At 09:27 AM 2/8/97 -0500, Michel O'Neill wrote:
>
>I think that this posting recognizing Liz's facilitation skills is a very
>matter of fact and useful addition to the debates on the doubts about the
>internet. I does not solve any of the issues redebated by Craig Silva nad
>Sam Lafranco during the past week or so but shows it can make a difference.

Michel has pointed out an interesting division between the debates we have
had recently on Click4hp and asks:

>Let us all look and see if big bad bill of amalgamation will pass in
>Toronto, or if the virtual venue has significantly helped to create a
>momentum that will stop it.

I have just finished reading the report to the Board of Health here in
Toronto about what the health implications of Bill 103 (Amalgamation), Bill
104 (Changes to the Education System) and downloading will be on the
citizens of Toronto.

While the implications are many (and many remain unknown), the Medical
Officer of Health for the City of Toronto, David McKeown, is clear in his
summary statement:

"Provincial proposals to change significantly government funding
responsibilities for health, education and social services raise a number of
health concerns because of the importance of these services in providing the
basic determinants of health." Report to Board of Health, Feb 5th, 1997 page 13.

How we use the resources available to us to collect what we know about the
issues, to provide a venue for the citizens of the six municipalities of
Metro Toronto to discuss the issues, and to use the qualities of the online
venue to highlight inconsistencies and bring transparency to the debate is
what I have been concentrating on.

At issue is the content of the legislation, but what has people really
getting active is the process by which it is happening. The legislation
introduced removes public accountability. At the same time there are
literally millions of dollars going into marketing campaigns to sell the
changes to the electorate.

John Ralston Saul speaks of using irony to deepen parliamentary democracy.

Our efforts (those of my fellow citizens not just those of C4LD) here
include hundreds of weekly meetings in every neighbourhood, postering,
phonetrees, fax broadcasts and the online venues.

Mr. Valpy  pointed out:

>You've got to visualize newspapers, television, organizational
>newsletters, government information bureaus, utility-pole
>leaflets, telephone conference calls, research libraries and public
>meetings all rolled into one vehicle of communications.

There are diverse networks of people gathering daily, telling their stories,
sharing what they are learning online with those around them in their
communities, enriching their knowledge and ultimately exercising democratic
participation. There is support, knowledge, humour, creativity, irony,
humanness. Information flows  online and off and circulates freely in the
community.

I have consistently argued the online workspace is not an either/or
experience or decision. Rather it is transforming the way we work.


The web site we have created for the effort functions as a guidepost - a
place to go, a place to join, a place to point you at other resources. The
online discussions, unmoderated, serve as a place for people to learn, ask
questions, keep informed, and seek support for their efforts and debate each
other. Combining the web site resources with the online discussions and the
efforts happening in the literal venue has been an enriching and exciting
process. The weekly Monday night meetings of Citizens for Local Democracy
are the literal gathering place, three days a week the hearings on Bill 103
are the venue for public input, mainstream media generates one point of
view, the online venue is generating an alternative place for people get
information.

Sam wrote:
> In fact, the metaphysical element in the vision (and all "visions" have
> this element)  is that it is a territory in which the forces of democracy
> and accountability need to carry on the self-same fights that we carry out
> on a day to day basis in literal space.

And Craig replied:
>Do you ever get to relax or do "we" gloriously sacrifice
>ourselves on the altar of "democracy and accountability"

Perhaps "we" who are accustomed to legitimate public process as it relates
to public participation need to learn from our experience here in Toronto.
The Tory government's actions since the New Year have done more for waking
up civic values, spurning a tremendous outpouring of outrage and discontent.
This government has made a farce of public process and democratic values.

Yes this effort is happening on the net but it also happening on the street
corner and the church basement. I am learning a lot about democracy and
accountability and the added value the online venue brings to both these
pursuits.

Sam wrote:
>We see it as a battle ground for common struggle. To miss that point is to
>miss everything. To just have firmly held opinions is a luxury of those
>for whom the outcome doesn't really matter. That is part of the "If I'm
>okay, everything must be okay", or "Nothing can be done so nothing matters"
>crowd.

Apolitical complacency has been swept from the streets of Toronto these last
few weeks, being at the hub of the electronic efforts means I am also at the
hub of the effort on the ground and I might add on the phone.

How we work to achieve the determinants of health in our communities counts
on public participation based on democratic principles - I hope others here
will understand - this has nothing to do who has access to a computer or a
connection - it has to do with bonding a community in its effort to have a
say in profound change.

Regards,

Liz




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Liz Rykert <[log in to unmask]>
Restore Democracy in Toronto...
http://community.web.net/citizens/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~