Election 2015: Conservatives Unraveling

The Duffy trial had a second day of testimony from Nigel Wright. Some very interesting revelations have come forward. Emails have shown that there was a consorted effort among a number of the Prime Minister's inner circle in the PMO to not only make the Duffy expense problem go away, but to also deceive the public about who paid the expenses. It was also revealed that Duffy was forced to accept the plan that they came up with, and to lie to the public. This is very damaging stuff. I think Canadians who may have tired of this story would be wise to pay attention now. It gets to the very heart of what has been going on in the PMO, and the fact that many of the players involved in this cover up are still involved in one way or another with the Prime Minister or the Conservative Party is very disturbing. They have not learned anything.

A government that came in with the promise of accountability, and to clean up the mess and scandals of the Liberals is now involved in what appears to be something very serious. This is not just about the money, this is about the deception, and the way in which this government can casually lie to the public without even considering that it might be unethical. Nigel Wright himself said that he was acting on biblical principal, comparing himself to a person giving charity, rather than hush money to cover up dubious activity. It shows a complete disconnect from reality, in which Conservatives and those in the PMO truly believe they are always acting in the public interest, even when they lie and cheat and steal. This scheme was not ethical. It was not acting in the public interest. It was a deliberate action taken to save the brand. It makes one wonder if other such schemes are lying under the woodwork.

The next question is naturally, what effect will this have on the election? It is hard to say. People are on vacation right now. They are not really paying attention to political matters, but the latest polls suggest a slight drop for the Conservatives, and I think they will take another hit in the next round as this information starts to sink in, and as the other leaders pick up steam in their campaigns. I don't think this will shake the very core of the Conservative base, but maybe it might turn off some Conservative voters enough that they won't bother showing up to vote, and that is a big problem for a party that is relying on their supporters entirely and not going after new ones.

But the bottom line, and what I will take out of all of this is that we need people in Ottawa who are working for Canadians interest, and not just their party. The people involved in this scheme were always about party first, and that kind of culture needs to be rooted out and exposed. Maybe electoral reform might help in some way to reflect Canadian values more accurately in parliament, but we need a shift away from the party first attitude after 10 years of an over controlling and hyper-partisan approach. We need people in Ottawa who can manage to look beyond partisanship at least some of the time in order to make good legislation, and do what is best for Canada.  Enough with the US style inflexible politics.

Election 2015: The Duffy Effect

So this week the Mike Duffy trial started up again. The star witness being the former Chief of Staff of PM Harper, Nigel Wright. Wright, the man who gave Senator Duffy $90,000 to make his illegal expense claims go away. Wright's testimony may not bring any huge revelations, or a smoking gun, but this trial is a culmination of all of the other legally dubious if not outright illegal actions taken by people close to Harper over the past 10 years. Duffy, Wallin, Brazeau, Del Mastro. These are just the high profile cases. Politically, it's poison for any sitting Prime Minister. If one were to look at the overall picture, it would appear that Harper is a poor judge of character at best, and has created a culture in the PMO that condones illegal activity at worst.

Harper, when making his appointments, whether to the senate or the Supreme Court of Canada, has been more concerned about the political leanings of prospective appointees rather than their qualifications. And once he picks a bad appointment, he will insist that they did nothing wrong, until they are being hauled into court for doing something wrong. When that happens, suddenly he doesn't want anything to do with them. While this is understandable, Harper's suggestion that he "does not apologize for the actions of others", is just not going to cut it. One has to ask, at what point does the Prime Minister believe he does have any responsibility for those he appoints and surrounds himself with? At what point does it become about his judgement?

According to Wright, he worked with others in the PMO and people close to the Prime Minister to concoct a scheme in which they would pay back Duffy's expenses for him, but make it look like he'd pay them back himself, and then would clean up the audit report so that it would appear to be more favourable to the Senator. They were given talking points of what to say to the media, none of which were actually factual or true. He was then given permission by the Prime Minister to go forward with this plan to limit the political damage of Duffy's expenses. None of this was done with honourable intentions. It was done with political expedience in mind.

This is not about the $90,000 cheque, but about the people that the Prime Minister has surrounded himself with. People willing to bend the rules, and who feel entitled to anything they can get. Senators who cry about having to eat cold brie and broken crackers, and go to expensive hotels and drink 16 dollar orange juice. Who claim for a second house when their main residence is in Ottawa, Of course it would be unfair to say that the Conservative Party are any more entitled than other politicians we have had in the past, but it seems to be a problem that has grown over time among those closest to the Prime Minister and is coming to light more often with the Harper government. And it will hurt him in this election.

The other aspect of the Harper government which is equally troubling as the outrageous expense claims and sense of entitlement, is the hyper-partisanship. The Harper government has brought it to a new level in Ottawa. I have watched multiple MPs say things that I wondered if even they believed on TV when asked about things like the Duffy trial, or even about the varsity of their claim to have balanced the budget. These are people willing to do anything to avoid admitting a mistake, or taking responsibility. They refuse to consult, and they refuse to acknowledge any viewpoint other than their own. They even go so far as to insult the opposition instead of answering legitimate questions during question period. MPs like Calandra and Poilievre go to outrageous lengths to avoid answering questions. They repeat the party line over and over, hoping that somehow this will make what they are saying more true. If Canadians paid more attention to Question Period, or to committees, they would be appalled.

But the truth is most Canadians do not pay attention to these things. They trust that our government is doing its job. We shouldn't. People may ask, why any of the stuff like omnibus bills, muzzling reporters, refusal to grant access to information, berating the opposition and trying to starve them financially, or refusing to answer questions in the House of Commons matters. It matters because if we don't hold our government to account, stuff like Duffy happens. Bev Oda happens. Dean Del Mastro happens. Bad legislation that is costing us millions in court fees happens. Canada becomes less fair and less democratic. Less about Canadians' needs and more about partisan political needs. And it needs to stop.

Black Lives Still Matter One Year Later

A year after the violent confrontations between police and protesters reacting to the murder of unarmed teenager Michael Brown, Furgeson is once again making headlines for the very same problem. One man in critical condition after being shot by police after a gun fight, countless protesters tear gassed. Has anything been learned over the past year? At times like these, it seems not.

Since Michael Brown's death, there have been a number of high profile cases, and a total of 1,083 deaths at the hands of police, in addition to countless cases of misconduct and abuse of civilians. Americans are having an uncomfortable conversation about race and the modern day implications of a country that only began to desegregate 50 years ago. White Americans as a whole seem to fail to recognize the fundamentally different relationship that they have with law enforcement, and that the rapidly increasing militarization of police has contributed to a staggeringly disproportionate use of force against black and other minority civilians.

Even progressive, liberal white Americans seem to falter when confronted with the need for black voices to be heard. When the pride of the left wing of the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders was interrupted by black lives matter activists during a rally in Seattle, the divide was made very clear. Black people were expressing their frustration at feeling left out by white progressives, who they believe are happy to talk the talk, but don't want to make real change. The response from those white progressives was to try and silence black voices, by booing and otherwise berating the protesters for pointing out the flaws in their liberal hero. Sanders left the stage without addressing their concerns.

The main issue with Sanders is that although he makes appeals about economic inequality, he seems to ignore the compounded effect that race has on economic inequality. Until now he has remained mostly silent on issues like mass incarceration of Black and Latino citizens, and immigration reform. It's the problem that socialist leaning progressives have always had. They believe that economic inequality alone is the problem, and that once economic inequality is solved, all the other problems will fix themselves. It was the same rhetoric socialist leaning men gave to women participating in the labour movements of the 20th century. Gender equality and racial inequality were not as important in their minds. The truth is that these are deeply intertwined issues. You cannot address just one.

One organizer of an earlier protest at the Netroots Nation conference in Phoenix said, “[this conference] a space where people call themselves allies in the movement for black liberation, but often times we’re invited into that space and we don’t feel welcome,” and this is deeply disheartening.

Continuing to ignore black voices is not the way forward. There needs to be more of a willingness in the white progressive community to address the concerns of black people, and not just assume that they have the same priorities, or can speak for black people. White progressives need to confront their own privilege in progressive spaces, and they need to learn to listen. Because of these protests, Bernie Sanders has been forced to respond with some positively received initiatives.

Yes, these confrontations may be part of an ugly process that creates divisions on the progressive front before a very critical 2016 election, but it is a discussion that must be had, because at the end of the day, it will strengthen the progressive movement.

Election 2015: Harper Scares Up His Base

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced today that he is going to push forward legislation to make travel to certain areas of the world illegal for Canadians. He made reassurances that foreign dignitaries, aid workers, and the like would be allowed exceptions. What he did not make clear was whether or not one would be allowed to visit a dying family member in these areas, or enter these areas to try and ensure the safety of loved ones. It also looks like the kind of law that would probably not stand up to a court challenge, not unlike so much of the legislation passed by this government of late.  The government can issue warnings and recall Canadians from certain places, but to make it illegal to travel somewhere would violate our freedom of movement as guaranteed to us in Section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This law is a non-starter for that reason alone, but this isn't about the law itself, as it rarely is with the Conservatives. It's about getting their base riled up about terrorism.

Harper knows that he is not going to pick up many new voters this election, so he is trying to motivate his base, that 30% or so of loyal voters, to get out en mass to support him on election day. He thinks he can accomplish this by pushing the tough on terrorists pledges, even if they are on shaky ground legally.  He can also point at the opposition parties and say, "hey. what are those guys doing about terrorists?" This announcement, coincidentally or not, comes at a time when he would much rather be talking about terrorism than talking about the Mike Duffy trial and Nigel Wight's testimony, set to start on Tuesday. He doesn't want to have to answer more questions about that, so he is trying to shift the conversation.

What is somewhat troubling about all of this is that the Prime Minister is more concerned about the day's headlines and his next political move than actually proposing legislation that might help Canadians, or that could actually pass a court challenge. This government has never cared much for the courts, or for any kind of discussion or scrutiny of their legislation. They pass legislation only with their political agenda in mind. They put no thought to actually passing good legislation, and that is why they have had to spend millions defending their laws in court. They wouldn't have to do this if they passed good laws to begin with, and actually allowed discussion and committee hearings to do their job to make a better law.

What is clear is that Harper wants to make this election about terrorism and the economy, and to try to avoid talking about all that damaging stuff like 90.000 dollar bribes, and the growing number of his former besties being put in jail or awaiting trial. And it makes sense politically, but at the same time, you have to wonder how long this tactic will work?  This is where an 11 week campaign is going to hurt the Conservatives. It will extend the period of time that Canadians will be paying attention to all this stuff, and the longer Canadians are paying attention, the less likely they are to vote for Harper.

Harper is hoping for another 2011, or a UK style surprise victory, but the polls suggest that far more Canadians would support a coalition than did last time, and the Conservative "stay the course everything is great isn't it?" campaign may not resonate so much with a faltering economy. The truth is that terrorism just isn't a top priority for Canadians who aren't already voting Conservative. This latest move just shows that Harper is out of ideas.

*  twitter: @poliitcal_toast   Tumblr: political toaster 

FHRITP: A Symptom Of Female Reporters Getting No Respect

In Canada, there has been recently a number of cases of female reporters being confronted by strangers aggressively yelling "fuck her right in the pussy" while they are on air. This is not an isolated incident either. Several reporters have been faced with such heckling. Yes it was also happening to some male reporters, but the majority appear to be women. Most recently, a reporter was kissed by a stranger on air while trying to do her job. It's a symptom of the much larger question of bodily autonomy; who has it and who doesn't in our society.

Aggressive , distracting, and at times frightening incidents such as these are brushed off by the perpetrators as being a joke. But who is laughing? Yelling obscenities or grabbing someone unexpectedly, especially women, who grow up with the constant fear of assault is not acceptable. It's actually astonishing to me that this has to be said in this day and age.  People desperate for attention will do ridiculous things, and perhaps these guys think that by doing this stuff they will impress their friends or something. But the truth is that it is a  reflection of their lack of respect for women, and I would not at all be surprised to hear that they hold misogynistic views or otherwise treat women in their lives with disrespect.

Journalism is a field where women already have a difficult time being taken seriously, particularly in sports journalism or in hard news. Women make up a smaller percentage of opinion piece writers, and 1/4 of the guests on Sunday morning political shows, as well as only 1/3 of news staffers. So it takes on a whole different connotation when a man feels that he as the right to interrupt a woman doing her job for his joke, It demonstrates that he does not believe that what she is doing is important enough that he should not interrupt.

There is also the issue of a woman's body being seen as public property, and open to any man to touch at any time he wants. Our society condones this sort of behaviour, particularly because of the way that we present women as passive objects to be won or taken by men, and the way that the media focuses on female appearance above achievement. We blame women for male violence and violation, and yet women are punished for not being accommodating enough or pleasant enough, as speaking out often results in death and rape threats online. The message is clear: Women are here for male satisfaction and to fulfill male needs. Our opinions do not matter. Our bodies are not our own.

The response to these childish and disrespectful acts shows that we are making progress. Nobody should have to deal with hecklers and unwanted touching when they are just trying to do their job. As a society we seem to have forgotten how to treat each other with respect, and have lost the sense that what we do in public will have consequences. The message needs to be clear that not everyone finds this behaviour as funny as the perpetrators do.

Why Donald Trump Can Hate Women And Still Succeed In The Polls

Although I prefer to refrain from blogging about "The Donald", since his candidacy is more of a sideshow than a realistic bid for the White House, I could not ignore his obvious hatred of women, and wondered why he is even getting the amount of support he is. 

Donald Trump has called women "fat pigs, slobs – and disgusting animals". And when being called out about it, his response was that he doesn't want to be politically correct. This is another phrase that I rather passionately dislike, because apparently Trump thinks that treating women with respect is being "politically correct" (apparently a very bad thing), instead of, you know, a decent human being.

And then later, he lashed out at the woman who dared to call him out on his treatment of women, by calling her a bimbo on twitter, among other things  He even went so far as to say she had "blood coming out of her eyes. Or blood coming out of her wherever". 

Why is this acceptable for someone running for President to say? How is this man still alive in the polls? Who are his base? Well, they are people who think the same things. They are mostly (probably white) men, who hate immigration, and apparently, also hate women, and love that Trump is willing to say what they think for them so they don't have to say it themselves and face the consequences. They are the shy racists and sexists of the world who enjoy writing nasty things on the internet, and saying what they think among those who agree with them, but who get rather prickly when challenged.

The truth is that Donald Trump is just a louder version of what all the other Republican candidates think, but value their political chances too much to say. He is the mouthpiece for all those annoying white male acquaintances and relatives on Facebook who cry about political correctness, and spew misogyny at every turn. He is the commentators on YouTube posts who write nasty things about women. He is a physical representation of some of the male dominated parts of the internet. People might say he is ridiculous and that his comments are absurd, but the reality is that he represents a very loud and rather annoying part of our society. The unvoiced (and sometimes voiced) part. The part that is honest about their misogyny and racism, instead of trying to cloak it. 

In this way, I almost prefer Trump to the men who won't come out and say that they hate women. At least this way we can have a dialogue, because he is so over the top that people are forced to see what many of us see all the time on the internet, but because it is not said out loud, we tend to dismiss. I think it is time to talk about the Donald Trump's of the world, and ask ourselves when did our society become like this? When did we start praising anger and vitriol and hatred? When did being openly racist and sexist become "edgy", or fighting the good fight against some perceived "politically correct" oppression? But above all, I hope that the sideshow that is Donald Trump will expose the Republican Party for what it is: A bunch of old white men who hate diversity, hate the poor, hate women, and love money.

Election 2015: Debate #1 Review

The first election debate of 2015 is over, and it looks like all party leaders seemed to do what they set out for. Harper put out his talking points that will please his base, Justin Trudeau showed himself to be a capable debater, Elizabeth May got the job done in terms of calling out things that were untrue and made herself look quite strong, and Mulcair was able to get in some good shots and Harper while not coming off too abrasive.

At every corner Harper was being pushed, and he managed to hold his own quite well, for someone whose goal is to keep his base, not necessarily to get new voters. As expected, Harper was strongest and most comfortable when defending his economic record and talking about national security, and was weakest when he was talking about democratic reform and the Senate. Harper looked somewhat weaker than in previous debates, and at times unable to defend himself credibly.

Thomas Mulcair was probably advised to come off as friendly as possible, and at times this felt a bit forced and awkward. He was very reserved, but perhaps too reserved. He was called out on a few things by Trudeau on separatism, as well as by May on his environmental record. Mulcair was not particularly strong when he was on the defence, and didn't always have satisfactory answers, but he did overall come off quite well and very sensible.

Justin Trudeau overall did quite well. I think his main problem came at the end with his sputtering final statement, but otherwise he managed to get his points across, and fairly successfully defend his positions. He remains weak when it comes to C-51, and although he tried to explain his position, to a lot of people it won't be a satisfactory stance. He did have a few very good moments when he was on the attack against Harper.

Elizabeth May was the most coherent, and the most knowledgeable of the leaders tonight. She came off as being the most confident, and hit the best blows against Harper. She also had the most compelling final remarks. If there was a big winner tonight, it was May. It will be interesting to see if Green support will increase, which might make things difficult for the NDP and the Liberals.

Overall, all of them did well, but Harper came off the most tired, and the most threatened, and Mulcair was a bit too weak. Mulcair would be best served by not sitting back quite as much next time.  I certainly hope that we will see more debates, and that Mulcair will push Harper to attend more. It would be of a great benefit to have more discussions of the quality we have seen tonight.