Details are still coming. Preliminary reports indicate a possible suicide by hanging.
Category: Canadian Politics
Kay – “For shorthand, let’s call this the Lindsay Lohan test — since we know she passed — and see how Conrad Black stacks up.”
I had to read it three times to fully appreciate the irony of Kay making Black look even more like a snob. In his column, he goes out of his way to compare Canada’s special treatment of Black with its equal leniency towards Lohan.
And with that, we now know one thing for certain: rich people remain coddled in Canada.
By: James Di Fiore
For a minute there Alberta was starting to look like a Tea Party caricature. Crazy preachers, vocal white pride and an increasingly loud base of bitter partisans peppered the province, giving the media the impression that a next chapter was about to be written. All the polls were giving Wild Rose leader Danielle Smith an easy victory, sending the 41 year reign of the Progressive Conservatives out to pasture and putting Alberta on a path of fierce ideology.
Then, in a classic example of cooler heads prevailing, the crazy folks lost the election. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, even in Alberta most Canadians are moderates. Insane, I know. But it’s true.
And let’s not quibble over the use of the word “crazy”. Wild Rose supporters are already on the pathological, post-election attack, complaining about the Progressive Conservative fear merchants in a rich example of hypocritical finger-pointing by the most vitriolic ideologues in the country. If you don’t want to be called crazy, you should muzzle your babbling preachers and oblivious Caucasoids who in short order turned this election into a disastrous screen test for a would-be premier. Smith, who is handcuffed to bigots, religious nuts and secessionists, couldn’t muster the courage necessary to be a true leader by admonishing even the most vitriolic supporters. By taking a page out of the Republican Party handbook and not addressing the viruses in her midst, Smith succeeded in infecting her entire campaign. In Canada, you can’t simply wave away the mosquitoes. You need to smack those critters, wipe away the blood and make sure your repellent is strong enough for the next ones. In other words, despite her base and their strong conservative leanings, Smith should have said the following:
“Saying that gay people will die in a lake of fire is absolutely insane and I urge the candidate responsible for those words to step aside immediately.”
Nope, that would show weakness, and according to the people who throw kindling into that lake, weakness is what makes people gay in the first place. Forget about the Alberta firewall spawned by Prime Minister Harper when he was the Reform Party pied piper. That was different. In those days the political acumen was strong enough to recognize that while many Reformers were bigots, showcasing those views would have been disastrous. And now that Albertans have cemented itself into the land of the sane, perhaps rebuilding that firewall on the US border would be more productive. No offense to our American cousins, but they can keep their cartoonish political climate, thank you. We do not need nor can we sustain the views of whack jobs. It just isn’t in our national DNA to collectively deny science, hate homosexuals and praise the communications prowess of white people. In short, we aren’t a nation of ideologues.
And let’s all thank god for that.
By: James Di Fiore
George Zimmerman is now facing 2nd degree murder charges in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. As you read that lead sentence, half of you nodded approvingly while the other half shook their heads. And with that, this has become the most poetic and tragic case in recent memory.
George Zimmerman has also made bail. Cue the opposite, cerebral reactions one more time.
For the pro-Trayvon people, the idea that charges took this long to be laid in the first place is already an abomination, a politically and racially motivated delay of justice for a dead teenager and his grieving family.
For the pro-Zimmerman crowd this is a clear example of knee-jerk reactionary politics, born out of an epidemic need to paint everything as racism.
And for Trayvon and George it is already over, and beginning again. On and on it goes…
As more facts emerge we begin to see the politics from both sides in plain sight. In case you have not yet heard, Zimmerman’s recorded racial slur “fucking coon” has now been digitally enhanced and to some sounds more like “fucking cold”. That slur is one of the linchpins of certainty among the left, the pillar of proof needed to claim this was a case of racial profiling and murder.
George first claimed he was beaten up by Trayvon, shooting him in self defense after his head was bashed on the concrete and his nose was broken. Then came the police video, showing no visible signs of serious injuries, plus no blood on his shirt from the alleged broken nose. Then came the photo, showing Zimmerman with blood trickling off the top and back of his head, making self-defense an obvious justification for lethal force among supporters.
Predictably, each side of this case is being championed by the usual mouthpieces. Those mouthpieces, drenched in their own brand of fierce ideology, give their opponents a mechanism of doubt, citing the inflammatory pasts they commonly share with one another. Al Sharpton. Rush Limbaugh. FOX News. MSNBC. Those personalities and entities have become the combatants long after Trayvon and George crossed paths, tinting the lens a muddier shade than necessary to sort through the facts of the case.
The centerpiece of divide is the controversial ‘Stand Your Ground’ law which allows Floridians who feel threatened to use deadly force against their attackers. The left see this law as a recipe for disaster, handing out arbitrary death sentences to people involved in relative acts of vigilantism. The right see this as a bi-product of being free, protecting oneself from certain harm against violent attackers. The law puts gun rights back in the spotlight as both sides cement themselves in familiar positions, creating yet another layer of polarization and conflict among the most vocal Americans.
Whatever the outcome, and despite any future evidence of guilt or innocence, pre-existing tribal lines have been highlighted and manipulated for ideological purposes. America is weaker because of this divide and the collective inability to debate rationally. If you support Zimmerman, you are a racist. If you do not support Zimmerman, you are reactionary.
And with that, the current state of America is anything but united.
By: James Di Fiore
Canada appears to be changing, segmented between traditionalists, progressives and radicals. This opinion is nothing new, but the evidence has finally caught up to the theory, especially in politics and social issues. Sprinkled in the middle are Canadians unfettered by ideology and partisanship, but they are surrounded by a growing number of ideologues who are being prodded and influenced by media hell bent on making money by evoking emotion instead of dispensing facts.
These new sects of extremists (the opinionated kind, not the violent kind), are still far less in numbers than the reasonable folks but they shout at a much higher volume, creating the false idea that they are speaking for the majority. But this is Canada, where the majority of people remain apathetic and frustrated with the system as a whole.
So, born out of apathy comes new ideas by Canadians who are beginning to wake up from their political slumber. Some of their ideas are gaining traction and discussions are finally taking place. For example, many Canadians are starting to talk more about our connection to the British monarchy, openly stating their disdain for what they see as an out of date relationship. An easy way to break open that conversation is to ask how Canadians feel about the prospect of Prince Charles on our currency. Traditionalists are just as eager to talk about our history and the vital role the Brits played in our progress as a nation. Both have valid arguments, but the real caveat is the stark differences not in philosophy but age. If you are a younger Canadian you are far more likely to want to disown our British stepparents, but if you are a senior you can’t fathom the idea of breaking ties. Age is actually the number one barometer in different political opinions, and the slight erosion of apathy among younger people is making the conversation a more interesting one.
There are also good arguments for changing the Senate procedures, creating term limits and even abolishing the upper house. Provincial powers are currently being tested both by federal legislation and pressure from municipal governments who feel burdened by legislation irrelevant to their riding. Conservatives are finding it difficult to balance their long held notion of abolishing the senate with the current conservative government’s partisan appointments to the upper house. A widespread opinion that appears to also be gaining traction is the eventual implementation of an elected senate. In either case we are years away from any significant changes now that our country is in a constant state of political campaigning. Time will tell what kind of ideas will eventually surface and if those ideas are from the people or government officials.
Interestingly, questions are now being raised among a wide spectrum of Canadians pertaining to personal liberty and privacy. The Ron Paul candidacy in the American GOP primary has forced the conversation. Americans and Canadians alike are finding common views with people who are politically opposite, fostering a new discussion between Canadians who do not normally debate the issues gracefully. The most glaring examples of this common ground are foreign policy and the war on drugs, two subjects that are yielding universal support and capturing the conversation among Americans. This kind of cooperation is leading some Canadians towards reopening the debate on proportional representation as ideas and philosophies become more complex and less ideological. The terrain is strange in Canada. As apathy shrinks, ideology grows. There is a debate as to whether or not they are related, but the end result means Canada’s political class is shifting.
As Canadian parties adjust to their new placement in popularity, Canadian people are becoming more savvy in who to follow, creating a potential new shift in the landscape and a continuation of a newly awoken Canadian electorate.
By: James Di Fiore
Every four years America suffers from collective amnesia. Polarization, a national disease that will never be cured, transforms election years into psychotic hybrids – one part soap opera, one part football game. The plot flips back and forth, from gossip to bloodsport, until one man is left standing. If you didn’t know any better you would think winning the Presidency was some sort of gladiator mission. The media, equipped with editorial smart bombs and an appetite for dismantling any and all candidates, savours the slips, falls and general missteps of candidates with delightful glee. Indeed, their mission is quite clear: tear them down, make them suffer for sins of the past and shine the spotlight 24 hours a day in case they slip again.
Or in Ron Paul’s case, ignore him completely.
So much has been said about Ron Paul that it seems contradictory to claim his candidacy is being ignored by the American press. But when the most often repeated sound bite centers around the rhetorical question of ‘Should he be taken seriously?’, then redundantly answered by the very folks who thought the question was rhetorical in the first place, one must wonder what anomaly is this in American politics? Paul is a 76 year old Libertarian ideologue. He is also the only honest man running for president. America, despite the satirical image of ignorant and overweight citizens who can’t find the ocean on a world map, contain within its population an army of intellectuals hungry for liberty and an non-intrusive military. They include libertarians, liberals and moderate conservatives who may not agree on everything the Texas congressman believes in, but within their ranks are several intersecting beliefs at a time when commonplace ideals from typically opposite-minded groups is not only rare but completely unheard of in the modern, polarized America. The list of items uniting the left and right towards Paul is as interesting as it gets.
Military and Foreign Policy – Paul believes in a non-invasive foreign policy. He was one of few congressmen who was against the Iraq invasion from the start, and the only candidate who does not subscribe to the fictional idea that Middle Eastern countries “hate us for our freedom.” Always charting his platform back to the economy, Paul believes America can save hundreds of billions per year by removing troops stationed in countries like South Korea, Japan and Germany. While inspired by a slightly different starting point, many liberals agree with these principles and find common ground with Paul, especially regarding his views on why 911 happened in the first place. Paul often bolsters his position on foreign policy by quoting the neo-conservative hawks who place troops overseas to begin with. In a recent debate hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, Paul cemented his point of why Al Qaeda was motivated to attack America by quoting Paul Wolfowitz who once cited America’s military bases in Saudi Arabia as the main reason the attack took place. Paul’s philosophy on the military makes him a lone voice on the right in America but it is these views that allow him to garner so much support among liberal Americans.
The Federal Reserve – Likely the most well-versed politician on the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve, Paul’s criticism of the private bank has been on record for decades. He believes the Fed is the root cause of inflation, debt and the dominance of the financial institutions on Wall Street. With the support of ultra-liberal Dennis Kucinich, Paul has introduced several bills to audit the Fed, claiming it pays banks bigger interest rates to park their money at the Fed rather than loaning money to the American people and small businesses.
The War on Drugs – While his opponents and the media spin his words to seem like he is advocating recreational drug use, Paul’s stance on narcotics is actually classic libertarianism. He believes, like many far left liberals, that the drug war has been an expensive and colossal failure. His position, that liberty means being able to decide independently what you put inside your body, is echoed by millions of Americans.
Free Market Religion – This is the area where Paul loses common ground with classic liberals and even some staunch conservatives. Paul advocates a system that relies entirely on free market principles. He is rightfully considered an extremist on this issue, going as far as advocating the dismantling of all government run disaster response organizations like FEMA, claiming the bureaucracy is so inefficient that it can actually make disasters worse. He might be right regarding the incompetence of the organization, but Paul fails miserably to provide a viable, alternative solution to natural disaster relief. He has made blanket statements about individual states and private insurance firms providing relief and rebuilding homes, but Paul has not been pressed about certainties like claim denials and the enormous cost to state governments. It is this stringent ideology of a universal, unregulated free market approach that gives Paul much of his criticism.
Health Care – While health care can easily be included within Paul’s free market ideology, it is worth noting his background as a pediatrician has not softened his views on a for-profit health care system. Paul’s position is simple – let the free market decide cost and force individuals to take care of their own bills. In his book, ‘The Revolution: A Manifesto’, Paul says that doctors once understood the responsibility they had towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. He believes that those who can afford it should pay either through purchased medical insurance or by simply covering their own medical expenses. It all sounds typically conservative, but Paul has not been specific on how the poor or elderly receive care if doctors simply refuse to donate their expertise to those who need it most.
The main caveat in Paul’s presidential run is the media and how they cover his candidacy. Some speculate his lack of coverage is due to his reluctance to embrace a more corporate-centric position that reflect the typical financiers of the Republican Party. That reasoning is flawed, however, as the Democrats garner more Wall Street support than the GOP and the mere notion of corporate influence on the media is much too conspiratorial for most people to accept. Within that context is a more factual answer – Paul’s honest position on foreign policy and crony capitalism lifts the veil off of the military industrial complex just enough for many Americans to take notice. The media, often too timid to delve into this issue with great depth that could be spun as covering conspiracy theories, opt for a hands-off approach and treat Paul like a wacky uncle who has no shot at the White House anyway. His support is often characterized as eager, vocal and tenacious. Missing from those otherwise complimentary list of attributes is the willingness to give credit to the size of his following. At no time in America’s history has a candidate’s financial coffers, audience support and internet popularity been dismissed as just a small group of over-enthusiastic followers.
With Herman Cain’s disastrous campaign over, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntzman, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry are now the irrelevant foursome. Paul is now polling behind Newt Gingrich and virtually tied with Mitt Romney in Iowa. The media, doing their best to chew crow with their mouths shut, have grudgingly began to take notice of a campaign that really began in 2007. For the past four years, Americans in larger numbers than many would admit are gravitating to an honest politician.
And for those who are frightened by Paul’s strict libertarian ideology, they can seek comfort in the one guarantee American politics gives them time and time again: Congress will most certainly water down President Paul’s agenda to just a fraction of its potency. The real question is which parts would be diluted, and can he be the unlikely American figure to unite the left and right on the issues that matter most. Time, money and votes will tell.
By: James Di Fiore
There is no issue more controversial and misunderstood than the fight to legalize marijuana. Ever since the 1930s when Christian fundamentalist Dwain Esper produced the propaganda film, Reefer Madness, the North American public have been clandestinely led down a road where weed is the organic equivalent to heroin or cocaine. Historically there are several reasons for the demonization of the plant, including lobbying efforts from the textiles industry who feared the mass production of hemp, a superior raw material, would have sliced the overall demand of the competitive textiles industry in half. This first domino of misinformation created a political climate where marijuana, branded as evil and dangerous for children, fell into the inaccurate abyss of some of the more notorious and addictive narcotics.
75 years after Reefer Madness was produced, marijuana has come a long way. Once you look at the science, both socially and biologically, marijuana not only becomes an attractive substitute for more nefarious drugs like nicotine and alcohol, but as an attractive revenue source during a time when the economy needs it most. Detractors continue to falsely label marijuana as the dreaded ‘Gateway Drug’, a moniker coined by long-time Commissioner of the US Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Harry Anslinger. Anslinger, who also claimed non-whites were more susceptible to becoming marijuana addicts, cobbled together police reports from across America, arbitrarily connecting brutal murders with marijuana use while molding a national opinion that the plant was inherently evil.
It all sounds so ridiculous today. The public are more well-versed about marijuana, partly because of access to information not supplied by the government, and partly due to their own personal experience smoking or eating the plant. In any event, the most often cited argument in modern day marijuana activism is still the strongest – if alcohol can be sold on shelves and used as a substance of celebration and generally accepted by society, why not weed?
The answer is simple. After decades of bad PR, marijuana has had an uphill battle unparalleled to any other potential commodity. But a shift has been underway since the early 90s when polls began to show Canadians were softening their stance on marijuana. The most recent polls indicate a majority of Canadians now support fully legalizing and regulating the substance, a tipping point in society that could stimulate the economy and actually help shield children and teenagers from the easy access prohibition has provided. The people are more sophisticated, and the old arguments centered around addiction have mostly been removed from the public zeitgeist. While politicians have yet to decipher an effective messaging strategy that could break the backs of the old fashioned, out-of-touch crowd, whispers of legalization have been heard on Parliament Hill.
Most recently, the federal Liberal Party, reeling from an unprecedented defeat in 2011, have included legalizing marijuana as one of their main policy resolutions for their upcoming convention in January. It might have been just an experiment, a desperate ploy for new supporters, but the resolution is among the top ranked issues on their convention web site, a potentially surprising development that will force the party to create a modern, viable message a majority of Canadians seem to support anyway. The Liberals have an opportunity chart a path that neither the Conservatives or NDP can risk. The base of the Harper government is split between traditional conservatives who are out of touch on the issue and libertarians who care less about the potential adverse effects of the drug and more about keeping the government out of personal decisions like what citizens can put in their bodies. Meanwhile, the Layton-less NDP are trying to shed the label of being too ideological and won’t risk the potential communication gaffes on the issue. This gives the Liberals, if their communications department can competently deliver a sophisticated message, the opportunity to cultivate new supporters through an issue whose time may have finally come.
It won’t be easy and is riddled with potential risks, but if there was ever a time to mobilize Canadians by giving them more liberty it is now, especially when they are being told by their current government that growing a few plants warrants a tougher mandatory sentence than showing a child your genitals. Presenting that kind of contrast can not only sway non-partisans, but should be enough to rally enough Canadians to make the next election closer than you think.
How the opportunity to advance liberty was doomed from the start
By: James Di Fiore
I wanted to be there with them, shoulder to shoulder, as they marched to St. James Park in downtown Toronto. I hoped we were to stand in solidarity with the protesters in New York, participating in a conversation about corporate corruption and their governmental enablers. I, like many, felt like we were watching history unfold. The Arab Spring had planted a seed of revolution of sorts, and while we were a watered down western version motivated by different circumstances, apathy was being replaced with passion…and I liked it
And then I watched it all fall down.
Being a moderate, it is difficult to get behind any movement. Moderates can usually see both sides of a coin and view ideology as a barrier between problems and solutions. While I witnessed New York City mobilize against Wall Street corruption I was simultaneously witnessing Toronto ride the coat tails of that movement. At first I gave the protesters a pass for not having a coherent message. After all, conservative ideologues were already lobbing those kinds of critiques against Occupy Wall Street activists, ignoring the underlying issue of crony capitalism or the lack of prosecutorial vigour against white collar swindlers. But as the first week progressed it was clear that Occupy Toronto had lost any tangible or even symbolic connection with OWS, to the point that I found myself agreeing with some of the milder criticisms leveled by the likes of Charles Adler or Rex Murphy. When you are agreeing with the editorializing of Adler, you know something is not how it should be.
St. James Park’s tag line is ‘A City Within a Park’, but a quick stroll through the makeshift camp and it became clear what went wrong. For all the talk of other movements being co-opted by the Koch Brothers or public sector unions, rarely have we seen a movement so rapidly co-opted by Kensington Market anarchists and Queen and Bathurst squeegie kids, many of whom viewed St. James as a temporary hangout rather than a home base for serious political discussion. And let’s be honest; a leaderless movement has a quicker expiry date than organic sour dough, especially when participants spend more time worrying about tent pegs than political consensus.
And there is a list of problems Occupy Toronto could have spotlighted. Corporate welfare, the omnibus Crime Bill, campaign financing legislation, draconian drug laws, federal overspending, provincial overspending, and a host of other issues that directly place corporate favourtism over personal liberties, but when your movement is dependent on the communications savvy of an inarticulate, unsophisticated mob, your chances of making any political or social headway disintegrates.
All they had to do was create a comprehensive vision with the list of inequalities and injustices that already exist in Canada, but they opted for a disjointed and sloppy squat posse destined for failure. Not only did they fail at shining a light on any relevant issues, they may have succeeded in snookering the progress real activists had been working towards by becoming their accidental spokespersons, rallying an incoherent cry and killing all credibility in the process.
Leader of the Opposition was last hope in Canada’s deteriorating political landscape
By: James Di Fiore
This is not your mother’s Canada anymore.
All across the country, from conservatives to socialists, the apathetic to political junkies, the universal response to Jack Layton’s losing battle with cancer was unmistakable. Not surprisingly, his supporters were quite emotional, tearing up on live television as they reminisced about their leader, their mentor. Liberal party members were next, echoing the sentiment and paying their respects, calling Layton their friend and a worthy adversary. Conservatives also showed the kind of class we should expect from our leaders, telling stories of battles waged in the House of Commons with a man they held in high regard. It was as if Layton’s passing could serve as a watershed moment of sorts, breaking down barriers between people or at least slowing down Canada’s slide into the depths of polarization. Liberals and Conservatives were certainly not about to trade in their red and blue for bright orange, but for once they were able to speak with civility about someone who they disagreed with politically.
‘Not so fast’, said the loudest, most ignorant and most extreme voices in the country.
In a surreal display of cowardice, and a testament to the internet’s greatest misgiving, up popped the lunatic fringe who expressed glee over the death of their socialist enemy. Sure, there are crazies everywhere, and the internet is crawling with them, but what once seemed like a tiny minority is now appearing to become a growing phenomenon. These aren’t your typical nut-jobs, pranksters or mentally disturbed people – they are regular, every day folks who have decided that since they no longer believe in evil concepts such as political correctness, they are now free to kick a man on the day he dies, especially if that man disagrees with their point of view.
The comments from these regular folks reflect a new way of interpreting the now omnipresent political battlefield. Canada is experiencing a variety of social symptoms where the fabric of decency is being unraveled and restitched with ideological threads once seen exclusively during campaign season. Journalists like Dave Naylor and Christie Blatchford, desperate to differentiate themselves and provide an alternative perspective, tweeted jokes about Layton’s death or penned long winded columns about how the coverage (on the very day our Leader of the Opposition died, no less) was over the top. And while Blatchford has had a wonderful career and is a magnificent writer, her need to appear original and crafty actually made her look petty and amateurish.
Amazingly, and it is worth repeating, it was politicians who showed true leadership when the news broke. In fact, these moments in history often produce an ethical hubris where politicians act like statesmen while bias media organizations and maverick journalists take on the role of children, championing the classic public relations strategy of personal exposure through controversy instead of simply writing and reporting. Opinion news, the new and oxymoronic method of ideologues and partisans, has morphed from a watered down version of journalism to a full time, hatchet wielding concept meant to assimilate people into specific political philosophies. The aforementioned mainstay issue of those with opposite views of Layton is now political correctness. By hiding behind free speech, far right radicals are convincing regular folks to feel infallible if they cheer the death of someone they disagreed with.
Jack Layton’s passing is a stark reminder of how our leadership can sometimes shine, even if some of the people they are leading distort its reflection.
No sir, this is not your mother’s Canada.
