Pros and Cons

Following up on Rona Ambrose's stout denial that the government's planned anti-marijuana campaign has anything to do with trying to undermine Justin Trudeau, along with Canadian doctors refusing to be part of a campaign that has become, as they describe it, political messaging, here are the perspectives of two National Post readers:

Re: Health Canada Doesn’t Endorse Medical Use Of Pot, Ambrose Says, Aug. 19.

The time for legalizing marijuana is long overdue. It strikes as more than a little hypocritical that the politicians in this country spend our tax dollars to bewail the evils of pot, while alcohol is given a free pass on being socially acceptable.

It would be interesting to compare the harms caused by alcohol and marijuana. Should we start with tallying vehicular injury and death? Then we could calculate which substance contributes more to violent crime. Then look at which is more likely to cause social ills, such as broken families and spousal abuse. Then we could also measure the medical costs incurred on the health system by both substances.

Every state in the U.S. that has fully legalized marijuana has reported only positive results — socially and economically. It is time that the politicians and the people benefiting from this draconian system of prohibition accept the facts.

Robert Fitzpatrick, Sicamous B.C.

Playing politics

By refusing to take part in a Health Canada anti-drug campaign that will target young people, the doctors are showing their political bias in favour of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, who supports legalizing marijuana use. Can’t they see that they have allowed their politics to prevent their informed opinion on discouraging marijuana use to be propagated?

Jiti Khanna, Vancouver.

Denial And Outrage

During my teaching career, it was occasionally my unpleasant task to confront a student with evidence of his or her cheating; most situations revolved around plagiarizing essays or having skipped a test. The student's responses when confronted were invariably the same; indeed, they tended to parallel Elizabeth Kubler-Ross' five stages of grief.

I won't bore you with the details, but common initial reactions were denial that any offence had occurred, ("I have no idea what you are talking about"), and when that failed, anger that I would harbour such unfounded and unworthy suspicions ("I am really hurt that you would accuse me of such a thing"). Invariably, they were guilty as charged.

There seems to be an analogous system at work in politics.

Let's start with the Harper regime's upcoming campaign against marijuana use, the one that the three main groups representing doctors, Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC), Canadian Medical Association (CMA) and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada have refused to be part of because they "... do not, support or endorse any political messaging or political advertising on this issue".

The accusation that the campaign has become a political football aimed at discrediting Justin Trudeau, who favours legalization of pot, has been hotly denied by Health Minister Rona Ambrose:

“Telling kids to not smoke pot is not a partisan attack on Justin Trudeau by Health Canada,” Ambrose told a news conference Monday on the sidelines of the annual Canadian Medical Association meeting.

“It is a sound public health policy backed by science. Whether pot is legal or illegal, the health risks of marijuana to youth remain the same, and we should all be concerned about them.”

She added that Trudeau “made this a political issue.”

Denial and shifting the blame, both time-honoured tactics of my former wayward students.

Next, the anger:

This morning's Star reports the following:

The federal New Democrats are hoping to put the Canada Revenue Agency under the microscope Tuesday after recalling a House of Commons committee to examine a wave of audits against registered charities.

NDP MP and revenue critic Murray Rankin (Victoria) has questioned whether the audits were politically motivated actions against those advocating for environmental causes and other issues clashing with the Harper government’s policies.

However, Revenue Minister Kerry-Lynne Findlay rejects the allegations, and with great umbrage:

“Your baseless allegation that I have used my office to blatantly misappropriate CRA resources to target and intimidate charities that don’t agree with our government’s policies is absolutely reprehensible,” wrote Findlay in a letter to Rankin, dated Aug. 5.

“As an honourable parliamentarian, I find your unwarranted attacks on the integrity of the CRA and my office shameful and plunges parliamentary discourses to new lows.”

To quote from my favourite Shakespearean play, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Such indignation may play well to the party's base, but critical thinkers may wonder at the rhetorical flourishes employed by Ms. Findlay here.

The final stage in the five stages of grief is acceptance. For the Harper regime, I suspect that will only come after the results of the next election.

Mission Accomplished.

Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh.....



H/t Canadians Rallying to Unseat Stephen Harper

A Public Service Announcement From The Conservative Party Of Canada

Given the Harper regime's new-found zeal for warning all of us about the dangers of marijuana, and, coincidentally, the equally dangerous potential of a Justin Trudeau-led government, perhaps the following will help them to bring home the dangers of both:



H/t Patrick Clarke

Responses To My Previous Post

I am always grateful when people take the time to respond to my posts. Engaging in discussions, exchanging points of view are part of what makes this blog worthwhile. On occasion I like to reproduce comments as separate posts, aware of the fact that often those comments will be missed by readers who generally don't return to read them. In that spirit I offer these responses from Scotian and Simon to my previous post on Justin Trudeau. Both reflect a point of view shared by many of us, that the first priority has to be to get rid of Harper, and that Trudeau's timidity is in part a reflection of the LPC's desire not to provide any ammunition to the Conservatives who, time and time again, have shown their willingness to stoop to any dirty trick to try to sully those who oppose them.

Scotian:

Not that I am wanting to be defending this, as I've already said here I disagree profoundly with this choice of his on this issue, but how much of this is because he knows he cannot afford to give the Harper machine any chance to portray him especially on foreign policy grounds as unserious. Remember the comment I made that you chose to post on your blog? Those forces are no doubt watching Trudeau like a Hawk hoping for just the slightest chance to tear at him so as to let them keep their preferred man Harper in the PMO. So it is possible what we are seeing is as you said bobbing and weaving like in that boxing match, but remember, that serves a real purpose, to stay in the fight until you can deliver your hard punches to win.

I'm not saying I'm happy with this, because I am not. I am though also not going to pretend that as ugly and horrific as things are with Israel and the Palestinians that I am going to make my political domestic judgments in the current reality on them either. I do not know that my view is correct, that Trudeau is saying what he needs to to be able to stay in the fight to beat Harper, and if he is it is something I never like seeing political leaders do, but I won't pretend that there isn't real reason for a leader with Trudeaus limited record to do it on an issue as charged and with as powerful a lobby on one side as we have here.

Even if I am wrong though and he truly believes what he is saying, I am still not going to change my view that letting him become the next PM is still the best choice among the three actually viable options, because while Mulcair may have more experience as a leader the way he operates is not a whole lot better than Harper in my eyes, granted for less destructive purposes. I don't trust those in his team for competence to run a government, I do trust in the institutional experience within the Liberal party though, and that is why I can still support a Lib leader who comes in with as limited experience as Trudeau, especially since he clearly knows how to find quality competent people around him and makes them get the job done. Look at how much he has been able to rebuild the Lib party itself for proof of that.

He is clearly not his father in intellect, but then how many of us are? Is he as developed as I would prefer, no but then I think he himself would say that. He didn't after all, initially want to run for leader this soon, he wanted to build up more experience, the problem was the 2011 results left him with a stark choice, either run now or there quite possibly wouldn't be a Lib party for him to lead when he did have that experience. So I understand your concerns Lorne, and even to a degree share them, but I also keep the context we have in mind too, and I do not believe that Trudeau is so able a leader to run and win his leadership with a 80% first ballot win, then rebuild his party machinery from the ground up, fundraising machinery overhauled as it has been, and not understand that he needs to put out more serious substance, I'm hoping he is biding his time. Too soon as we know what the Harper CPC will do, we've seen that movie already after all. Just ask Dion.

If we were in typical times I could not support a first time leader such as Trudeau, but these are anything but, and I refuse to allow myself to be diverted from the most important short term goal, the removal of Harper and the CPC, and hopefully with enough force to send them to third party status hopefully allowing the Red Tories to take over the CPC and turn it into something sane.

Simon:

I went to see JT in London last year and before the Party nomination precisely because I didn't believe the hype. I was impressed with his poise and knowledge and ultimately decided that he is the real deal. I too, however, feel vaguely disappointed with his public position re: Zion and Gaza.

I fairness though, he is still only a PM in waiting. He is young and inexperienced and has already suffered several beatings at the hands of the CPC bullys precisely for taking firm positions (pro-choice, pot). Since he still has to *win* popular support (and the next election), I think it is reasonable for him to be somewhat more coy about extremely divisive issues.

His head and heart are in the right place. He is a proud Canadian and a champion of this great country and its liberal values. This is the diametric opposite of Harper's Alberta-centric, corporate oil pandering, science-denying, climate-change ignoring, anti-woman, opaque, unaccountable, controversial subterfuge.

I want this young man to lead this country. He'll find his feet.

Cheers, Simon

I replied:

Thanks to both Scotian and Simon for your well-considered comments. I hope you won't mind if I publish both in a separate blog entry, as they provide incisive counter-balances to the views I expressed above.

While I do believe that you are quite right about the dangers being forthright would pose at the hands of the Harper henchmen, I do think there are ways to be fair to both the Gazans and Israelis without alienating the supporters of either side. I wish Trudeau would opt for one of those ways.

Thanks again for taking the time to comment.

To which Scotian responded:

I've got no problems with it, if I did why would I write comments in the first place? LOL

Seriously, it is not like I disagree with you on the preference, but I am also mindful of the fact that Trudeau has only one chance to win here, the moment he makes those "in over his head" ads look credible on any serious issue, however fairly or unfairly, is the moment his and the Lib chances take a serious hit and all that CPC voter support he and the Libs have been pulling away risks returning to Harper. It is not likely they will go to Mulcair and the NDP, they didn't for Layton in 2011 after all. Remember, it is not just he Harper henchmen I fear on this issue, indeed in some ways they would be the pick-up follow-through to the ones I truly fear, who would also give a dangerous credibility to that attack from the Harperites. It is not in the interests of the pro-Israel-at-all-costs lobby to lose Harper, who clearly is the most committed to their POV of all our leaders, and it is they I fear would do the initial damage which then the Harperites could and would exploit.

I think that the political team around Trudeau can see that at least as easily as I can, so I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt despite my clear distaste for what is said and for the fact that if I am right we have a leader saying one thing while believing another, something I never like seeing in politics from anyone. That said though, we cannot really make any difference in Gaza, especially with Harper as PM, but we CAN make a difference in who is our PM, so that is where I believe our focus must stay, even when we see such ugliness as we have seen over the past several weeks, both in the ME and in our domestic discourse about it.

The hard and ugly truth is Trudeau because of his inexperience as a leader cannot afford to take risks like the one you wished he would, not yet. Once he gains the gravitas as a PM he can, and I would hope will, but for now he needs to keep the foreign policy arena as neutral a space as possible in terms of the difference between him and Harper so as to prevent it being used to undercut his and the Lib chances, and especially so on this issue given the outside/third party lobby interest already referred to.

Believe me Lorne, it turns my stomach to be writing/saying such things, but the last 8 years has been doing that too, and worse. Before anything else can be changed we MUST be rid of Harper and his CPC, and hopefully forcefully enough that his faction loses their grip on the party and the old time Red Tories can take it over and return it to something that actually cares about traditional Canadian values, indeed typical Canadian Conservative values at that.

Justin Trudeau Speaks

But, unfortunately, says nothing.

As I have noted elsewhere in this blog and in comments on others', I have grave misgivings about the Liberal Party under the leadership of Justin Trudeau. Despite the latest EKOS poll showing the party with a commanding lead while the Conservatives continue to sink under the heavy hand of Herr Harper, I cannot escape the notion that Trudeau is superficial, intellectually flaccid, and a political opportunist (the latter quality, of course, putting him in good company with so many others who hold elected office).

Earlier in the week I wrote a post entitled Thomas Mulcair Speaks which revolved around the fact that the NDP leader, likely due to political pressure from within his own party, moved beyond his usual platitudes in discussing the Israeli assault on Gaza that has killed about 2000 innocent Palestinians. In his strongest words yet, he called for an end to the Israeli occupation of Gaza.

Unfortunately, Trudeau has not been moved to make a similar gesture.

In today's Star, Haroon Siddiqui writes the following:

Liberal supporters wondered why Justin Trudeau issued a statement July 15 laying all the blame on Hamas but not calling on Israel to show any restraint. They were further outraged by a solidarity trip to Israel by two Toronto-area Liberal MPs, John McCallum and Carolyn Bennett — paid for by the pro-Israeli lobby group, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

Trudeau's response was to give an address Monday in Mississauga that began rather inauspiciously:

About 100 protesters waited for him at the Derry Rd. locale, carrying placards and shouting slogans for more than an hour — “Killing children is wrong,” “End the occupation,” “Occupation is a crime,” etc.

No longer quite the accessible and forthright politician he has been promoted as, Trudeau dodged them to enter the hall where he read a prepared speech.

The speech itself had little substance, his boldest declaration being, “There is no military solution to the crisis that continues to plague the Middle East . . . A safe and secure Israel can only exist when it exists next to a safe and secure Palestinian state.”

According to Siddiqui, the rest was a homily on Canadian diversity. No questions were taken from the floor.

After reading the column, I couldn't help but think of the boxing match in which Trudeau bested Patrick Brazeau. Doubtless there was much bobbing and weaving involved. Perhaps the leader of the Liberal Party has not yet learned that in the political arena, such a strategy will only take you so far.

Our Politicians Serve Nothing But Their Own Ambitions

Given the ongoing Israeli assault on Gaza, many in Canada have been dismayed, not by the predictable and uncritical enthusiasm for all things Israeli from the Harper regime, but by the relative silence or complicity demonstrated by the two major opposition leaders, Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair; both have amply demonstrated that political expedience trumps principle in their cribbed set of values. By contrast, Green Party leader Elizabeth May has once more demonstrated that rareness of all qualities, integrity:

May denounced the three main federal parties for “parroting” Benjamin Netanyahu’s positions:

“It should be possible for all other political leaders to continue to press for a two-state solution, one that defends the right of the State of Israel to exist, but equally calls for a secure Palestinian state.

“It is simply not credible to take the stance of all three other leaders —Messrs. Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau — that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s siege of Gaza is legal and meets humanitarian standards. It does not. The death toll among Gaza’s civilians provokes the conscience of the world.

“Hamas is to blame for provocation, but to imagine that Israel is blameless is untenable. “

A Jewsih Canadian writer, Anthony Cantor, writes in today's Star about how such shameful compliance to a flawed Israeli narrative by people like Mulcair and Trudeau does the Jewish state no service because they conflate supporting Israel with endorsing the policy and strategic choices of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This leaves Canada’s pro-Israel, pro-peace constituency, among others, without political representation.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s refusal to push for a ceasefire is not unexpected. More concerning is the way that Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and, to a lesser extent, NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair have failed to counter the Harper government with a strong message that Israel’s best interests are not served by the assault on Gaza. As a member of the Liberal party, I am deeply disappointed that Trudeau resorts to platitudes rather than forcefully opposing a foreign policy that I and many other Liberals reject.

He suggests these 'leaders' should take some strength and inspiration from

other friends of Israel who recognize that the war in Gaza can only increase Israel’s international isolation and foster radicalization among Palestinians. President Barack Obama, for example, recently wrote an op-ed for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Obama correctly stressed that Israel’s Iron Dome can ensure temporary security, but only a comprehensive, negotiated resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can ensure Israel’s safety.

And yet Canadian leaders are silent as Netanyahu systematically undermines the possibility of a Palestinian state. Friends should not always tell each other what they want to hear. Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, expansion of settlements and blockade of Gaza are major issues that drive the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Resolving those issues would weaken the appeal of extremists such as Hamas.

Cantor writes a reasoned and convincing essay here. Unfortunately, the political cowardice of our current leaders means that in all likelihood, it will fall on deaf ears.

Clearly, There Is No Depth The Harper Regime Won't Plumb

I believe this is ample testament to my heading.

Happily, many readers have seen through a cheap, demagogic ruse that once more demonstrates the unfitness of the Harper regime to hold public office:

Wow, Harper and his cronies really are getting scared. This is the best you can do huh?

It's obvious the Conservative's accusations are outrageous at best but I'll give them thanks for putting Justin Trudeau's name in the headlines while making themselves look like fools at the same time. :))

The Cons are out to lunch on this, they must be running scared. I was not sure if I was going to vote Liberal, but I am now.

More muck raking from the gutter party....The smell of fear emanating from the Conservatives is a like a breath of fresh air for the other %70 of Canadians.

Our Monochromatic Political Leadership

The images are graphic and heartbreaking - buildings reduced to rubble, maimed and dead children strewn among that rubble, families fractured, lives broken beyond repair. Were it not for the distancing effect that television news inevitably brings, the pictures would be overwhelming, leaving room for nothing but despair.

Thus is the reality of the ongoing Israeli assault on Gaza, a seemingly insoluble situation aided and abetted by a West that offers nothing but the staunch bromide of Israeli's 'right to defend itself,' an assertion with which few would disagree.

And therein lies the problem. That reflexive cliche whenever Israeli 'excesses' make the news relies on an uninformed and unsophisticated mode of thinking that sees the world only in terms of absolutes, where things are right or wrong, where you either stand with Israel wholeheartedly and unequivocally, or you are an anti-Semite who stands with the terrorists.

This is certainly the position of the Harper regime, and it is one held by Thomas Mulcair as far back as 2008, and by Justin Trudeau as well, as noted by The Mound of Sound on this blog.

Taking, as they say, a more 'nuanced' public position takes courage for the political risk it entails, and all three leaders of the major parties have shown themselves extraordinarily risk-averse. Unfortunately, their decision to play a safe and defensive game carries with it stakes far greater than their own political ambitions.

It is that cowardice that invites a withering assessment by Haroon Siddiqui in this morning's Toronto Star:

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and, to a lesser extent, NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair have fallen in line with Stephen Harper’s support of the Israeli onslaught on Gaza.

None question the Israeli killing and maiming of hundreds of civilians, including women and children.

All echo the formulation that, given the barrage of (ineffective) Hamas rockets, Israel has a right to retaliate (bombing by air, shelling from the sea, mounting a ground invasion, levelling houses, hitting hospitals, mosques and schools run by the United Nations, and disrupting electricity, water and sewage systems).

Siddiqui suggests there is great room for a genuine discussion that all three 'leaders' have no interest in initiating:

Our federal leaders do not ask whether there could have been a less lethal response to the rockets than a wholesale war on Gaza, the third in six years.

Indeed, they hew closely to the official narrative, refusing to allow facts to interfere with expediency:

They studiously avoid mentioning the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, now in its 47th year. They never mention the Israeli blockade of Gaza that entered its eighth year last month, leaving its 1.7 million inhabitants destitute.

Nor is the writer impressed by their blanket absolution of Israel for the mass destruction its actions have wrought:

All three suggest that Israel bears little or no responsibility for what’s happening. It’s all the fault of Hamas, the terrorist entity. They ignore a parallel narrative that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu provoked this war in order to derail a recent unity agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, an accord that he saw as a threat to the status quo that he prefers.

Siddiqui disabuses those who hold out hope for change under young Justin Trudeau:

Trudeau issued a statement July 15 that “Israel has the right to defend itself and its people. Hamas is a terrorist organization and must cease its rocket attacks immediately.” He made no commensurate call for Israel to show restraint.

He condemned Hamas for rejecting an Egyptian ceasefire proposal and commended Israel for accepting it “and demonstrating its commitment to peace.” He did not say that the Egyptian military junta is not a neutral party, that it considers Hamas an extension of the banned Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood whose elected president Mohammed Morsi the army toppled in a coup last year. Hamas’ conditions for a ceasefire were rejected. It wanted, among other things, an end to the siege of Gaza.

There is much more in Siddiqui's column that merits reading, including the pushback from 500 prominent Canadians condemning the Harper regime for its uncritical stance on Israel, and condemnation by Canadians For Justice And Peace In The Middle East of all three federal parties because they have betrayed Canadian values.

All in all, much to disturb our Sunday equanimity.

Your Monday Morning Smile

An editorial cartoonist captures a Heritage Moment nicely:

UPDATED: Parsing Justin Trudeau's Words

Like many, I have real reservations about Justin Trudeau's capacity for the kind of leadership that reflects a mature and nuanced mind. While many praise him for his spontaneity and unorthodox pronouncements, I look for substance and an indication of policies that suggest a significant departure from the mindset of the Harper Conservatives. Thus far I have found little to encourage me.

All three of our major federal parties are largely silent on the issues that should be preoccupying us, one of the most pressing, of course, being climate change. Because of the amount of carbon being emitted by fossil fuels in general, and by the extractions taking place in Alberta's tarsands in particular, anyone looking to young Mr. Trudeau for a new direction would be well-advised to pay close attention to his public musings on the subject.

Here is what he said back in February about the proposed Kinder Morgan oil pipeline to Vancouver:

Pipeline policy in general is one of the most important responsibilities of a Canadian prime minister and of a Canadian government – to make sure we can get our resources to market. We are a natural resource economy and we need to be able to do that. However, we need to do that in the right way. A right way that is sustainable, that has community support and buy-in, and that fits into a long-term strategy of not just a sustainable environment but a sustainable economy.

Because of that I have been a strong promoter of the Keystone XL pipeline and also a harsh critic on the way the prime minister has approached pushing the Keystone XL pipeline. To my mind, the only thing that has prevented Keystone XL from getting approved already in the United States – and what has allowed it become such a polarizing issue, with celebrities weighing in and all sorts of people having very strong opinions even though there is not necessarily all that many facts going around in many of the conversations – is that the prime minister hasn’t done a good enough job of demonstrating a level of commitment to doing it right and upholding environmental protections and regulations.

If you think that sounds rather suspiciously like a version of what politicians say when they meet opposition ("We need to communicate our message more effectively"), I think you are correct.

The Toronto Star has been running a series called Energy Wars. In yesterday's segment, entitled Pipelines define environmental struggle, here is what Mr. Trudeau had to say about the ever-growing opposition to pipeline expansion:

“The fact is that the oilsands have somehow become a poster child for climate change” ... “That is a failing of both government and industry for allowing that to happen because they weren’t doing enough to reassure people that the environment is a priority.”

Am I being overly cynical here? In my attempt to parse the Liberal leader's words, the discouraging interpretation of his statement I draw is that the tarsands suffer because both the Harper regime and the oil industry have not sufficiently 'massaged' the message. In other words, they haven't done a good enough job of faking sincerity about environmental concerns.

As things stand now, I will not be supporting young Justin in the next federal election unless substance takes precedence over style in his public pronouncements and policies.

UPDATE: Just so I don't leave you with the impression that Trudeau is our only opposition climatic coward, check out Thomas Mulcair's thoughts here.

Bye Bye, Zach

I have a busy day ahead, so for the time being I shall offer a brief update on the fortunes of young Zach Paikin, about whom I wrote earlier. It appears that Zach has bid farewell to the Liberal Party over what he perceives as Trudeau's interference in the nomination process. You can read all about it here.

Perhaps the young man will now gravitate to the party of his true ideological calling, the Conservative Party of Canada?

Harper's Ongoing War Against Democracy

I had a very spirited discussion early this afternoon with the constituency assistant working in my Harper M.P.'s office. I called to ask her to convey my disdain for the Fair Elections Act and the plethora of other contempt-for-democracy activities the Conservatives are involved in; warning me about getting my information from 'the left-wing press,' she proceeded to inform me about her party's commitment to ending election fraud, running government with integrity, and all the other sweet and holy things that her boss and her boss's boss are working so hard to promote in this country. I won't bore you with the vigorous rebuttal I offered to her preposterous talking points, except for one point.

I told her that if her party were really interested in respecting and promoting democracy, it would be busy engaging Canadians in a discussion of ideas. Instead, all it can do is demonize and denigrate those who oppose its 'vision'.

A good case in point, which I used as a relevant and current illustration, is a story that appeared in this morning's print edition of The Toronto Star. Since it doesn't seem to be available online, here is a link to The Hamilton Spectator, which also carried it.

Entitled Leaked note shows how Conservatives planning to undermine Justin Trudeau, the article conveys the following tactics that have come to define the Conservative modus operandi and their concomitant absence of integrity:

Stephen Harper's Conservatives are planning to target Justin Trudeau at the upcoming Liberal convention with a carefully orchestrated campaign to disrupt Liberal communications, highlight disunity in the ranks and question his leadership abilities.

The game plan, laid in out Conservative party documents, spells out the objective in three words: "drive, disrupt, disunity."

I don't really have the stomach to reproduce any more of this Machiavellian embrace of anti-democracy so beloved of the Harper cabal, but it does raise a fundamental question, doesn't it?

If their ideas have any real currency among Canadians, why not promote them on their own merits instead of trying to erode the credibility of those who disagree?

The answer, I suspect, is painfully obvious.

The Search For Authenticity

In their bewilderment over the staunch following that Toronto mayor Rob Ford continues to enjoy amongst 'Ford Nation,' some pundits have advanced the idea that it is his 'authenticity' that accounts for his traction, no matter what drugs he ingests, no matter how many criminal elements he consorts with, no matter how many lies he tells to the public. His deep flaws, some suggest, appeal to the 'everyman.'

At best, I suspect this is only a partial answer. Nonetheless, it has gotten me thinking about leadership styles; serendipitously, the other day I caught the latest Justin Trudeau ad on TV in which he seeks to distinguish himself from the Harper regime without really uttering anything of substance:



While I realize that the ad is directed to a demographic much younger than mine and may in fact 'hit the mark' with that audience, I was struck by a few aspects of the production:

1. It offers an obvious contrast to the button-down, anally-retentive demeanour of our current Prime Minister. Although his suit colour is fairly subdued, Trudeau's open shirt suggests a relaxed manner that only one possessed of a vivid imagination could transpose on Stephan Harper (the latter's blue cardigan campaign costume notwithstanding).

2. Trudeau's cadences are balanced, offering another contrast to the inflectionless Harper.

3. The Liberal leader maintains strong eye contact with the camera, suggesting an openness and authenticity that voters may find appealing.

4. He utters platitudes that no one could disagree with.

However, even though it is a very polished production, the ad does nothing for me; as a veteran observer of political matters, I find the entire effort completely contrived, for all of the above reasons.

We leave in an age of shallow thinking, disengagement and phony 'reality shows.' Given the widespread disengagement from the electoral process of young people, this ad may indeed strike a responsive chord among its intended audience.

How do others feel about the ad?

He Has A Nice Smile

That's the highest praise I can think to extend to young Justin Trudeau, who many see as the best hope of unseating Mr. Harper in 2015. For those who enthusiastically back the young Liberal leader, I can only wonder, to what end? Do they want someone more polite and amiable than Harper? Because that is one of the few differences I see in the man who would be Canada's next Prime Minister.

Trudeau's questions in the House of Commons fail to impress, bloated affairs with lengthy preambles that, when finished, leave one wanting. This in sharp contrast to the precise, laser-like questioning Mr. Harper has had to endure under Thomas Mulcair's Nigel Wright scandal questions, to which the Prime Minister has had to rely on repetitive non-answers that raise even more questions about his involvement in the Mike Duffy payoff.

Probably one of the greatest disappointments for those who look to Trudeau for salvation is his unreserved enthusiasm for the Keystone XL pipeline, evidenced in his address Thursday in Washington to a group largely opposed to it, the Centre for American Progress. Said Trudeau:

“I’m actually supportive of the Keystone pipeline because it’s an extremely important energy infrastructure piece for both of our countries.”

With maddeningly typical vagueness, he added,

“The challenge is to demonstrate that it can be done in the sense that we’re protecting our environment and making sure that we’re making the right gains toward sustainable energy sources in the long run”.

Like his platitudinous statements about the need to help the middle class, the above statement sounds good, but is decidedly lacking in any kind of detail that would give a serious thinker something to ponder.

Is Trudeau the Ted Baxter of politics? Who knows? But so far there is little to offer those seeking an alternative to Harper in the pronouncements of the lad who would be Prime Minister.

The following letter in today's Star from a Calgary reader addresses a key problem posed by Trudeau's leadership:

Justin Trudeau pitches Keystone to U.S. anti-oilsands crowd, Oct. 24

Justin Trudeau’s support for Keystone XL may elicit a handful of votes in Alberta, but at the cost of alienating many thousands of voters in the rest of Canada. Many Canadians, including some Albertans, recognize that Keystone XL is an economic disaster — never mind its environmental shortcomings and total failure to provide national energy security.

It’s a shame Trudeau doesn’t have the political smarts to understand that. He seems likable enough otherwise.

Federal and provincial Conservatives will attempt to reprise their usual electoral landslides in Alberta by selling the export of raw bitumen by foreign national oil companies and by foreign-owned multinationals at any cost to our economy and energy security. The NDP has already staked the moral high ground on Keystone XL, the west-east oil pipeline, national energy security, Canadian jobs and the environment.

So far, Trudeau has the Liberals positioned in a no man’s land in between, without a comprehensive plan or policy on the oilsands or a Canadian energy strategy. That makes it easy for Canadians, who will have only two serious parties and leaders to consider in the next federal election.

Mike Priaro, Calgary

The Anti-Harper

I'd like to make it clear at the start of this post that I have by no means been converted to the belief that Justin Trudeau would be an appropriate choice to lead the country, for reasons that I will conclude the post with. However, I simply want to make a few observations about the striking contrast he presents to Stephen Harper.

By now, everyone that follows such things is likely aware of the stark and tight control Harper tries to extend over his entire regime. Parliamentary secretaries, M.P.s and others who speak publicly on the government's behalf are given very strict speaking points from which they cannot deviate. A recent Power and Politics panel on Trudeau's admissions about pot-smoking vividly attested to that fact whenever Conservative M.P. Blake Richards spoke, as do numerous past public discussions on other matters. Journalists, as we were reminded the other day, are limited to five questions of the Prime Minister on those rare occasions when he deigns to allow them access to him. Any attempt at deviation from that regimen is met with severe consequences, as was evident to the world when Chinese reporter Li Xuejiang was roughed up and ejected by Harper's staff and the RCMP when he tried to ask a question:

Everything about Harper bespeaks an overweening control of the message, disdain for the truth, and contempt for the electorate.

Trudeau, by contrast, projects the image of an honest and transparent politician. In today's Toronto Star, columnist Tim Harper makes some interesting observations about the nature of what he sees as Trudeau's strategy:

Since entering federal politics, the Liberal leader has taken a series of risks.

They’ve all been calculated risks, but risks nonetheless.

He’s surviving, even flourishing, with a combination of charisma, favourable treatment from a national press pack desperate [emphasis mine] for a little colour in a drab political landscape, mastery of social media — and a little luck.

Tim Harper characterizes Trudeau as a risk-taker:

He has taken mock pratfalls down a flight of stairs for the television cameras, he did a faux striptease in front of the cameras at a charity fundraiser, he stepped into the boxing ring against a then-Conservative senator.

He took a risk in coming clean to an Ottawa reporter about his personal wealth and the money he earned on the speaking tour...

Harper then turns his attention to Trudeau's recent admission, saying it is hardly news that someone has smoked a bit of of pot over the years. He says the real risk for him is the unsolicited details he provided:

Trudeau could have acknowledged he had fired up a joint, five or six times, as he did, but he took the risk in volunteering that he has smoked a joint since becoming an MP, an MP who was clearly thinking of federal leadership, and an MP who voted in favour of tougher marijuana possession penalties.

In a country tired of the mean-spirited, controlling and spiteful nature of its Prime Minister, this is likely a refreshing change. But columnist Harper makes a crucial observation toward the end of his piece which addresses the same deep reservations I have about Trudeau's leadership capacities.

But I’m not sure I have any idea where Trudeau stands on prorogation, the latest twist in the Senate spending fiasco, or the potential of a giant American player entering the Canadian wireless market.

It is all well and good to project an image of openness and honesty, but without any articulation of policy, Trudeau runs the real risk of reinforcing the other image he has as a political and intellectual lightweight, something that even a country desperate for change will not and cannot support.

Hee Hee Hee

Despite the misspelling in the caption, I rather like this cartoon, probably for obvious reasons.



As well, you may enjoy these letters from Star readers who have an even less flattering view of Mr. Harper as it pertains to his northern junket, escaping the heat via prorogation, and his ongoing senate 'problems.'

My Second Surprise Today

Earlier today., I posted a brief piece on how, despite my reservations about Justin Trudeau's leadership capacity, I found his openness and honesty refreshing when it came to pot.

The second surprise I got today was the fact that he spoke quite candidly about his opposition to Quebec's proposed ban on religious symbols and clothing in public buildings.

As you will see see if you read the readers' comments following the first link, people are beginning to discern a difference amongst the three major party leaders, with Trudeau's assertiveness offering a sharp contrast to Thomas Mulcair's refusal to 'comment on something that has not yet been tabled' to the Harper regime's gutless 'it's a provincial matter' evasion of anything remotely representing a real stand.

UPDATED: Let The Hysteria Begin

While I have real doubts about Justin Trudeau's leadership qualities, I have to give him credit for a degree of openness almost non-existent in politicians. While surely well-aware of the political consequences, he has admitted to smoking pot since he became an M.P. He said that he made this admission for the purposes of full transparency.

The response from the Harperites has been both swift and predictable, at a time when even the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (see video below) are advocating handing out tickets for pot possession:

Justice Minister Peter MacKay said that smoking pot as an MP demonstrated "a profound lack of judgment" on Trudeau's part.

"By flouting the laws of Canada while holding elected office, he shows he is a poor example for all Canadians, particularly young ones. Justin Trudeau is simply not the kind of leader our country needs," MacKay said in a statement.

Meanwhile, you might like to read this AlterNet article that gives 10 frightening examples of why the 'war on drugs' is far too costly.

UPDATE: Many thanks to LeDaro for alerting me to this video, a discussion on Power and Politics about Trudeau's revelation. I couldn't help but note the short leash the party put Conservative M.P. Blake Richards on as he evades questions and only repeats points.

Legalization Of Marijuana - The Need For A Vigorous Debate -UPDATED

I believe the sterotype is that as we get older, our views become more entrenched and conservative. In my own life, I have found the opposite to be true.

When I was young, I was certainly to the right of centre in my social views. I was a supporter of capital punishment, and felt severe sentencing acted as a deterrent to crime. As I got older and more educated, I learned to think more critically, and thereby progresssed in my views. While I am still opposed to the gutting of sentences through easy parole and the fact that most incarceration means only serving one-third of the sentence, an affront to the notion that justice must be seen to be done, I also feel that prison terms should be served by far fewer than currently occupy our detention facilities. I guess, to use the demonizing categorization of the Haper regime, I have become soft on some 'crime'.

One of those crimes is incarceration for drug possession. Thanks to Bill C-10, the Harper omnibus crime bill, there is a six-month mandatory minimum sentence for growing as few as six marijuana plants, something that strikes many as overkill. At a time when many jurisdictions, including the United States, are pursuing legal reforms as they realize the growing costs of the increasingly futile 'war on drugs,' Canada's postion seems both regressive and anachronistic.

In any event, a vigorous and informed debate is clearly needed on the issue of drug legalization. In pursuit of that goal, I offer the following:

Retired police captain Peter Christ makes some compelling arguments for the legalization of drugs. While I don't agree with the legalization of all drugs, the perspective of a former law enforcement offical is surely useful:



In light of Justin Trudeau's recent announcement that he favours legalization of majijuana, the following are additional resources that add meaningfully to the discussion:

The Star had an interesting piece on what legalization of marijuana likely means in states like Colorado and Washington, which recently held referenda on the issue.

They also ran an editorial evaluating Justin Trudeau's proposal, suggesting he needs to more clearly define how it would be implemented.

You can check out the Globe's take here and here. You may be surprised at what 'the newspaper of record' has to say.

As well, The National Post looks at both sides of the pot debate here.

Finally, in this morning's Star, Rosie DiManno offers her withering assessment both of Trudeau and his advocacy.

May there be much constructive debate on this controversial issue.

UPDATE: Here is an interesting video in which Doctor Sanjay Gupta apologizes for his past opposition to medical marijuana use: