The kidnapping of democracy through choosing the deliberative method OECD and Missisauga

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/339306da-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/339306da-en&_csp_=07698b7c924c319dbb92a6500bf563da&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book

This OECD article captured my attention because of my recent interaction with a 15 minute city ‘ deliberative process’ in the City of Mississauga. Cooksville held a deliberative process about the introduction of Cooksville as a 15 minute city within Mississauga. The first. However no one but the chosen knew anything about it. So there you have it you masquerade collecting information from the public with chosen or staged deliberation. So no actual citizen is asking for a 15 minute city. No one. So it’s a project invented and not by the people. NOT DEMOCRACY. We are governed for your own good. Then you set up a staged public consultation process with a group that is ‘a microcosm’ of the public so that means the public want this. They have to look like the people who live in the community. Inclusive or diversity. and that is proof the public wants it. It is controlled and bypasses democracy.

This is the stack on Mississauga and their process.

Again you get funded public groups like Egale in Canada, who then interact with government groups like the CRTC. Egale asks for fox news to be banned from Canada and asks the CRTC to prevent Canadians from viewing Fox. Both the adjudicative body is run by the Trudeau appointees, and Egale is a Trudeau government funded brain child. so on the basis of advocacy for the public you have the operation of a request for censorship or access to press in Canada. Through this deliberative mechanism of a public group and a government group interacting and pushing the opposite of what is good for democracy. Meanwhile Trudeau is advancing ‘media licences’ and further advancing massive funding of his state media the CBC that has ratings dropping like a stone.

Recently the WEF indicated that in the future there would be no need for elections, because we would know the results.

Interesting isn’t it.

But you see the ‘microcosm’ of public people they set up debating the issues we don’t care about. Please review the OECD paper. Here is a clip of it. Curate the group and curate the information selected to be presented.

“Anyone should be able to easily find the following information about the process: its purpose, design, methodology, recruitment details, experts, recommendations, the authority’s response, and implementation follow-up. Better public communication should increase opportunities for public learning and encourage greater participation.

Participants should be a microcosm of the general public; this can be achieved through random sampling from which a representative selection is made to ensure the group matches the community’s demographic profile.

Efforts should be made to ensure inclusiveness, such as through remuneration, covering expenses, and/or providing/paying for childcare or eldercare.

Participants should have access to a wide range of accurate, relevant, and accessible evidence and expertise, and have the ability to request additional information.

Group deliberation entails finding common ground; this requires careful and active listening, weighing and considering multiple perspectives, every participant having an opportunity to speak, a mix of formats, and skilled facilitation.

For high-quality processes that result in informed recommendations, participants should meet for at least four full days in person, as deliberation requires adequate time for participants to learn, weigh evidence, and develop collective recommendations.

To help ensure the integrity of the process, it should be run by an arm’s’ length co-ordinating team.

There should be respect for participants’ privacy to protect them from unwanted attention and preserve their independence.

Deliberative processes should be evaluated against these principles to ensure learning, help improve future practice, and understand impact.

Deliberative processes as part of wider participation strategies

Deliberative processes involve a component of broader stakeholder participation, the most common being online calls for submissions (used in 33 cases) and surveys (29 cases). Other methods are public consultations (19 cases) and roundtable discussions (16 cases). The combination needs to be sequenced so it is clear how the outputs of participatory processes feed into citizen deliberations.”

To call this ‘Deliberative Democracy’ or to have democracy in the sentence at all is absurd. this is a hijacking of democracy pure and simple. The advocates of it (see my embedded substack) want rule by experts.

What is transparent is that the objectives of the wef or ruling class are being pursued in our democracy through processes that are modified to suit the objective and ensure that objective is obtained.

My kids like to play opposite day. On Opposite day you say this pancake is bad when you mean it is good. They love opposite day and introduce it among themselves without telling me. Broader participation is opposite day speak for Rule by expert and less participation. It is a fine art to read their doublespeak. A tad tiresome as well.

No - deliberative process are not proof we want it.

No- picking people who look like us is not proof.

No -deciding the discussion points is not proof.

No bringing government funded public interest groups is not proof they act in the public’s interest.

No- the curated privacy protected individuals is not us.

No. No. No.

It is gross. Reclaim your municipal governments show up at their meetings always. Learn to articulate that they are opposing the forces of democracy; that their cockamamie ideas reviewed by their selected groups doesn’t amount to proof the citizens want their proposal. Where do they get their marching orders from. It is not the people.