Uruguay voted in a general election for its President, its 99-seat Chamber of Deputies and 31-seat Senate. In addition, two referendums were held, including one on revoking the amnesty law prohibiting all criminal inquiries into crimes perpetrated under the military dictatorship (1973-1985).

Uruguay has been dominated by two parties since independence: the conservative National Party (PN), commonly known as the whites (blancos) and the liberal Colorado Party (PC), also known as the reds. In that way, Tabaré Vázquez’s election as President of Uruguay in 2004 was a truly historical feat: he was the first President, save for (right-wing) military generals, not from either the PN or PC. Vázquez was the candidate of the much younger left-wing Broad Front (FA), a coalition of the left going from the centre-left/Christian left to the hard-left and the Communist Party. Tabaré Vázquez, who cannot run for a second consecutive term, was often classified as one of the ‘moderate’ left-wing Latin American leaders. He led a successful anti-poverty agenda, and Uruguay’s economic outlook is less bleak than most countries in the region and the world. Despite factions of his party favouring a liberalization of the country’s strict abortion laws, he vetoed attempts to liberalize abortion in Uruguay.

The candidate of the Broad Front is Senator José Mujica, a former rebel on the left of the coalition with an anti-consumerist and humanist philosophical message. He defeated Danilo Astori, the centrist ex-Economy Minister, though Astori is Mujica’s running mate.

Former President Luis Alberto Lacalle (1990-1995), who led a neoliberal economic policy, was nominated as the White (PN) candidate. Jorge Larrañaga, defeated by Vázquez is Lacalle’s running mate. Lacalle, despite executive experience, is tainted by corruption scandals.

Pedro Bordaberry, the son of former dictator-President Juan M. Bordaberry was nominated as the PC’s candidate. He chose former soccer player and coach Hugo de León as his running mate. There were two minor candidates: Pablo Mieres of the christian socialist Independent Party and Raúl Rodríguez of the far-left Popular Assembly.

Uruguay counts white and invalid votes in the final tally. The final results are:

José Mujica (FA) 48.16%
Luis Alberto Lacalle (PN) 28.94%
Pedro Bordaberry (PC) 16.90%
Pablo Mieres (PI) 2.47%
Raúl Rodríguez (AP) 0.67%
white and null votes 2.18%

Unlike in 2004, a runoff will be held opposing Mujica and Lacalle. This is due in large part due to the Colorado’s good showing, and it is likely Bordaberry will back Lacalle over Mujica, although polls say Mujica would defeat Lacalle in a runoff and most other indicators say Mujica, helped by Vázquez’s popularity more than anything, should win and the anti-leftist coalition between whites and reds which defeated Vázquez in 1999.

In the Chamber of Deputies, the FA keeps its overall majority:

FA 50 (-2)
PN 30 (-6)
PC 17 (+7)
PI 2 (+1)

In the Senate, the FA also keeps its overall majority, barely. There are only 30 seats allocated as of now, as the Vice President sits in the Senate.

FA 16 (-1)
PN 9 (-2)
PC 5 (+2)
PI 2 (+1)

The referendum on repealing the amnesty law failed, barely, with 47.36% in favour. A referendum giving a postal vote to Uruguayans abroad failed by a much larger margin, with only 36.93% in favour.

[See "Secession, Rebellion, Referendums and Sovereignty"

in the article "Sovereignty & The Future of Nobility and Royalty" and

"27. Inviolability of the Constitution"

in "Sources of Corruption in Government:

The Need for Checks and Balances"]

Article LV

(1) The right to propose a Constitutional amendment shall be exercised only by a majority agreement of both houses of the Parliament.

(2) Article IV, Section (1), Article XVII, Section (1) and Article XXXV, Section (1) are immune from amendment and cannot be altered.

Article LVI

(1) Bills on the proposal of a Constitutional amendment must be approved by a majority of the members of each Chamber. If there is no agreement between the Chambers, an effort to reach it shall be made by setting up a Joint Commission of Deputies and Lords which shall submit a text to be voted on by the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

(2) If the proposal is adopted, it shall be given to each State to consider. Three/fourths of the State Parliaments must approve the proposed amendment by a three/fourths majority vote in order for the amendment to become part of the Constitution, except as challenged as specified in below in Article LV, Section (3).

(3) Once the amendment has been passed by the National Parliament and three/fourths of the State Parliaments, it shall be submitted to a referendum for its full and complete ratification, if so requested by one/third of the members of either Chamber within fifteen days after its passage.

Article LVII

A Constitutional amendment may not be initiated in time of war or while the country is in a state of emergency.

Article LVIII

(1) Political decisions of special importance may be submitted for a consultative referendum of all the citizens of the nation.

(2) No national referendum will change any law, regulation, rule or treaty except in as specified in the Article LV, Section (3). Referendums on the national level are mainly for information purposes only.

(3) The referendum shall be convened by the reigning Monarch at the proposal of a simple majority vote of either Chamber of Parliament.

Article LIX

No State or Community has the right or entitlement to secede. If secession is desired in any part of the land, it must go through the same process as an amendment to be approved.

Article LX

(1) The above contitutes the supreme law of the land. To violate, stray or ignore any of its provisions, or knowingly attempt to do so, shall be considered in law an act of treason, which shall be punished by permanent deportation or the forfeiture of one’s life.

(2) As long as the national government is faithfully attempting to follow this Constitution, any act of rebellion and sedition, or attempting such, must be considered as serious crimes against the nation, and should be dealt with severely as acts of treason.

(3) It is incumbent on all good citizens to report suspicious activities to the authorities for investigation. Such reporting can be done anonymously and are considered rightful acts for which recognition is due and appropriate especially if found to be accurate and factual.

Ireland held a “you gave the wrong answer” re-vote referendum on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty yesterday after the previous referendum in 2008 had failed, much to the glee of Eurosceptics across the EU. Ireland’s constitution requires popular ratification of treaties of this type, and it did so for past European treaties such as Amsterdam and Nice (again, for Nice, the first failed but the second passed).

Ireland is now seriously hurt by the economic crisis, and its government is extremely unpopular. However, it did manage to obtain special advantages for Ireland in the new treaty, in regards to Ireland’s neutrality and its abortion laws. The YES, supported by most major parties, was expected to win easily and enjoyed a consistent lead in polls. And it did win, by a very large margin which surprised me.

Yes 67.13% (+20.5%)
No 32.87% (-20.5%)
Turnout: 59% (53.13% in 2008)

Only two of Ireland’s 43 electoral constituencies opposed the treaty: the two Donegal constituencies. Donegal, an isolated area of Ulster, has a tradition of general opposition to Europe and the governing authority. The YES was strongest in the affluent suburbs south-east of Dublin, where it broke 80% in two constituencies. The YES’ weakest areas, outside of Donegal, were generally poorer working-class areas. It did win, however, in working-class Dublin South West, where the NO had won its largest victory in 2008 with 65.05%.

The next steps for the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland is Presidential assent, a vote on a statute bill in the Dáil and Seanad before receiving final Presidential assent. All of which should be done soon.

Now, only the Czech Republic lacks Presidential assent and Poland hasn’t yet deposited the instruments of ratification with the Italian government as required by Article 6, paragraph 1.

Sigh. We’ve only been chronicling Dullsville for a short 3 months here at The Dullsvillain, and in that time we’ve seen a thick, gray coat of paint applied to the two cornerstones of Perth dullness: daylight saving and, now, extended shopping hours.

The extended shopping hours “debate” is in one way closely analogous to the stateside argument about public health care. In America, there’s a fierce debate about whether the government should provide basic health care to its citizens.  In Perth, there’s a fierce debate about whether shops should be allowed to open past 5pm.  In the rest of the civilised world, they’re laughing at both of us.

There’s a few prominent villains who’ve emerged from this debacle.  First and foremost, of course, the spineless WA Labor party, who went to the last election touting extended shopping hours. No more. Nuts to all of the people who voted for them on that basis, they’ve conducted straw polls at supermarkets and discovered that there’s a real groundswell of self-interested, reactionary fucks in the Perth suburbs (per Eric Ripper):

We went out there, we spoke to people and we found small businesses almost universally opposed to it (extended trading hours), and we found only lukewarm support, at best 50 per cent among customers.

Of course, if they’d turned up to a few offices or factories, the results might have been different. But I don’t want to say too much about public support or opposition for the concept. As much as Labor and the interest groups are pushing the 2005 referendum defeat as a good basis for their opposition, anyone who knows anything about referendums knows they’re worth shit.  The Federal government has held 44 referendums and 36 have ended in “No” votes. That’s because people vote no – people who don’t give a shit, people who don’t trust politicians, undecided people, people pissed off they’ve been forced to vote, old people. Naysayers.

John Howard knew instinctively that referendums are a highly effective way to kill progress, and happily watched the chances for an Australian Republic burn.

The other big villain is Independent Grocers Association president John Cummings:

I don’t think Coles, Woolworths or the Chamber of Commerce and Industry will ever pack up and go home and interestingly with all of the surveys that they have done that supposedly shows that people want change, it’s strange that they’ve never actually called for a referendum.

The reason they’ve never called for another referendum is because they know it would be lost.

Yes, because the game is rigged, and you know it, Cummings.  Worse:

It’s good that a party has gone out and found out what its constituents wants…

The change to 9pm was a proposal the consumers didn’t need and that retailers didn’t want.

The consumers don’t need it and the retailers don’t want it, right?  On that logic, why does the government even bother to regulate and police shopping hours? If we deregulate we’ll save precious taxpayer dollars and, on Cummings’ logic, the shops still won’t open. Everyone wins.

Especially Cummings, who owns three IGAs. That’s right. The same bloke who is having public conniptions about the possibility of extended shopping hours and Coles and Woolworths’ duopoly status earns a mint by exploiting one of the best monopolist scams in WA by opening his IGAs into the night, long after his competitors are forced to close. Credibility FAIL. But really, he’s the perfect public face of the doggedly self-interested Independent Grocers Association, who actually profit from the pain of consumers. Say what you will about Monarchists, but at least they don’t have a profit motive behind their backward ideology.

John Cummings, you, sir, are a DullsVillain:

Fans of transparency in petitions and of political conflict, enjoy and weigh in!

The Gay Atheist explains

Driving Equality has released the full footage of the anti-gay signature fraud. Including a nice conversation with the man collecting the signatures where he explains his personal belief that being gay is not a choice and that gay couples deserve equal rights.

Your Thoughts?

Petit brouhaha en France. La Cour des comptes vient de faire quelques remarques qui ont suscité bien des commentaires, sur les sondages effectués pour la Présidence de la République.

La Cour des comptes a ainsi particulièrement souligné une convention tres succincte – elle tient sur une seule page ! – intervenue en juin 2007, entre l’Elysée et un cabinet d’études, pour un coût d’environ 1,5 million d’euros – dépassant donc le seuil au-delà duquel la passation d’un marché est obligatoire – et où les règles de mise en concurrence n’ont pas été appliquées. Au titre de ce contrat, 130 factures ont été réglées par l’Elysée en 2008, pour un montant de 392 288 euros, correspondant notamment à des enquêtes réalisées par l’institut OpinionWay et publiées par Le Figaro et LCI.

Puisqu’il s’agit de la Cour des comptes, on parle d’argent. C’est bien sûr le coût de ces études qui a été mis en lumière, ainsi que les procédures qui en ont entourés le paiement, mais on sait bien que l’essentiel n’est pas là. Ce sont les liens étroits entre l’UMP, certains médias et des instituts de sondage qui font froncer les sourcils.

Le 17 juillet, la société des rédacteurs du Figaro demande à la direction de mettre immédiatement un terme à ce type de “coproduction” avec OpinionWay, un compagnonnage un peu trop intime qui, à son avis, nuit gravement à la crédibilité des titres du groupe. Le Directeur des rédactions du groupe, Etienne Mougeotte, envoie immédiatement ses plumes sur les roses et jure que l’Élysée n’a rien financé des activité du Figaro. Normal.

Un démenti sans surprise à une « révélation » qui n’en est pas une non plus, puisque, lors des dernières présidentielles, Segolene Royal comme Francois Bayrou avaient déjà parlé dix fois plutôt qu’une de ces relations bien intimes… Mais un rapport de la Cour des comptes – présidée par Philippe Seguin, qui n’est pas un homme de gauche – c‘est bien gênant…

Alors on s’agite, de part et d’autre… Le Parti socialiste réclame la création d’une commission d’enquête parlementaire – une demande que Claude Guéant, secrétaire général de l’Elysée, rejette du revers de la main – tandis que Opinion Way se plaint que la Cour ne l’ait pas interrogée en cours de contrôle et s’étonne d’être la seule firme nommément citée parmi toutes les prestataires… Les feintes et les parades devraient durer quelque temps.

Normal aussi, mais est-ce ça l’important ? Est-ce qu’on ne pourrait pas profiter du tintamarre pour voir cette question des sondages par le bon bout de la lorgnette ? Il faut comprendre que les sondages sont et resteront un élément fondamental de la politique. Ce qui plus est, ils DOIVENT l’être. Il est bon dans une démocratie que l’État sache ce que pensent ses commettants. Il est bon qu’il en tienne compte. Il DOIT en tenir compte.

Il est inévitable, cependant, que la population soit influencée par cette perception d’elle–même que lui renvoient les sondages. En période électorale, en particulier, le comportement des électeurs peut être fortement biaisé par les sondages. Une influence incontournable à laquelle une population démocratique adulte peut résister, mais il semblerait néanmoins impérieux que cette influence soit impartiale et que les renseignents diffusés donnent au moins une image exacte de l’opinion populaire.

Est-ce que tous les sondages ayant une portée politique ne devraient donc pas être réalisés par un organisme public, en toute transparence et sous contrôle des citoyens et du pouvoir judiciaire ? On aurait ainsi une vision de l’opinion publique au-dessus de tout soupçon.

Cela sans préjudice, à celle que l’on pourrait obtenir de sondages privés, lesquels ne seraient en aucune façon interdits, mais sur lesquels on s’appuierait, au contraire, pour que leurs résultats viennent confirmer ou infirmer les sondages publics.

Le fera-t-on ? Il y a toute une fonction de connaissance et de diffusion de l’opinion publique qui ne demande qu’à se développer, car il n’y a rien de mal dans une démocratie à ce que l’on sache ce que tout le monde pense. Il y a une foule de référendums qui seraient bien utiles. Il faudrait se donner les moyens de les rendre moins coûteux et parfaitement crédibles.

Pierre JC Allard

Italy held three referendums and runoff elections for a number of provinces and municipalities on Sunday and Monday June 21 and 22, 2009.

The three-fold referendum seeked to change the majority bonus in Italian general elections from a coalition bonus to a bonus for the largest party. This part was Question 1 (Chamber) and 2 (Senate). Question 3 would prevent candidates from standing in multiple constituencies. Questions 1 and 2 would gradually transform Italy into a two-party (PD and PdL) system and weaken these parties’ respective coalition allies (IdV and Lega Nord). The PD supports this, Berlusconi privately supports it but didn’t campaign in favour since he didn’t want to piss off his Lega Nord (very picky) allies. The referendum required 50% turnout to pass.

Question 1

Yes 77.6%
No 22.4%

Question 2

Yes 77.7%
No 22.3%

Question 3

Yes 87%
No 13%

Turnout was only 23%, so the referendums were invalid.

There were 22 provincial runoffs, out of 62 provinces voting (the first round being held the same day as the Euros). Provinces have relatively few powers, much less powers than the regions do atleast. Most of these provinces (two, I think, were new) voted in 2004 – which was a peak in anti-Berlusconi sentiment – the left won 50 and the right won 9 (including 1 Lega Nord won independently of the Italian right). 2009 could only be a realignment and return to electoral normalcy.

Right 34
Left 28

In notable provincial results, the left held Torino by an impressive margin and narrowly lost Milan, Venice, and Lecce. The right’s narrow victory in Milan and Venice – two traditionally right-wing provinces – is good news for the left.

The left won very pleasing results in the local elections, they won 16 of the provincial capitals voting, the right won 14. In other cities, the left won 107, the right won 70. 12 cities were won by Independent lists (Lista Civica), 3 by the Lega Nord (independently of the right), and 3 by the centre (UDC). In the first round, the right had forced the left into runoffs in Florence and Bologna, in which the left ate the right’s candidates alive. The left also won Bari and Padova, other pleasing results for them.

There was an undeniable shift to the left in these runoffs, and this saves the PD from extinction, and some predicted that very poor elections would spell the end of the PD experiment.

Swiss voters dealt with two referendums yesterday, both of which were approved on minimal turnout (38%).

Vote 541 was a popular initiative for alternative (or complementary medicine): Zukunft mit Komplementärmedizin

Yes 67%
No 33%

Below is a map of the vote. It sure looks like Swiss Francophones love alternative medicine, ultra-conservatives in Schwyz  not so much.

Vote 542 was the approval of the introduction of biometric passports.

Yes 50.1%
No 49.9%

I tried hard to find something in this map ressembling a political pattern, but I haven’t found anything that explains the alternative medicine-lovers in Geneva and Jura voting the same way as the rural ultra-conservatives in Schwyz and Uri. The best I can give is that low turnout creates weird results.

A fourth referendum on adopting daylight savings time (DST) and a by-election in the state division of Fremantle were held today, May 16 in Western Australia.

DST Referendum

Today’s vote was the fourth vote on adopting DST after similar referendums in 1975, 1984 and 1992. In 1992, the proposal failed, with 53% voting against the adoption of DST. As the results stand now, the referendum has failed once again, with 55.49% against and 44.51% in favour. As in 1992, the West Australian outback voted overwhelmingly against, with the NO vote reaching 84% in the Agricultural electoral region and 67% in the Mining and Pastoral region. Unlike in 1992, however, Perth narrowly rejected the proposal, with 50.3% against (53% voted in favour in 1992).

Roughly 70% has been counted, but the YES count has remained relatively steady for quite some time, and it is extremely unlikely that there will be a massive YES push in the final votes.

The defeat of DST is probably the final nail in the coffin for DST.

Fremantle By-Election

The division of Fremantle, located south of Perth and centred around the important harbour city of Fremantle held a by-election today following the resignation of its sitting Labor MP, Jim McGinty, who was Attorney General until 2008, when Labor lost government to the Liberals and Nationals. In the 2008 election, McGinty defeated the Liberal candidate 62-38 on the two-candidate preferred count, although on first preferences, McGinty was ahead of the Liberal candidate 39-30, with the Greenies performing very well (27.6%).

Map of Fremantle

Historically, Fremantle has been a solidy Labor seat, the ALP having held it since 1924. The electorate was once a very important (although it remains important even today) industrial harbour, and was at the centre of many labour disputes. Hurt by corruption, local divisions, and an evolving socio-economic situtation, Labor’s first preference vote total plumetted to 43% from its usual 60% range in the 1989 election and the ALP has never again broken 50% on the first count.

The governing Liberals did not stand a candidate in this by-election, although Carmelo Zagami ran as a Liberal Independent. The main constestors were Peter Tagliaferri for Labour and Adele Carles, the Greenie who narrowly missed winning in 2008.

Adele Carles (Green) 44.3% (+16.7%)
Peter Tagliaferri (ALP) 38.6% (-0.1%)
Carmelo Zagami (IndLib) 5.3% (Liberal vote was 30.2% in 2008)
Nik Varga (Ind) 3.4%
Sam Wainwright (Socialist Alliance) 2.3%
Steve Boni (Ind) 1.7%
Andriette du Plessis (Family First) 0.9% (-0.8%)
Jan Ter Horst (Ind) 0.8%
Rosemary Ann Lorrimar (Ind) 0.8%
Rob Toten (LaRouchite) 0.3%

After distribution of preferences (called 2PP in Australia, or Two-Party Preferred). Zagami, Ter Horst, and Wainwright directed preferences to the Greenie, and the other candidates directed preferences to the ALP candidate and Mayor of Fremantle Peter Tagliaferri.

Adele Carles (Green) 54%
Peter Tagliaferri (ALP) 46%

It is amazing how awful Zagami polled. It seems as if most Liberals followed his instructions to preference Carles, but a whole lot  did so by giving her first preferences and not second preferences. This, compounded with historical Green strength in Fremantle gave the Greenies over 40% of the primary votes, a historical feat in Australia. This election is also a historic defeat for the ALP in Fremantle, after years of gradual decline.

I haven’t been living in California long enough to figure out the complicated referendum process that allows the state’s citizens to vote directly on propositions.

In November, Proposition 8 was in the headlines, as California residents overturned gay marriage. But most of the referendums facing California voters have to do with budgetary matters, not lifestyle issues.

My observation is that the referendum process, laudable though it appears to be, leads to some contradictory situations. Most people my age remember Howard Jarvis and Proposition 13, which dramatically cut property taxes in the Golden State, in 1978.

But after cutting property taxes, California’s idealistic residents have over the years approved a raft of propositions that require increased spending. I’ll name a few later, but you get the gist. Maybe SFMike at Civic Center will weigh in with a comment on California’s system of direct democracy.

From what I gather, several of the six propositions on the ballot for the May 19 special election are designed to help the Golden State avert budgetary disaster.

Well, if you’re using astrology as a guide, don’t count on it. Here’s why: The Saturn station of May 17, at 14 degrees of Virgo, is just two degrees away from the 16-degree Virgo Sun in the California incorporation chart.

Saturn close to the Sun suggests deprivation, hardship, and cutbacks for the state. A small earthquake or two is also possible, since the Saturn station broadly opposes Uranus. However, I don’t think this is the “big one.”

For good California earthquake stuff, please go to Out the Comet’s you-know-what. Comet lives in California and has done some amazing analysis on the history of the state’s major quakes.

(in alphabetical order)

for conference schedule and logistics, go here

The Beehive Collective: The Beehive Collective is an all volunteer non-profit graphics workshop who’s mission is to cross pollinate the grassroots by creating iconic imagery that can be used as popular education and organizing tools. They create graphic narrative murals that tell stories of neo-colonisation, corporate globalisation and grassroots resistance using metaphors illustrated in pen and ink. www.beehivecollective.org

Sergio Campusano, leader of the Diaguita Descent Community Los Huasco Altinos in Chile.

Since he assumed the role of president, Sergio has been fighting against the greed of the mining corporations and the local agriculture companies in order to maintain the rights of his People. He has participated pressing charges in countless times even against the Chilean State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. He’s conscious they’re fighting not only to represent the living, but the ancestral thought of preservation of the ecosystem for the entire world, for the children of us all. In this clear idea is impregnated the principles of AUTO-DESTINY, AUTONOMY, and the right of the indigenous peoples of AUTODETERMINATION.

Ulises García is a human right activist from Perú.  He became a community leader in Tambogrande Peru and known for his work throughout Peru and in a number of countries in Latin America after the assassination of his father Godofredo Garcia Baca in march 2001.

Ulises’ father was the leader of the main opposition to a Canadian mega-“development” mining project, owned by the Canadian mining company Manhattan Minerals , and was a beloved leader of the community of Tambogrande.

Since the assassination, Ulises Garcia continued to lead and support the struggle of his community of Tambogrande, as well as other communities in Latin America , for the right to self determination and the right to maintain their sustainable agriculture lifestyles.

Tambogrande remains a symbolic case as it was the first community to hold its own referendum and successfully expel a powerful global mining company.  Ulises has traveled and continues to work with Indigenous communities throughout Latin America to promote referendums in mining conflict areas.

Ulises currently resides in Canada with his family and remains active in raising awareness about the issues related to the environmental and development harms and human rights violations caused by mining projects.  He is the founder of a grassroots organization called Tropico Seco, which focuses on the promotion of peaceful resistance and the holding of community and municipal referendums in Latin America concerning development initiatives.  Tropico Seco also supports community controlled development projects such as tree planting projects.

Leah Henderson brings campaign, organizing, and non hierarchal leadership training experience gained over three years as the lead organizer on ForestEthics’ successful Ontario Boreal campaign. Leah was also co-founder of EDAN, Alberta’s grassroots independent earth justice network, and one of the first to focus on Tar Sands. Leah has worked with community activists in Six Nations, Grassy Narrows, and Ardoch First Nations.

Cleve Higgins got involved in the opposition to Canadian mining companies a couple years ago through the Montreal section of the Mexican Frente Amplio Opositor (FAO). He is now working with the McGill research group for the Investigation of Canadian mining in Latin America (MICLA) to finish his undergradate thesis on institutional invesment in Canadian gold mining companies. On May 10th he’ll be staking a mining claim on Mount Royal, and then heading to southern Mexico to make connections with the growing opposition to Canadian mining in that part of the continent.

Alex Hundert is co-founder of Aw@l, one of Ontario’s most active and growing grassroots independent activist groups. Alex has been a pillar in leading a solidarity campaign to support Ardoch, Six Nations and Grassy Narrows in Ontario. Alex recently helped found The Kitchner-Waterloo Center for Social Justice– a community convergence space for activism and street involved youth.

Tsering Lama is the National Director of Students for a Free Tibet (SFT) Canada, a grassroots non-profit advocacy group of students and young people comprising of 40 chapters in schools and universities, and 4000 members across Canada.  Through advocacy work, education and high-profile non-violent direct action, SFT Canada campaigns for the Tibetan people’s fundamental rights for freedom and independence from Chinese rule.  One of SFT Canada’s key campaigns is targeting Canadian mining companies that have lead the recent foreign gold rush into Tibet.

Marjolaine Lapointe is a mother of two, auntie to many, and a teacher with Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB. She enjoys beadwork, singing, and her passion is Indigenous Language and Culture revitalisation.

Mireille Lapointe is the Co-chief of the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation. She has been a teacher for 32 years,and Has been involved in anti-nuclear issues forever and with Robertsville for the last 2 years. Rights and fairness for Indigenous peoples is her life and passion.

Allan Lissner is an independent documentary photographer, journalist, painter, and graphic designer based in Toronto, Canada. Born in Denmark to a Danish father and a Philippine-Canadian mother, Allan was raised in Ethiopia, Liberia, USA, Nepal, Lithuania, Denmark, Jordan, Bangladesh, and Canada. Some of the organizations Allan has done work with include Amnesty International, GlobalAware Independent Media, Oxfam Canada, Make Poverty History, Norwegian Church Aid Tanzania, the Sierra Club, the United Nations Development Program, and the United Nations Women’s Association in Bangladesh. His photo project, “Someone Else’s Treasure”, is an ongoing multimedia documentary project which brings to light some of the experiences of people around the world – including the Philippines, Tanzania, Papua New Guinea, Australia, Chile, and Canada – whose lives have been impacted by the global mining industry.

Tundu Lissu is a Tanzanian lawyer and activist, campaigning on behalf of the human rights and socio-economic interests of rural communities. Between 1999 and 2002 he was a Research Fellow at the Washington DC-based World Resources Institute (WRI) where he researched environmental policy and the politics of natural resource management and their impacts on rural rights and livelihoods.

He is well known in Tanzania for his political activism. He was at the forefront of the struggle to protect coastal communities against industrial shrimp farming in the Rufiji Delta in 1997-98. Since 1999 he has been at the forefront of the struggle by communities affected by large-scale industrial mining in Tanzania. He has written, exposed and campaigned widely against the rights abuses of the large-scale mining sector and economic exploitation and social dislocation caused by it. He has personally defended hundreds of villagers and community leaders persecuted for their opposition to the way foreign mining companies operate.

Bob Lovelace, representative of the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation

Bob Lovelace was born into a line of Tslagi Indians through his great grandparents Mungle, grandfather, and mother, a heritage he honours. Bob attended cultural school as a child, joined AIM for several years while at University, and in Fall 1979 joined AAFN’s Honourary Chief Harold Perry to research, negotiate, and then launch an uncompromising legal defence of the wild rice stands near Ardoch Algonquin land. He has stood strong with many allies and friends in this “Rice War.” For nearly 25 years Bob has remained a steadfast and determined representative for the Algonquin communities of Ardoch, Sharbot Lake and many others, seeking to invigorate a sense of dignity and freedom in all Algonquin Peoples . . . Bob is a teacher to those wishing to learn more about tradition and ceremony. He is in addition an eloquent spokesman for Native rights, utilizing both English and Algonquin languages.

Lovelace is most well-known outside the Ardoch Algonquin community for his stand against uranium mining, for which he incarcerated in 2008 with no objection from the Province of Ontario at the time.

Mama D [Cree/Métis /Jewish] [Needah Marie Maskwa-Fortune], is also the artist previously known as Donna Marchand. She is a Horizon Dancer, lawyer, educator and lover of cats. She has been involved for the last 12 years in the battle for complete transparency in human production and searching for life in the age of genetic engineering. Confusing? Of course.

Bodia Macharia an active member of the GSU Social Justice Commitee. She was born in the Democratic Republic of Congo where she spent most of her early life. She is PhD candidate at the University of Toronto. Her research interests include examining various aspects of subjectivity in contemporary francophone literature of black diaspora. She has authored articles and presented communications on Congolese women, gendered resistance, identity politics, myths and symbols, as well as narratologic analysis in postcolonial narratives. She wrote “Political Economy of the Assassination of Patrice Emery Lumumba: The Implication of Belgium, the CIA and the US” as the capstone thesis to earn her Bachelor degree from the Applied Political economy track of International Studies at the University of Arizona.

Mike Mercredi was Born in Fort McMurray, AB and raisied in Fort Chipweyan AB. He spent his youth on the land hunting, fishing and trapping in the Summer and certain weeks in Winter.
He was previously employed by Syncrude before he quit and got in campaigns against the Tar Sands.
Mike now works for the Athabasca Chipewyan FN (ACFN) in their IRC department as a GIS techinical specialist, was a Traditional Environment Knowledge (TEK) and Traditional Land Use Occupations (TLUO) facilitator. He will speak on the frontline struggles in Fort Chipewyan including a plague of tar sands related cancer.

Christian Pena was born in Concepcion Chile before emigrating to Toronto with his family after the coup of 1973. He teamed up with creative partner and actress Michelle Morgan  and began the “Pascua Lama Project”(tentative title) and spent the better part of a year living in the affected communities by this project while traveling throughout the country.“Combing photography and filmmaking for me has always been a tool to explore and understand the human condition and learn about my own history. Each of my projects to date have combined this approach and in each I become more an active participant in the story I tell”

Cecilia Rosalia Paiva, born of the Quechua Nation, is an independent
poet, writer and journalist. Active in positions reflecting her
concern for social justice especially for indigenous people, she lives
in Toronto and is active in the Venezuela-Canada Coalition and a
member of the Pachamama Association.

Arthur Petahtegoose, Former Chief of the Atikameksheng Anishnawbek or the Whitefish Lake First Nation located near Sudbury, site of the biggest mines in Canada.Under his leadership, the Nation recently launched a $550 billion lawsuit against the Canadian federal government and the Ontario government, on the basis that the area of the Sudbury mines belongs to the Nation, as does the revenue generated by their operations for the last century. The Nation is also suing the two governments for health and environmental damage.

Justin Podur is a writer and editor for ZNet (www.zmag.org), part of Z Communications, an alternative media organization dedicated to political analysis and support for movements for social change. He has reported from Haiti, Venezuela, Colombia, Argentina, Brazil, Israel/Palestine, and Mexico. He has also written on South Asia and North America. He has written for Z Magazine, Frontline (India), New Politics, New Left Review, rabble.ca, and other publications and is part of the Pueblos en Camino collective (www.en-camino.org). He runs a blog (www.killingtrain.com). He is based in Toronto.

Judy Rebick is the CAW-Sam Gindin Chair in Social Justice and Democracy at Ryerson University in Toronto. Judy was the founding publisher of rabble.ca, Canada’s most popular progressive online publication. She is the author of several books, the most recent of which is Ten Thousand Roses: The Making of a Feminist Revolution. For most the 1990s, Judy was the host of a national TV show on CBC Newsworld. Previously, she was president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, Canada’s largest women’s group.

Lorraine Rekmans was born in Elliot Lake, Ontario. She is of Ojibwa-French descent and is a member of the Serpent River First Nation. Lorraine has a background in journalism. She published an Aboriginal newspaper in Northern Ontario, and has also worked as a reporter at the Elliot Lake Standard. As the former Executive Director of the National Aboriginal Forestry Association (NAFA), Lorraine worked on national and international forest policy. Lorraine assisted in writing a number of international declarations dealing with both uranium and forestry, and attended the World Uranium Hearing at Salzburg, Austria, as a witness to the effects of uranium mining on the environment. She also co-chaired a dialogue between non-governmental organizations, indigenous peoples and nation states at the United Nations Forum on Forests.

Tanya Roberts-Davis is currently working on a publication profiling women’s experiences from communities impacted by– and resisting–mining projects, based in India with the “International Women and Mining Network”. She has worked on campaigns against oil, gas, mining and dam developments while based in Chiang Mai, Thailand, and supported a campaign to expose the ecological and social devastation caused by the Canadian company, Uranium One, in South Africa. When at home in Toronto, she is involved in collectives organizing with im/migrant, worker, and First Nations communities, and has been active in campaigns against Canadian mining companies.

Malcolm Rogge is a filmmaker and writer based in Toronto. His debut feature documentary film, Under Rich Earth, had its world premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival. After four years studying theatre, philosophy and literature in Winnipeg, Malcolm completed a Masters in Environmental Studies at York University and a Bachelor of Laws from Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. He melds his passion for art and politics using diverse approaches in film and video. His experimental, short fiction and non-fiction films and videos have been exhibited in festivals and galleries across Canada. Rogge has also worked for human rights and environmental organizations in Canada and Ecuador, and he is on the editorial board of a national magazine devoted to politics and social justice.

Grahame Russell is a non-practising lawyer and global human rights and development activist.  Education:  University of Guelph [BA in Latin America & Development studies]; University of Ottawa [LLB, Faculty of Law].  For over 10 years, Grahame lived in Mexico and Central America, working with grassroots organizations and NGOs on environment, development and human rights issues.  Since 1995, Grahame is co-director of Rights Action (www.rightsaction.org, info@rightsaction.org) that raises funds for community-controlled development, environment and human rights projects in Guatemala, Honduras, Chiapas, El Salvador and Oaxaca; and that carries out education and activism work in the USA and Canada related to global human rights, enviro- and development issues.

Dr. Stephen Scharper is Assistant Professor, Centre for the Study of
Religion, University of Toronto. His field is eco-theology and
liberation theology. He is the author of numerous book on these
subjects. He writes a column on religion and the environment for the
Toronto Star. He has written on First Nations resistance to mining and
respect for Mother Earth.

Sakura Saunders is an editor for protestbarrick.net, a news site that networks organizations and community groups organized against Barrick Gold around the world. Formerly staff at CorpWatch.org and a freelance journalist, her radio work has aired on Sprouts Radio, CorpWatch Radio and Democracy Now, while her written work has been published regularly in CorpWatch, The Dominion, and Fault Lines as well as other publications.

Steven Schnoor is in the latter phases of a PhD in Communication & Culture at York/Ryerson Universities, and teaches in the Communication Studies department at Concordia.  For several years, he has been working on the issue of Canadian mining companies operating in Central America — an interest that began in January 2005, when, while working in Guatemala with a Canadian environmental NGO, Steven was mistaken for a rep of a Canadian mining company and found his life in danger because of it.  He began to explore why people were so angry, and has since been working with video to explore and expose the dilemmas that a number of Central American communities are facing when confronted with a Canadian metal mine in their backyards.  Film work includes “Desalojo (Eviction)” and “All That Glitters Isn’t Gold: A Story of Exploitation and Resistance.” Steven is presently working on a larger documentary looking at the broader implications of mining in the surrounding regions.

Jethro Tulin, CEO, Akali Tange, concerning the Porgera mine, Enga Province, Papua New Guinea.

Native to the rocky highlands of Papua New Guinea (PNG), Jethro Tulin is a popular organiser and founder of the Akali Tange Association (ATA), a human rights organization documenting abuses at the Porgera mine, owned by Toronto’s Barrick Gold.

Jethro has been organizing within and outside the Barrick’s Porgera mine since its inception (then owned by Placer Dome. In 1989, he registered Porgera’s first mine workers union and became its first secretary. Years later, after spending time abroad and involved in other aspects of Papua New Guinea’s nascent union movement, Jethro returned to Porgera to find the situation with the mine and the surrounding villages had worsened dramatically. So, in 2003, he founded the ATA, which has operated in Porgera with an all-volunteer staff and material support from friends, victims’ relatives, and even local businessmen and officials.

Salimah Valiani is a researcher in the areas of world historical political economy, and international development. She has worked as a policy analyst and advocate in non-governmental organizations in Canada and South Africa, as well as in the Canadian trade union movement. Her publications include academic articles, institutional papers, and poetry collections – reflecting her work and other experiences in North America, Asia, Africa and Europe.

While serving as ‘Researcher and Educator’ in the Global Economic Justice Program of KAIROS – Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives, she collaborated with partner organizations in Indonesia, India and the Philippines, advocating in the areas of mining and human rights, international trade and investment, and women workers’ rights.

Her work at the Alternative Information and Education Centre in Cape Town involved research and advocacy training on the topics of mining and monopoly in the South African economy, the unemployment crisis in South Africa and people-oriented development policy alternatives.

She is currently completing a PhD in Sociology (Carleton University) on the global integration of nursing labour markets.

Cory Wanless is an articling student at Klippensteins Barristers & Solicitors – a small social justice law firm that uses the law to fight for corporate accountability, fairer treatment of aboriginal people, and the protection of the environment.  Currently, Klippensteins represents three Ecuadorians in a lawsuit against Copper Mesa Mining Corporation (and some of its directors) because of alleged human rights abuse committed in connection with a proposed open pit mining project in the could forests of the Ecuadorian Andes and against the Toronto Stock Exchange for providing access to the capital that enabled this abuse.

Cory strongly believes that people (including legal persons) should exist in a way that is respectful of other people and the environment.  He is sad that this is not happening of its own accord.
More information about the case can be found at www.ramirezversuscoppermesa.com.