Census Strategy
Locked
 
|
Hello all,
Just wanted to make a comment about the strategy and language needed going forward. The big guns still have yet to come out, namely the Premiers, the presidents of all Canadian unversities, and the largest industry associations. Whatever people's personal feelings, what has made this campaign so effective to date has been its cross-partisan membership. There are many different interests using the long-form census data, but they all have a common interest in keeping it. The proponents of eliminating the mandatory long-form census would love to make the debate about special interests and elitists, so I would not even engage them on that point. Following the writings of George Lakoff, I would continue to appeal to Canadian values of citizenship and duties to one's country and one's neighbours, along with emphasizing the need to have reliable data that belongs to everyone ... the knowledge for the knowledge economy. The open data argument could be left for later, in my view; the dataset needs to be maintained as a first priority. Continue to firmly but factually point out that the data is already segregated from individual identities, is the basis of most every other form of economic and social research in the country, and gives us a competitive advantage. We can't work smarter in the dark. And reinforce the fact that a voluntary census will never be representative. Which is just a fact, not an opinion. No other voluntary surveys will ever be able to be proportionately weighted without this one reliable sample of the population. Finally, appeal to people's sense of wanting to leave a time capsule of their history and stories for their descendants in who knows what unimaginable world they will live in. If we stop the census now, we will have broken that chain of history. Dr. Sheikh has taken a very noble step, which should not be wasted by letting up now. Press on, and keep up the great work one and all. Alice Funke punditsguide.ca Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device |
|
|
Alice makes two statements here that appear to me to be in direct contradiction:
"Continue to firmly but factually point out that the data is already segregated from individual identities" And "appeal to people's sense of wanting to leave a time capsule...for their descendants" It is not possible to leave a time capsule for one's descendants if the data is really segregated from individual identities. There are many potential issues that can arise from making this information about individuals available, even after 99 years. If your ancestors were all doctors and professors, you may very well want to have this information made public. It doesn't take much imagination, though, to think of situations where descendants may be less than thrilled to have information about their ancestors made public, or where those currently around may be less than keen on leaving certain information around for their descendants. The time capsule argument is a compelling one for a voluntary, not mandatory, approach, IMHO. Best, Heather Morrison [hidden email] On 2010-07-24, at 11:28 AM, [hidden email] wrote: > Hello all, > > Just wanted to make a comment about the strategy and language needed going forward. > > The big guns still have yet to come out, namely the Premiers, the presidents of all Canadian unversities, and the largest industry associations. Whatever people's personal feelings, what has made this campaign so effective to date has been its cross-partisan membership. There are many different interests using the long-form census data, but they all have a common interest in keeping it. > > The proponents of eliminating the mandatory long-form census would love to make the debate about special interests and elitists, so I would not even engage them on that point. Following the writings of George Lakoff, I would continue to appeal to Canadian values of citizenship and duties to one's country and one's neighbours, along with emphasizing the need to have reliable data that belongs to everyone ... the knowledge for the knowledge economy. The open data argument could be left for later, in my view; the dataset needs to be maintained as a first priority. > > Continue to firmly but factually point out that the data is already segregated from individual identities, is the basis of most every other form of economic and social research in the country, and gives us a competitive advantage. We can't work smarter in the dark. > > And reinforce the fact that a voluntary census will never be representative. Which is just a fact, not an opinion. No other voluntary surveys will ever be able to be proportionately weighted without this one reliable sample of the population. > > Finally, appeal to people's sense of wanting to leave a time capsule of their history and stories for their descendants in who knows what unimaginable world they will live in. If we stop the census now, we will have broken that chain of history. > > Dr. Sheikh has taken a very noble step, which should not be wasted by letting up now. > > Press on, and keep up the great work one and all. > > > Alice Funke > punditsguide.ca > > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
|
|
I guess I meant in a more collective sense of our history as a country and community of communities.
Individuals still have the option of allowing their data to be relinked to their name after 100 years for the genealogical researchers, which is one of the 8 questions on the short form. Thanks for the interesting reply. A. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -----Original Message----- From: Heather Morrison <[hidden email]> Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 12:20:43 To: [hidden email]<[hidden email]>; civicaccess discuss<[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Census Strategy Alice makes two statements here that appear to me to be in direct contradiction: "Continue to firmly but factually point out that the data is already segregated from individual identities" And "appeal to people's sense of wanting to leave a time capsule...for their descendants" It is not possible to leave a time capsule for one's descendants if the data is really segregated from individual identities. There are many potential issues that can arise from making this information about individuals available, even after 99 years. If your ancestors were all doctors and professors, you may very well want to have this information made public. It doesn't take much imagination, though, to think of situations where descendants may be less than thrilled to have information about their ancestors made public, or where those currently around may be less than keen on leaving certain information around for their descendants. The time capsule argument is a compelling one for a voluntary, not mandatory, approach, IMHO. Best, Heather Morrison [hidden email] On 2010-07-24, at 11:28 AM, [hidden email] wrote: > Hello all, > > Just wanted to make a comment about the strategy and language needed going forward. > > The big guns still have yet to come out, namely the Premiers, the presidents of all Canadian unversities, and the largest industry associations. Whatever people's personal feelings, what has made this campaign so effective to date has been its cross-partisan membership. There are many different interests using the long-form census data, but they all have a common interest in keeping it. > > The proponents of eliminating the mandatory long-form census would love to make the debate about special interests and elitists, so I would not even engage them on that point. Following the writings of George Lakoff, I would continue to appeal to Canadian values of citizenship and duties to one's country and one's neighbours, along with emphasizing the need to have reliable data that belongs to everyone ... the knowledge for the knowledge economy. The open data argument could be left for later, in my view; the dataset needs to be maintained as a first priority. > > Continue to firmly but factually point out that the data is already segregated from individual identities, is the basis of most every other form of economic and social research in the country, and gives us a competitive advantage. We can't work smarter in the dark. > > And reinforce the fact that a voluntary census will never be representative. Which is just a fact, not an opinion. No other voluntary surveys will ever be able to be proportionately weighted without this one reliable sample of the population. > > Finally, appeal to people's sense of wanting to leave a time capsule of their history and stories for their descendants in who knows what unimaginable world they will live in. If we stop the census now, we will have broken that chain of history. > > Dr. Sheikh has taken a very noble step, which should not be wasted by letting up now. > > Press on, and keep up the great work one and all. > > > Alice Funke > punditsguide.ca > > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device >_______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
|
|
In reply to this post by Heather Morrison-2
Heather;
This is a non issue. You can opt out of opening your data after 92 years. You just have to say no. see - Question 8 in the 2006 Census, F1 in the 2011 short form and it was question 53 in the 2006 Long form here - http://datalibre.ca/2010/07/24/2006-long-form-question-and-2006-2011-short-form-questions/ This was made an issue in the media; but just like the Clement made mention that the time someone goes to work was in the questionnaire and it clearly is not. Also, the short form remains mandatory. The very long agriculture survey is also mandatory. The elimination of the long form was not done for privacy issues, nor because it is mandatory, it was eliminated simply for ideological reasons. If you cannot measure, you have no evidence and without evidence you cannot discuss long term social planning. Imagine doing the same at environment Canada? Stopping the collection of weather data because we do not like what the longitudinal analysis tells us, and what the implications are. On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Heather Morrison <[hidden email]> wrote: Alice makes two statements here that appear to me to be in direct contradiction: -- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 |
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |