I am Saleh Waziruddin.
The ban on “signs, props, placards and flags OF l ANY KIND” in rule change #4 is something even you all didn't want. It started as a very narrow request for banning signs that target specific staff or harass. Most of you were against a total sign ban. How do I know this? Not because I'm a psychic or mind reader, because I was there when you said it! I was at the April Procedural By-Law Review Committee meeting, one of the many committee meetings that are not streamed.
One of you said that all signs should be banned and to his credit one of you, Councillor Rob Foster, said he could not support that and the rest agreed. The direction to staff was not to look at banning all signs. So what changed where almost none of you wanted this but that's what a very narrow, specific request turned into where it covers ANY KIND of signs, props, placards, and flags?
To be clear about the danger, this is exactly the rule used at Queen's Park to ban keffiyas as a political sign, but closer to home right here in Niagara this kind of rule has been used to block supporters of Johnny Cronkwright from wearing their Justice for Johnny clothing just to watch court proceedings. Intention doesn't matter it's how these rules are actually used.
It's said these will distract from Councillor's focus, but even you are not that fragile. And what about all the props and symbols you Councillors wear? From a championship belt to sports clothing, to a t-shirt about defending trans kids which I support, how are these any less distracting? They are not.
The rule change also says we are allowed to have signs outside the Chambers – but that's a right we have anyway. This line is l in there to make it look like you are being reasonable and willing to compromise when you are expansively taking away our rights on the flimsiest basis.
Rule change 3 bans you from interacting with us during Council sessions, calling it “fraternization.” Anti-fraternization is from paramilitary organizations like police and fire where, because of life and death decisions, discipline is kept between officers and other ranks. But this is not a paramilitary organization, you are not our commanding officers.
The rule changes says this is to keep things neutral, we don't want you to be neutral! We want you to take sides, ours!
As for January 25th neutrality went out the window not because one Councillor was meeting with residents during a recess instead of with the backroom boys club. Neutrality went out the window even before the meeting when three Councillors publicly said Palestine support has no place on the agenda, though Ukraine did.
The Code of Conduct doesn't cover everything bad a Councillor might do. This Council makes political decisions including who here chairs what committees. Rule change 5 takes away the right of residents by saying we can only complain about Code of Conduct violations, we can't correspond with what's supposed to be our own elected Council about any other problem with Councillors. This makes Council unaccountable and less responsible for its political decisions when for example a Councillor chairing an Equity-seeking committee does something residents see as anti equity.
The Region has often gone outside the Municipal Act, not just for Ukraine, which I delegated at this Council against doing because it had no actual impact, but also for example calling the Canadian government to support local journalism. Should the Region not do that because it's not just streets and recycling?
No, Regional Council has always spoke up about things outside the Municipal Act and will continue to, and should. This is implied even in the new changes.
What the change does do though is make a two tier pretense of democracy, a two-tier system of motions. Because it requires having a seconder for motions outside the Municipal Act, but not for other motions. The problem on January 25th wasn't about a seconder but that the motion was removed from the agenda as not belonging, and then even any discussion on removing it from the agenda was killed with the “call to question.” The blatant hypocrisy of this is what caused the problem, not that the Palestine motion is outside jurisdiction when the new rules imply that's going to keep happening.
Councillors should be able to make whatever motion they want that doesn't violate the Municipal Act and then let that residents see where our elected officials stand. This change is expanding the hypocrisy of what happened on January 25, not reducing it.
In 2018 the Toronto Star asked if Niagara was Ontario's rotten borough. That's a historical term from England. Members of this Council might be familiar with it because I am told this Council is graced with Indigenous Englishmen, but residents might not know where it comes from. Rotten boroughs were election districts where it looked like there was democracy from the outside but things were setup so there wasn't any democracy. These rules are setting that rot in deeper. The rights of residents and even Councillors are being severely restricted so that participation is only for show.
Niagara Region Transit recently dropped the word “Region” from its name because the number one recommendation was that the word had a negative connotation because of Regional government. These changes tonight certainly aren't going to help with the bad name this Council has given the Region.
You are in such a rush to push through these changes that you've bypassed your own Procedural By-Law Review Committee, chaired by Councillor Haley Bateman, that was specifically setup to review changes like these.
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment