UPDATED: On Trudeau's Sun 'News' Boycott

When I wrote a brief post the other day on Ezra Levant's disgusting and puerile tirade against the Trudeaus the other day, I had no intention of revisiting the issue, but two columns calling into question the decision by Justin Trudeau to boycott the organization leads me to further comment.

Writing in The Globe, Simon Houpt, while fully agreeing that the attack was just the latest in a series of outrageous nonsense from the mouth of the perpetually angry Levant, says that

when a politician cuts off access to select media, it is an affront to everyone. Sun Media has hundreds of dedicated professionals who work hard every day on behalf of millions of readers (and a few thousand viewers of Sun News). Trudeau’s impetuous move signals a disdain for them all, and carries an implicit warning that he might bar other media outlets who run afoul of him. We already have a Prime Minister obsessed with controlling the message. Trudeau does himself, and all Canadians, a disservice.

The Star's Chantal Hebert, in today's Star, offers similar criticism of the Trudeau decision.

The temptation to shut out all Sun Media journalists in protest over Levant’s grotesque commentary was probably irresistible. From a human standpoint, it is certainly understandable. But it also sets the party on a slippery slope familiar to most veteran parliamentary correspondents.

Liberal insiders who argue that it is too much of a leap to think that an opposition party that shuts out an entire news organization over the comments of one commentator would, once in government, expand its black list based on more political criteria are whistling past a cemetery of good intentions.

She adds,

If there is a debate to be had over the Levant commentary, attributing guilt by employer-association is hardly the way to go.

Questioning whether those who run major news organizations have a social responsibility to ensure that minimal journalistic standards are maintained by their organizations would be a better place to start.

My own response to these objections is quite simple. Sun News, by virtue of its continued employment of Levant, despite the numerous times he has disgraced both himself and his employer, means that the entire organization is complicit in his slanders, his racism, and his absence of balance.

Both Houpt and Hebert's critique of Trudeau's boycott are premised on Sun News being a legitimate news organization. Based on its tolerance and encouragement of people like Levant, it is an assumption with which I suspect many thinking Canadians would profoundly disagree.

UPDATE: The National Post's Jonathan Kay breaks breaks ranks with his fellow scribes and asserts that Trudeau is morally justified in his boycott decision.

Word On The Street - Chantal Hebert and Tim Harper

Although it started out quite ominously with heavy downpours, yesterday turned out to be a good day. As the clouds cleared, we hopped on the GO bus to attend Toronto's Word on the Street, an annual celebration of literacy. I always take heart when I see a strong cross-generational presence among the many thousands gathering for the love of reading and learning.



This year was especially gratifying, as we actually got seats in the Toronto Star tent to hear Chantal Hebert and Tim Harper discuss the national political scene and take numerous questions from the audience, moderated by the Star's Bob Hepburn.

Tim Harper qualified his remarks with two provisos: he has been regularly wrong in his predictions, citing his failure to foresee the demise of B.C.'s Adran Dix as one egregious example, and his assumption that he would be enjoying a long journalistic relationship with Alison Redford, the now former premier of Alberta.

He and Chantal Hebert also agreed that what the federal landscape will look like following next year's election will only become clearer once the campaigns are in full throttle.

Nonetheless, based on present indicators, they offered their views on a variety of topics:

On Justin Trudeau: Drawing upon the analogy of a colouring book, Tin Harper said that much of Trudeau's picture is at present not coloured in. His employment of platitudes rather than policy statements may work for now, but the crucible of the election campaign will determine whether he can retain his 'rock star' status. He suggested that one of the reasons Stephen Harper has been burnishing his foreign policy credentials is to offer a sharp contrast to the unseasoned Trudeau.

On Thomas Mulcair and the NDP: Hebert and Harper suggested that the party has a problem branding itself in places like Ontario and the west. Those who have grown weary of the Harper machinations are more likely to go to the Liberals than the NDP, despite the fact that Mulcair has shone during Question Period, which very few people ever watch. And even though Mulcair has proven himself to be a much sharper politician than Trudeau (e.g., Trudeau immediately endorsed our adventure in Iraq, 'as long as it continues to have parliamentary oversight', while Mulcair has withheld his party's approval, saying that neither the terms of the engagement have been revealed and no parliamentary oversight exists), it doesn't translate into greater electoral support.

On Mike Duffy's Trial: While it seems unlikely that Harper will be testifying at the trial, Chantal Hebert was of the view that ultimately it won't make much difference because, unlike the aforementioned Trudeau, Harper's picture is fully coloured in. Those who support him will not change their opinion, no matter what happens, and those who oppose him wouldn't believe him even if he testified that he had no knowledge of the payoff from Nigel Wright.

Tim Harper also pointed out a couple of interesting points. Given the array of charges Duffy is facing, the Wright payoff is only one of about 31 crimes Duffy is alleged to have committed. It, in fact, will likely occupy only a relatively small portion of the trial, and a judge would not allow it to be turned into a political circus, even if that is Duffy's intent.

Canaries in the Conservative coal mine? Referring to the column he had just written that appears in today's Star, Harper noted that about 30 Conservatives will not be seeking re-election in 2015. Is this an indication of widespread backbencher dissatisfaction? Is it normal attrition? Do members genuinely want to spend more time with their families and earn money in the private sector? These are all unanswerable questions at this point, but the columnist did point out that without the power of incumbency, many seats will be up for grabs, which could prove significant.

On CETA: This was probably the most discouraging aspect of the discussion, reminding me of the harsh and unprincipled nature of politics. Trudeau has endorsed the agreement, text unseen, while Mulcair has temporized, saying that he needs to see the text first. Both Hebert and Harper are of the view that both opposition leaders have little choice but to support it, given its widespread endorsement by Quebec, Ontario and all the other provinces. Challenging the agreement would be too expensive politically.

All in all, a very good day for a political junkie.

Another Nail

As I have expressed in this blog previously, it is my sincere belief that the Harper cabal, indeed, the hard right in general, does not want us exercising our democratic rights, especially as they pertain to voting. The less participation there is, the easier it is for the true believers, aka, the base, to keep their party in power. Up to this point, however, that democratic discouragement has been engendered incrementally, through Harper's general contempt for Parliamentary democracy, disdain and attacks on those with a differing ideological bent, the muzzling of scientists, etc.

Now, however, for the first time we have a piece of legislation, ironically entitled the Fair Elections Act (and which, as of today, faces a time allocation motion limiting debate to three further days), that will make it more difficult to exercise our right to vote.

Promoted by that pusillanimous puppet Pierre Poilievre, the Minister for Democratic Reform, the bill, despite its name, requires strict new identification at the polls, prevents Elections Canada from trying to promote greater participation by reaching out to disaffected groups or investigating electoral fraud, and discourages the development of innovative ways to engage younger voters, among other things.

Astute political commentator Chantal Hebert has drawn the same conclusions about the bill:

At a time when most comparable jurisdictions are looking for ways to reverse a decline in turnout the legislation put forward on Tuesday nudges Canada in the opposite direction.

According to Elections Canada the 2011 turnout rate among voters aged 18 to 24 stood at a dismal 38.8 per cent. Across Canada some of the outreach campaigns that the bill would outlaw federally are specifically tailored to them.

...one does not need to read between the lines of the bill to come to the conclusion that the Harper government is more inclined to see a higher voter turnout as a threat than as an ideal outcome.

Yet another nail in the coffin of our democracy, brought to you by the usual suspects.

At Issue: Harper's Obfuscation

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary offers the following definition of obfuscate: to make obscure; to confuse. As an intransitive verb, it means to be evasive, unclear, or confusing.

I suspect that those engaged citizens following the details of the Senate scandal that continues to dog the Prime Minister and shows no sign of abatement would agree that both forms of the verb apply to the sad Nixonian performance of Stephen Harper and his operatives. During both Parliament's Question Period and TV interviews with the likes of his Parliamentary Secretary, Paul Calandra, the refrain is always the same: "I told Mr. Duffy to repay his inappropriate expenses," and "This was a secret deal between Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy."

As his channeling of Sgt Schultz grows increasingly predictable and tiresome, his credibility (if he really has any) diminishes proportionally. And yet to call the Prime Minister a liar would be unseemly for journalists, so euphemisms abound. Last night's At Issue Panel on The National offers some good examples; the discussion also leaves one with the very real sense of Andrew Coyne's barely contained disgust with the Prime Minister:

At Issue Panel Opines On Harper and the Scandal

I have a bit of a busy morning, so I only have time for a couple of short posts. For reasons I have indicated elsewhere, I rarely watch CBC's The National anymore. However, given yesterday's shameful and feeble refusal by the Prime Minister and his trained seals to address the rot engulfing his administration, I decided to watch a special At Issue Panel last evening.

Below, you can watch Andrew Coyne, Chantal Hebert and Bruce Anderson evaluate Mr. Harper's efforts:

Are Canadians Experiencing Buyers' Remorse?

Many of us who blog, tweet, or post political views on Facebook cannot, I suspect, avoid the periodic and unsettling notion that we are simply 'preaching to the converted' instead of reaching a larger audience with our perspectives and commentaries. Yet we persevere, both as a catharsis for our own outrage over social and political injustices, especially (at least for me) those induced by the Harper cabal, and in the hope that our words may influence those who don't necessarily feel as we do. But it is always just a hope.

That is why I take such delight when I read things in the mainstream media that suggest our discontent is shared by a constituency much wider than our blogosphere, thereby offering reasons for renewed optimism that changes in Ottawa are indeed quite possible. Such is the case today in reading The Star's Chantal Hebert. Entitled Stephen Harper’s legacy in government may be nastiness, her column suggests that those who made possible the Harper majority are now feeling buyers' remorse:

The latest voting intentions sounding — done by Harris/Decima for The Canadian Press earlier this week — shows the Conservatives in second place, seven points behind the Liberals and more than 10 points down from their 2011 level.

While acknowledging that the results stem in part from Justin Trudeau's recent assumption of the Liberal Party leadership, Hebert suggests they are also a natural consequence of the politics of negativity that Harper and his functionaries have continued to embrace so rabidly, despite their majority:

With a consistency that would have been exemplary if only it had been exerted on the policy front, the majority Conservatives have treated Parliament and the country to [ongoing contempt].

At times it has seemed as if, having fought so hard to conquer a majority, they felt compelled to act like an occupying army rather than a government accountable to all.

Hebert makes the point that Canadians are used to their politics being rough, reminding us of some of the antics and abuses of power that characterized the Chretien reign. She does observe, however, that his government's saving grace was

a series of signature policies for which support extended outside the core Liberal base. A return to balanced budgets, the Clarity Act and a refusal to follow the Americans’ lead on Iraq are three examples.

By contrast, all Harper has left is his die-hard 'true believers', the rest totally alienated from his antics:

He promised to fix the democratic deficit that plagued Parliament. Instead Harper’s contribution to that deficit already surpasses that of his predecessors.

The Conservatives were going to end the culture of entitlement that pervaded previous governments. Instead, some of Harper’s senators and ministers have embraced that culture in relative impunity.

The prime minister also vouched to restore accountability to government. Instead, he has presided over increasingly opaque budgets and a Kafkaesque regime of communication designed to obscure rather than inform. The auditor general himself has trouble following the money through the federal system these days.

Despite my retirement, the English teacher within lives on. Upon reading Hebert's observations, my mind went to a scene in Shakespeare's Macbeth, when, near the end of his unjust and cruel rule, Macbeth is facing invasion from the English, who are helping Scottish patriots overthrow the tyrant. Someone asks about Macbeth's status:

13 Some say he's mad; others that lesser hate him

14 Do call it valiant fury; but, for certain,

15 He cannot buckle his distemper'd cause

16 Within the belt of rule.

ANGUS

Now does he feel

17 His secret murders sticking on his hands;

18 Now minutely revolts upbraid his faith-breach;

19 Those he commands move only in command,

20 Nothing in love. Now does he feel his title

21 Hang loose about him, like a giant's robe

22 Upon a dwarfish thief.

(Act 5, Scene 2)

I, and many others live in the hope that the dwarfish thief currently reigning in Ottawa is soon to experience a 'wardrobe malfunction' and lose his Prime Minister's robes. Hebert's article gives me renewed hope for that outcome.

The Powerful Stench Of Obsequiousness At The CBC

With the polls revealing that the NDP, under leader Thomas Mulcair, is enjoying 34% of popular support while the Harper Conservatives languish at 30%, it is probably no surprise that the CBC is once again polishing up its apples in yet another desperate and misplaced effort at appeasing its political masters. Having recently had its budget gutted, I guess it was too much to think that the Corporation would have found its spine and at least proceeded with a measure of dignity and integrity toward its ultimate doom under the Harper regime. Last night's At Issues Panel revealed that to be a forlorn hope.

With the right ably represented by both Bruce Anderson and the National Post's John Ivison, challenged in small measure by Chantal Hebert and the Huffington Post's Althia Raj, we were told how much of a mistake it was for Tom Mulcair to be critical of the inflationary effect of the Alberta tarsands on the Canadian dollar, a high dollar making it more difficult for Canadian manufacturers to compete. There was much tut-tutting on the divisiveness of such a pronouncement, the subtext being, I think, that Mulcair surely can't be considered Prime Ministerial material. Of course, nothing was said of our current Prime Minister, the master of national division.

This panel was followed by Rex Murphy's screed against Mulcair which, I must confess after listening to for about one minute, I turned off.

Should you deem yourself constitutionally strong, you can watch the panel discussion here; mercifully, the Murphy jeremiad does not yet appear to be on the website.

UPDATE: I'm sorry to report that Mr. Murphy's tantrum is now available via The Huffington Post. This time I made it to the 1:30 mark. If Rex does not get a Senate seat out of his unrepentant toadying, there clearly is no God.

Memo To Peter Mansbridge: Peter, you really have passed your best before date.

The Sad Saga Of Our Declining Democracy Continues

During the past year I have written many posts on the sad spectacle of a Canadian democracy in decline, citizen cynicism and apathy rather than vigorous engagement becoming the default position of more and more Canadians. I have also offered the opinion that this is in large part the result of practices purposely pursued by our political 'masters', most egregiously by the Harper regime, so as to leave the field pretty much clear for the 'true-believers' to exert a disproportionate influence on election results when they turn out and the rest of us tune out.

Extreme partisanship has relegated the public good to an afterthought, an example of which is highlighted in Martin Regg Cohn's column today in The Star. He writes about how the clash of politics has impeded anti-bullying legislation that was supposed to proceed smoothly as a response to the suicides of gay students, but has instead degenerated into open displays of bigotry, taunting, tweeting, sulking and shouting (or heckling, as parliamentarians call it).

An even more penetrating assessment of the price we all pay for the debasement of the political process is to be found in Chantal Hebert's column today, also in The Star. Entitled Ballot box seen as dead end rather than means to an end, Hebert first uses the ongoing Quebec student unrest to advance her thesis that our elected representatives are no longer looked upon as a viable source of representation, a notion which, when you think about it, strikes at the very heart of democracy:

Their movement increasingly boils down to an extreme manifestation of a widespread disenchantment toward Canada’s elected institutions; one that is leading alienated voters of all ages and in all regions to see the ballot box as a dead end rather than as a means to an end.

Hebert then turns her sights on the Harper regime:

In the national capital, a government elected with barely four in every 10 votes a year ago has since been going out of its way to disenfranchise the majority that did not support it.

Over the opening year of their majority mandate, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have moved to discourage civic dissent — in particular but not exclusively on the environmental front.

They have replaced federal-provincial dialogue with diktats and adversarial litigation.

They have placed themselves on a collision course with the courts over the place of the rule of law in the exercise of ministerial discretion.

The concept of ministerial responsibility has been reduced to a quaint historical footnote and parliamentary accountability is on the same slippery slope.

In the House of Commons, the government has moved to stifle the input of its opposition critics at every turn, systematically curtailing debate on bills or more simply subtracting legislation from competent scrutiny by cramming it inside inflated omnibus bills.

It should surprise no one that governments who treat the rule of law as a pesky inconvenience will eventually breed the same attitude in those that they purport to legislate for.

Hebert ends her piece by referring to ours as a debased democracy.

I have one questions that burns in my soul - Is there anyone or anything that can reinvigorate us at this point to reclaim our birthright?

Spring Signs of A Thaw In Our Political Passivity?

It's been a long time since I've seen in print the term 'Red Tory', used to describe an economic conservationism balanced by a social progressiveness. Yet it is included in columns today by The Star's Thomas Walkom and Chantal Hebert as both reflect upon the significance of Alison Redford's Progressive Conservative victory in Monday's Alberta election. Walkom goes so far as to suggest the term is also applicable to both Dalton McGuinty and Andrea Horwath, given their recent budget deliberations that yielded some real results.

As well, public editor Carol Goar writes on the growing backlash against the outrageously inflated salaries paid to so-called 'captains of industry.' A shareholders' meeting at one of Wall Street’s biggest banks, Citigroup, rejected the pay package awarded to Vikram Pandit, its CEO, a move she attributes in part to the growing awareness of the gross disparity that exists in North America between the privileged few (the 1% identified by the Occupy Movement) and the rest of us.

One can only hope that the movement for a more equitable distribution of wealth to restore and maintain some of the traditions and values Canadians hold dear will gain real momentum.

Last Night's CBC At Issues Panel

As I do most Thursdays, I watched last night's At Issues Panel on the CBC's National News. As usual the panelists, Allan Gregg, Chantal Hebert, and Andrew Coyne had a lively but respectful discussion, this time on the many issues undermining the credibility of the Harper Government.

Allan Gregg made a disturbing suggestion; even though the issue of Harper's contempt for Parliamentary democracy has been especially manifest this week through House Speaker Miliken's two rulings, plus the fact that the Conservatives tabled demonstrably false cost estimates for the purchase of the F-35 fighter jets, he doubted that such will resonate with the public. He opined that the concept of Parliamentary democracy, so regularly violated by the Harper Government these past few years, may not mean much to the public, since nothing the Government does seems to be reflected in public opinion poll results.

That, plus the George Carlin video posted yesterday, got me thinking about the vital role that critical thinking plays in an informed and vital democracy. In the past I wrote fairly extensively on the topic, and if anyone is interested in either my thoughts or links on the subject, they can be found on my other blog, Education and Its Discontents.