Many of you will remember the Count Me Out Campaign protesting the outsourcing of the Canadian census software to the American arms maker Lockheed Martin.
Though many joined in the campaign it seems most, like me, were supportive right up to the point of threats of incarceration. Stelmach and Findley however are standing firm.
Findley, 59, said she first heard about Lockheed Martin’s potential bid for the software contract in 2003 and immediately got in touch with Statistics Canada to voice her displeasure.
“(Lockheed Martin) makes billions of dollars through the business of killing people, and destroying the environment in the process of killing people,” Findley said from her home in Saskatoon.
“So there’s no way that I’m going to see my tax dollars go to help enrich them.”
Stelmach’s decision to protest the company’s involvement in gathering Canadian data was quite different.
image from Count Me OutThe 32-year-old Kingston, Ont., resident actually filled out his form before he and his wife heard about a census opposition group called Count Me Out.
“We discovered Lockheed Martin was outsourced by (Statistics Canada) to upgrade their software and do a lot of the processing of the 2006 census,” said Stelmach.
“This just shocked me and at first I thought it was a bit of a hoax.”
image from Count Me OutThough we may not have the courage of Stelmach and Findley to put our ideals where the state jailbars are, we can start campaiging against a re-do of this horrendous decision. Bidding is currently underway for the next census. Contact the
Minister of Industry
C.D. Howe Building
235 Queen Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H5
Telephone: 613-995-9001
Fax: 613-992-0302
Email: Minister.Industry@ic.gc.ca
Stephen Harper
pm@pm.gc.ca
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa
K1A 0A2
Fax: 613-941-6900
And write letters to the Editor.
Harper was quoted as saying, “Protecting national sovereignty, the integrity of our borders, is the first and foremost responsibility of a national government, a responsibility which has too often been neglected,”
Lets hold him to that responsibility nationwide.
Refusing to fill out the census strikes me as misguided.
First of all, is it going to put an end to Lockheed Martin’s contract to provide software for Census Canada? Possible, if many more people take the same action as Mr. Stelmach, but unlikely.
Secondly, one could make the case that purchasing such software encourages Lockheed Martin to persue non-weapons related business, which from Mr. Stelmach’s perspective should be a good thing.
Thirdly, even if Census Canada does not renew it’s contract with Lockheed Martin, is that going to stop it’s production of weapons? Hardly.
People considering refusing to fill out the Census as a way to push for “peace” should consider just how effective this refusal is likely to be. Frankly, I can’t see a connection.
Mr. Stelmach would be better served in the persuit of his convictions by reviewing which companies his mutual funds are invested in; and in making more clear and easily understood objections to specific policies of government that he may object to (such as the U.S. occupation of Iraq, if that was his point).
Unless Mr. Stelmach and his supporters are radical pacifists who object in an absolute sense to weapons and the military, voicing opposition to an arms manufacturer serves little purpose (and in fact can be somewhat hypocritical as citizens are supposed to be served and protected by our nation’s military, which uses weapons.) It’s specific foreign policies of government that need to be addressed.
@Dan –
Essentially then you are saying trying is the first step toward failure.
It is a certainty that L-M will not stop producing weapons based on this, but it does draw attention to the fact that extremely sensitive data about Canadians was given to a foreign corporation to process. And if you don’t think there was any risk, I have a nice diebold machine I’d like to sell you.
It’s not trying that leads to failure, but how & what you’re trying to do.
It’s census Canada that’s using the software, not the software company that’s using the census data. The census data is public anyway, you can get it on the Internet, so you’d have to spell out exactly what dangers you foresee stemming from Lockheed-Martin providing the software.
Information from the census is important for government being able to formulate adequate policies (and is important for social science and historical research). Completeing the census is important , hence the legal obligation to do so.
But if Mr. Stelmach and his supporters insist with their objections to the census, there are many other things they should be doing as well to avoid supporting arms manufacturers.
For example: Boeing is the second largest aerospace and defense contractor in the world. Therefore, Mr. Stelmach should refuse to fly on any airline that uses Boeing aircraft (such as Air Canada, or for that matter, most other airlines around the world).
I hope that Mr. Stelmach doesn’t have any IBM computers, because ater all, IBM develops software (IBM rational) used in weapons systems.
Hopefully he doesn’t own any blenders or other household products by General Electric, which also contributes to the arms industry, mainly by making engines for military (as well as civilian) aircraft.
I hope that he doesn’t drive a General Motors vehicle, as GM makes vehicles for the military – including armoured personnel carriers.
I could go on, but my point is clear. It’s not the companies one needs to avoid (even if one could avoid products from all companies related to the production of weapons systems). The problem here is that Mr. Stelmach and his supporters have not made it clear just what it is they are objecting to.
Ultimately, unless you want to joust with windmills and think that you can rid the world of weapons, it’s specific government policy that one must confront.
That is partially true. There is, of course a considerable amount of personal data not shared which is why those involved have secrecy and confidentiality contracts.
Your point seems to be either one of resignation or one of contempt for anyone who tries to make a stand.
Either way we disagree.
I’m just not clear on what exactly his stand is. This has not been adequately explained.
Perhaps a perusal of this site will make things more obvious.