Why Occupy Toronto Failed

 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. 

Jack Layton’s Death Means Vitriol Lives On

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.

Open Letter to Giorgio Mammoliti

Dear Mr. Mammoliti,

This past Sunday you exercised your right to film the Pride festivities in downtown Toronto. This action seemed politically motivated, even though it is the taxpayer who pays your salary.

Many Torontonians do not see much difference between your freedom to wield a camera and the individuals who march wielding signs. Your video shows people holding a banner that says Free Palestine, yet it does not show other marchers who held banners that said Free Iran, or Free Tibet. Why the selective scrutiny, and why do you now want to use this selective scrutiny to strip Pride organizers of their funding? Your crusade could result in a 16 million dollar loss in municipal taxes for Toronto, all because you want to show favourtism to one ethnic group over others.

We have come to a point where even having a conversation about a certain country overseas leads to name calling and race baiting. Your desperate actions echo a frightening sentiment that says there are certain rules for some people but not for others. Beyond the hypocrisy there is an unsettling precedent that stifles free speech and diminishes free expression. You purport that your video proves organizers were complicit with certain marchers, but a local conservative journalist witnessed organizers remove a marcher who was wearing a skirt that said “Queers Against Israeli Apartheid’.

This runs counter to your own claims which now appear political and therefore stained with bias and partiality.

Most reasonable people will refrain from wondering if your motives are entrenched in a hatred towards a certain demographic. That would be patently unfair. But the double standard is clear – a sign reading ‘Free Palestine’ is hate speech, but a sign reading ‘Free Iran’ is not. Your opinion is also clear, but the law, as well as the rights of Canadians, are not dependent on Giorgio Mammoliti’s opinions.

If our taxpayer dollars can pay for your renegade political stunts with a video camera, then I do not see why they can’t pay for a parade that actaully helps our economy, even if some people were holding controversial signs.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

James Di Fiore

Open Letter to Jason Kenney

A public appeal to help save the Martinez family from almost certain demise

Mr. Kenney,

I write you today with worry and a heavy heart.

You know the case the headline refers to, so I will not reintroduce you to the particulars of those involved. What I would like to discuss is your deflection to the Citizenship and Immigration Canada, as if you have no power to help influence the decision to deport this family back to Columbia.

We both know that you are well within your rights, and certainly within your mandate, to protect potential victims from harm’s way if it is determined there is a possibility of violent retribution towards individuals seeking asylum.

Please take a moment and think to yourself what the headlines will say if this family is indeed killed by murderous henchmen from the organization known as FARC. Inevitably, it will fall on your desk and rival parties will no doubt lay blame at your doorstep, and rightfully so.

Your hands are not tied, and there is still time to allow the Canadian embassy in Columbia to send the family back. Be innovative and brave…stand up for these people who are clearly not a mennace to Canadian society. By doing so you may save their lives and becomes a real statesman to boot.

No disrespect, but right now you seem callous and arbitrary. This could change quite easily if you do something to help.

Sincerely,

James Di Fiore

Ideologue of the Week – Rondi Adamson

Canadian Ann Coulter wanna-be exemplifies the incorrigible right wing

 By: James Di Fiore

Mostly obscure, staunchly far-right and completely unwilling to break away from dogma, Canadian writer Rondi Adamson is this nation’s version of Ann Coulter, minus the best selling books and television appearances. Her rantings are unwavering and sloppy, as if sloganeering her ideology were enough to keep her fledgling career afloat. She is typical in her undying efforts to brand Canada as subservient to the United States, openly expressing her distaste for the Chretien government’s decision to stay out of Iraq in 2003. Thousands of dead soldiers later, not to mention hundreds of thousands of dead civilians and her view has not changed. While pro-Iraq War personalities like Christopher Hitchens paint a somewhat reasonable case for attacking Iraq, one-dimensional writers like Adamson recite tag lines and stick to Bush Doctrine one-liners as if it were a religion.

After several online conversations with her I have concluded that hidden underneath her gaunt frame is a pull string, allowing her to recite unthoughtful and predictable talking points that could have, and likely were, plagiarized from Ms. Coulter herself. Among the more primitively expressed tid bits from Adamson are her notions that the Sun News Network’s most relevant facet is the attire of their female anchors; that Israel is the world’s greatest democracy (when she is questioned about Israel, she claims that she receives 1000 emails a week, an obvious fib meant to bolster her dwindling popularity), The United States is the best country ever while Canada is to be viewed as Canuckistan; that Liberal Studies are akin to recruiting Maoists and hippies; and finally, that American soldiers who flee to Canada are uniformly dishonest if they claim any wrong-doing whatsoever by the American military. Those miscreants should be deported immediately and tried for treason, according to Adamson.

Unfortunately, this blind ideological stance on everything neo-conservative is not uncommon among Canadian right wingers. Adamson is just a case study. She personifies a political paradox where debate and civil discourse are only relevant when participants are discussing methods of how to enact extreme right wing views. She tries to describe herself as a fiscal-conservative/socially-liberal hybrid, but the only evidence of a socially-liberal bent is her vegetarianism and affinity with animals.

Adamson longs for Canada to become either the 51^st state or a carbon copy of its American masters. She believes criticism of Israel is the equivalent to hanging a Hamas flag in your den, and like the Tea Party, she loathes President Obama. She refers to Obama as the Great Windbag (projecting?) and is incapable of rationally discussing any issue brought forth by the president. When conservatives moaned about liberals experiencing Bush Derangement Syndrome, I wonder if they knew they would manifest an accelerated version of the disease as soon as their boy left office. Adamson’s vitriol is so manic, she even expresses rage at the way Obama pronounces the word ‘Pakistan’. Apparently the correct pronunciation is much too Arab for her liking, and she presumably longs for the days when things were simpler, when weapons of mass destruction were ‘nucular’, and when young Canadian men and women in uniform were killed in scores. One wonders if her skeletal frame could even muster the required strength to hold an assault rifle, but her mouth appears just the right size to muzzle the barrel of military generals in scores.

All that and an apparent insatiable appetite for Italian soccer players makes this atheist neo-con (and a crazy cat lady to boot) Canada’s prime example of nutty political extremists. She has blocked me from Facebook after I dared to question Israeli military policies, calling me snide while applauding the violent, profanity laced comments made towards me by FOX News contributor and right-wing conspiracy theorist, Matthew Vadum. Vadum is the genius who stated that community organizing leads to trading crack-cocaine for votes. Here is the message Vadum sent to me after I was blocked by his best gal pal:

You’re a fucking loser. You’re no friend of hers. Leftist piece of shit. Go play in traffic.

But hey, let’s not be too hard on Adamson. She is nice when you agree with everything she believes in or when you talk about feral cats. At any rate, she is Your Daily Oddmanic’s very first Ideologue of the Week. Congratulations Rondi!

Canadian Politics: Mind the Middle

The decimation of the federal Liberals provides new hope for Canadian moderates

By: James Di Fiore

Canada is becoming a very strange place. Historically, our political landscape was shaped by the apathetic, sprinkled with some conservatives, liberals and socialists. Policies were drafted and negotiated based on the reality that ideologues did not yield power in this nation. Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien – all of the most significant leaders this country has seen over the past 40 years have governed from the center, their base providing a lift and moderates providing their political survival. The apathetic played their role too – they stayed out of it. Canada had a brilliant international reputation as being fiscally prudent peacekeepers who brokered free trade agreements, hosted Olympic Games, milked internet bandwidth for all it was worth and extremely potent marijuana. It is cynical, but today we have a growing portion of our electorate who know how to say words like ‘socialist’ or ‘fascist’ but clearly have trouble defining either term. Ignorance may be bliss, but it is running rampant in the great white north.

How did we get here? When did we go from affable to laughable, and who is to blame for our new trot towards the mindless recitation of talking points from talking heads? The Reform Party may have been the first domino – a stringent, ideological crew from western Canada made from a mix of Libertarian and Evangelical roots. They successfully dismantled the federal Progressive Conservatives, turning a reasonable right-leaning party into an ideological posse ripe with partisan beliefs and an unwavering philosophy. Former prime minister Joe Clark, once seen by his political rivals as a conservative stalwart, seemed not only tame but reasonable by his former opponents on the Hill. Alberta, disgruntled by Trudeau’s energy policies which cemented an air of resentment within the province, yearned for a voice better suited to the narrative being recited for decades. That narrative was stark, a sort of provincialism reminiscent of Quebec separatists only without tales of an unfair confederacy nestled inside the rhetoric. Of course, Albertan conservatives would disagree, claiming decades of injustice had passionate reactions among regular folks, but in Canada this was brand new: a dismantling of a Canadian political institution and the beginning of the new conservative indoctrination project.

The new Canadian conservative movement has been fueled by two incontrovertible facts. The first is an easy pick: Liberal Party incompetence. While Liberals tend to blame member infighting for their woes, the Chretien vs Paul Martin beef is propped up by residue from the sponsorship scandal and most recently exacerbated by two leadership conferences that produced two lackluster leaders. Meanwhile, the NDP has collected the scraps from the Liberal table and now sits at the head, creating a polarized Canada and the perfect storm for the Conservative Party.

But the most troubling recruiting tool currently being sharpened by the conservative right is the encouragement of demonizing political rivals by right wing strategists, pundits and politicians. Regular right-leaning Canadians are answering the call with American-inspired attacks on all who lean left. Evidence of this deliberate tactic is everywhere. The caricature is hockey grump Don Cherry who mused at Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s inauguration about ‘left wing pinkos’ and ‘bike riding communists’. Message boards and comment sections on newspaper sites contain a treasure trove of vitriolic statements and ideological rants that not just disagree with non-conservative views but vilify and marginalize those who think differently.

Hardcore leftists are equally repugnant in their brief and rather unlettered manifestos, often describing Stephen Harper as a fascist while creating conspiracy theories about his ties to corporations and the state of Israel. Talk of Canada’s national identity being reshaped by fundamental Christians is complimented by maniacal claims of hidden political agendas and treasonous takeovers by oil companies.

And the Liberals, a party who had tried to brand itself as Canada’s only band of moderates, suddenly find themselves pushed aside. They deserve their political demotion, but the need for political moderation has never been more dire. Canadians are being driven towards polarization through the politics of fear, a dangerous yet potent ingredient in mobilizing party support in any country. But this task of extracting reason from panic is an uphill battle for the Liberals who have spent the bulk of the last 7 years focusing on their rivals rather than their constituents. Pundits who muse about a possible merger between the Liberals and NDP are dreaming out loud. Jack Layton is finally reaching his potential and would never relinquish his new found role as leader of the opposition. Nor should he. Nor could he. Ideologically, the NDP and Liberals are worlds apart, mostly because the Liberals do not have a well defined ideology.

Perhaps the old adage of finding opportunity nestled inside crisis is too idealistic for Canadian moderates, but the prospect of throwing in the towel would spell disaster for the nation. The Liberals are a blank slate – bruised, beaten and bloodied – but they have wiggle room. Without any real influence over their conservative and socialist counterparts they have no choice but to redirect their gaze towards the very people who voted them out, while simultaneously engaging the only constituency who continue to be unrepresented – the youth. Incorrigible as they seem, not since the 60s have we seen a climate where young people are finding their voice. Their sloth-like pace is a frustrating testament to the outdated method of engagement undertaken by politicians stuck in an ancient ritual of long expired recruitment methods. It may be a colossal challenge, but without young people there can be no base, and without that youthful base there can be no party.

It has been the better part of a decade since Liberals engaged honestly with Canadians, and the better part of two decades since they last showed an alliance with them. Canada is not the United States…yet. But the symptoms of drifting towards a two party system are ripe, and without the emergence of a new centrist manifesto we could be in for a dark age in federal politics.

Osama Bin Laden is Dead – No Questions Please

Why Osama’s Death Gives New Life to Skeptics

By: James Di Fiore

It was supposed to be a touchstone moment for America – the successful assassination of Osama Bin Laden. Indeed, when the news struck there was jubilation. Crowds swarmed the streets in America shouting chants of ‘USA! USA!’ and celebrated til the morning hours. President Obama – deemed soft on foreign policy by his critics, managed to out-hawk the neo-conservatives who up until that moment had a monopoly on national security. And then it all changed.

Or had it?

The successful killing of Bin Laden was immediately followed by the news that his body was laid to rest at sea. DNA samples allegedly taken from the body proved to be a match, according to military officials, leaving no room for doubt that the word’s most wanted terrorist was dead. Unfortunately for President Obama, many citizens still frustrated from 8 years of the Bush administration are skeptical of government statements claiming successes in foreign policy. People are demanding more than just grandiose statements from their leaders. They want tangible evidence to support government claims. The remarkable facet of this story appears to be the extreme lack of evidence to support the claim that Osama Bin Laden was killed during a Navy Seals operation in Pakistan. Even more interesting is the blanket approach by the government and the media to allow this claim to go unquestioned. Any skepticism has been met with immediate dismissal and labels of conspiracy theorists; tin foil hat wearing crazies who believe in UFOs, that 9/11 was an inside job and that the moon landing was a hoax.

But isn’t skepticism a healthy bi-product of democracy? Shouldn’t the killing of the world’s most wanted man require indisputable evidence vetted by non-American military and intelligence officers? The initial reason given by the Obama administration for the burial at sea was that it was in-line with Muslim custom that required a proper burial within 24 hours, but a proper Muslim burial also requires the corpse to be pointed towards Mecca, buried in the earth…not water. Additionally, the idea that America would toss Osama’s corpse overboard so hastily just to appease the Muslim faith seems rather extraordinary. And to get the burial custom wrong appears incompetent in that haste.

So, and rightfully so, people began to ask questions. Almost preemptively, the administration, members of the House Intelligence Committee and the media began to systematically label people with questions as conspiracy theorists; the go-to title for those who have questions about government statements. In the past, the definition of a ‘theorist’ of any kind required an actual theory to be hypothesized. But in today’s political climate one only needs to ask questions to earn that label.

“Why did you bury Osama at sea?”

“You must be a conspiracy theorist.”

“But I did not theorize an alternative, I just asked a question.”

“You are a conspiracy theorist.”

And so on.

This sets a dangerous precedent in American politics. When George W. Bush was president there were many Americans who believed he either had prior knowledge or was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. The people who had these ideas could rightfully be called conspiracy theorists. But there were also those individuals, particularly within the 9/11 families, who asked the 9/11 Commission tough questions about the attacks. Those individuals were for the most part considered to be patriotic Americans who simply wanted answers. But in today’s bizarre political and cultural climate, asking the American government for tangible evidence of Osama’s demise is being met with veracious finger pointing by politicians, pundits and even journalists. Paradoxically, staunch conservatives find themselves supporting unsubstantiated claims from a man who many see as a Kenyan born, secret Muslim who is covertly dragging America towards socialism. Perhaps many right wing politicians would rather not focus on a foreign policy victory by Obama, or perhaps 3 years of real conspiracy theories from their base has exhausted their credibility to the extent that legitimate questions must now go unanswered.

Here are legitimate questions about the killing of Osama Bin Laden:

Why didn’t officials allow diplomats from other countries terrorized by Al Qaeda independently identify his body? Surely America is not the only nation with vested interests in Bin Laden’s death.

Since it was not a proper Muslim burial, what was the real reason for the alleged burial at sea?

If the public can view graphic photos of Saddam Hussein’s dead sons, why not Osama?

Who was the soldier who killed Osama Bin Laden?

And finally, if asking questions about extraordinary government claims is akin to being a conspiracy theorist, have we entered a new chapter that renders the press impotent? And worse, have the people been marginalized to spectators during the world’s most cataclysmic events? If so, who are the government watch dogs the next time an extraordinary claim is made, and when will we be notified directly that our questions are no longer needed to form an intelligent opinion?

Believe whatever you want about the killing of Osama Bin Laden. But remember – there are tales in details. And please, try not to ask too many questions.

VIDEO OF CANADIAN VOTING AS DARTH VADER

 

Actual video footage of a man casting a ballot with a Darth Vader mask on. This is done in protest over the government’s decision to allow people to cast a ballot with their faces covered.

Why I am Hiding My Face When I Vote in Today’s Election

This is not a statement against Muslims – it is in support of legitimate voting in Canada

By: James Di Fiore

I am not a Muslim woman. I am not a conservative plant. I am not making a mockery of our electoral laws. I am trying to demonstrate how our system is being circumnavigated by religious accommodations, and I am not alone.

Today I will vote with my face covered. As I am writing this a friend is voting with his face covered as well. Across Canada at random polling stations people will be showing up in various masks and disguises. I created this mini movement with the support of friends and family.

Let’s hope Parliament will pass legislation that will insure our elections are conducted with a semblance of common sense. People should have to prove who they are when they vote, otherwise the legitimacy of our system is in jeopardy.

Happy voting.

Osama Bin Laden Killing a Perfect Political Storm

***photo may or may not be authentic…the original source is unknown

By: James Di Fiore

When one considers the magnitude of Osama Bin Laden’s demise a great deal of attention will be given to America’s conservative base, a crowd who believes President Obama is weak on foreign policy and even weaker in his stance on terrorism. But this opinion has always been a way to score political points among Americans despite Obama’s drone strikes and special forces inside Pakistan and Yemen. In fact, Obama’s strategy inside Pakistan was ridiculed by his political opponents when he ran for president in 2008. His position – that despite not being at war with Pakistan, he would conduct operations inside the country, essentially thumbing his nose at their sovereignty if it meant killing or capturing major Al Qaeda operatives.

Who will be the first politician to downplay Obama’s role in Bin Laden’s death? Newt Gingrich? Sarah Palin? Dennis Kucinich? Will commentators like Sean Hannity or Chris Matthews throw off their partisan robes and give credit where credit is due, or criticize when warranted? Will conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones create an alternative theory like his assertion that one of the infamous Osama videos was actually a computer generated cartoon?

And the million dollar question – what is the name of the soldier who  killed Bin Laden and when will he be immortalized?

It is too early to answer any of these questions. The picture of Osama’s body hasn’t been released yet, and I can already hear some people argue that he probably died years ago – or that he is still alive, lurking the mountainous region of Pakistan.

And finally, how long before we suffer another terror attack in response to this assassination?