Protecting Those In Power

It is to state the obvious that there are many actions going on in the background to which we are not privy. Only occasionally do we see the man behind the curtain. Some actions may simply involve efforts to protect reputations, while others have a more sinister cast, a cast that stabs at the heart of contemporary democracy. It is about the latter I write today.

As people already know, Minister of Economic Development and Trade Jim Wilson has been bounced from the Ford Ontario government, along with Andrew Kimber, Ford’s executive director of issues management and legislative affairs. The initial explanation, that Wilson was leaving his cabinet post and caucus to seek treatment for addiction issues, was put to the lie by some sterling sleuthing by Global News. It turns out that the real reason Wilson left had to do with sexual impropriety. When caught in the lie, Ford said he did it to protect the identity of the complainant, a risible ruse that merits no further discussion, but only complete contempt.

Party and political machinations being what they are, the effort to conceal the real reason for Wilson's departure is hardly surprising. What does become both surprising and alarming is when those forces whose ostensible job is to protect people become enablers of government.

Such would appear to be the case in the miasma surrounding the contentious nomination of PC Ben Levitt, who ran and lost in the riding of Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas in the last election. While the allegations about irregularities and ballot-stuffing during his nomination are not new, what is new is the report that Hamilton Police have made two arrests, but are keeping all the information about them under wraps.

Hamilton police made two arrests – yet laid no charges – in their investigation of alleged voter fraud at a Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario nomination meeting, but the lead officer said details of the probe should be kept under wraps to avoid creating “undue negative bias” toward the government. [Emphasis mine.]

Fortunately, this wholly inappropriate attempt to protect the powerful is not going unchallenged:

The Globe and Mail and CTV are seeking to unseal court documents related to the case, a move the Crown is opposing.

While the police are claiming unsealing the information could contaminate their investigation, one fact keeps emerging:

Det. Constable Jefferess ... noted twice in his affidavit the allegations involve the party that forms the province’s government.

“As this investigation involves a political party and the current sitting provincial government, the release of the contents of the applications for judicial authorizations to the various media outlets may cause the media outlets and/or the public who read the subsequent news stories to come to their own conclusions or draw inferences based on the information,” he wrote.

“This could lead to a prejudice of the potential jury pool (if charges are laid) and/or undue negative bias towards the current sitting provincial government.”

In other words the public, which should have expectation of transparency here, cannot be trusted with the information.

The Globe is seeking to unseal records relating to the search warrants and other authorizations, including information to obtain (ITO) documents, which are compilations of evidence that police present to a judge.

“This application is to further transparency because there is overwhelming public interest in ensuring that nomination rules and procedures are followed when political parties nominate persons to stand for election,” said media lawyer Peter Jacobsen, who represents The Globe.

The Globe and Mail reported previously there was a printer at the nomination meeting cranking out fake Rogers utility bills and Scotiabank statements that enabled people who were not eligible to vote to illegitimately cast ballots, according to multiple sources. In addition, there were irregularities at the credentials table, which is typically where voters are sent after encountering problems at the standard alphabetical registration stations.

It becomes increasingly apparent in this day and age that our belief that our political 'leaders' and their underlings are held in check by both internal and external processes is little more than a cruel illusion. Outside the press, an increasingly beleaguered, undervalued and underfunded check on the powerful, there seems little reason to believe that our democracy is being well-served today.

But then again, like so many other abuses to which we are privy today, will this just be met with a societal shrug of the shoulders as our increasingly infantile populace turns to the next diversion, be it found on social media, reality television, or the next titillating celebrity scandal?

Disingenuous At Best, Hypocritical At Worst

To listen to post-election Ontario Tories and to take them at their word would suggest that the lot of them were simply dupes of Machiavellian forces over which they had no control. Up to and including the day of the election, they all appeared to be solidly behind their leader and his plans. After their abject failure to win the hearts and minds of Ontarians, that narrative quickly changed, most notably in Lisa MacLeod's disavowal of both her leader and his program.

The latest exercise in what many would describe as arrant hypocrisy was evident in newly-appointed Tory interim leader Jim Wilson's public musings yesterday:

Coming from a former cabinet minister during the savage Mike Harris years, Wilson's disavowal of both tactics and tone are a little hard to take seriously. Consider this statement:

... the party has been “attacking people for a decade and in my heart and my caucus colleagues heart we not that kind of people . . . we are going to be Progressive Conservatives.”

Not that kind of people, eh? Well, perhaps Mr. Wilson could tell us exactly what kind of people enthusiastically put forward their names to run as candidates for a party that thrives on division, whether the attacks it has so wholeheartedly embraced over the years have been directed against teachers, union bosses, the Rand formula, civil servants and their 'gold-plated pensions,' progressive taxation, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

And while we're at it, he might also address what kind of people, as soon as they are denied power, so openly and ignominiously turn on their erstwhile leader? To be sure, young Tim Hudak was never fit to lead the province, but that apparently was never obvious to his many 'loyalists,' who unsheathed their knives with such unseemly dispatch as soon as the direction of the political winds became apparent to them.

What kind of people are the Progressive Conservatives, Jim? Allow me to try to answer that. They are opportunistic, cynical people who, now frustrated because of a failed strategy, are desperate to reinvent themselves into a party of inclusion and sensitivity. In other words, since all else has failed, they have decided it is time to try that 'sincerity thing.'

Trouble is, Jim, people can spot insincere sincerity a mile away. Next strategy, anyone?