Archive for January, 2013

My understanding has always been that it was against the law, and in violation of the elections act, to deny someone employment or to fire someone or otherwise negatively influence their employment due to political affiliation or political positions.

That is the law.

The fact of the matter is that most people who are involved in politics can tell you that in one form or another everyone involved deals with this on a regular basis.

Companies regularly refuse to hire people because of their political connections, many of them routinely suffer work “slowdowns” because of their political connections and while much of it is behind closed doors and only understood to happen, Some of it is upfront and blatant.

Take for example the case of Daniel Bourgeois who was blocked from at least one job because he was a Councillor in Moncton and was denied a letter of recommendation because of his positions on another issue.

Let’s look at David Alward, he bluntly stated that they would not be hiring contractors who were critical his Conservative government, meaning that all those who were not Pro Alward conservatives would not be eligible for contracts.

Let’s look at the Shawn Graham Liberals who turfed a caucus member for daring to suggest that the public should have a say on a contentious policy.

Again at the Alward Conservatives who turfed a caucus member with extensive years in health care for daring to question the value of a dual health care system

And let’s not forget the Federal NDP who sanctions several caucus members who actually had the gall to actually support the wishes of their constituents by voting in favor of eliminating the federal long gun registry.

Yes it appears at all levels of government. It happens to those who lose their seats in an election, it happens to those at the municipal level who often have to work another job because the compensation is not sufficient on its own. It even happens to those who win elections when their party leader decides that he does not like what was said (or done)

I think it is time that the various Election agencies in Canada start to take a close look at this type of behavior and start to send an extremely strong message that this type of behavior will no longer be tolerated in this country.

A Hand Up Or A Hand Out

There are two sides to this discussion and the results of the discussion are something that I find fascinating.

On one side we have those who feel that it is vital that we give people the tools to get ahead in life.

On the other side we have those who feel it is vital that we make sure people have the necessities of life.

There are valid points to both arguments and there are fallacies in both arguments.

This is not a black and white, all or nothing issue.

We need to make sure people have the necessities of life, while at the same time we work to give them the tools to get ahead in life.

Doing either one without the other will almost always result in failure. The reason being that doing one without the other will almost always leave the job only half done.

We can teach a person all the tools we want to fend for themselves, but if we do not get them enough food, for the night, or a place to sleep, or the mental or financial help they need to sustain themselves until they can get working and making an income, then all the work we do teaching them is wasted.

On the other hand we can give a person all the food, clothes, housing, money and even health care we want, but unless we teach them how to find work (or even train them in a new field if necessary) then we will simply end up having to do this forever.

One of the major failures of all the programs that are out there to help people is that the vast majority of the programs focus only on one aspect of helping a person out. Each program needs to be doing or enabling both aspects of giving a person a hand as without both programs, neither program can work in a vacuum.