Panama Papers Aftermath

While the revelations thus far about offshore holdings for the purpose of tax avoidance or evasion have provided us with a glimpse into the lives of those well beyond our pay grade, whether or not they have any lasting effect depends largely, not on the reactions of you and me, but rather those of the world's governments. And while public outrage may be high right now, whether those governments will simply ride out that outrage with sanctimonious promises to "go after the tax cheats" and do little, or enact substantive measures to curb this most foul and unpatriotic practice, remains to be seen.

Canada seems to be promising action, with National Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier promising substantial resources to go after those who put their own extreme personal wealth above the common good:

With an extra $444 million promised in the March budget, the CRA plans to hire additional staff to target what it dubs “high-risk” taxpayers and corporations. In return, the agency expects to collect an additional $2.6 billion in tax revenues over the next five years.

It also plans to boost its information technology capabilities to better sort the overseas financial transactions to detect tax fraud. The agency already tracks all financial transactions worth more than $10,000 — about a million a month.

Now it plans to focus its attention on all transactions involving individual jurisdictions known to be tax shelters — starting with the Isle of Man, off the west coast of England. Three other jurisdictions will also be targeted this year but agency officials refused to say which ones.

While all of this appears to be a good start, a couple of things puzzle me. It is estimated that between $6 and 7.8 billion is lost to our treasury annually through undeclared offshore holding. Yet, our government is promising only that the initiatives announced will collect an additional $2.6 billion in tax revenues over the next five years. Huh?

Secondly, our government has announced which offshore haven it will be examining first, the Isle of Man:

The first is the Isle of Man, which past transactions involving some KPMG clients have already been flagged by the agency. Quebec Liberal MP François-Philippe Champagne said $860 million in funds were transferred there in the last year along. Sixty audits already underway in relation to investments held in the Isle of Man. The CRA intends to contact another 800 taxpayers and corporations to obtain more information about their holdings.

Now, I know nothing about the arcane world of tax evasion and avoidance, but is it possible that by signaling its intent, the government is also giving the fiscal malefactors an opportunity to move their lucre to other havens not currently under the CRA's scrutiny?

I think these are legitimate questions to ask, given the fact that the CRA has previously treated tax scofflaws with great consideration. A Star editorial provides reasons we should be a bit cynical:

...while agencies such as the CRA and the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) are happy to name the small fish they catch breaking the laws and regulations, that hasn’t always been the case with bigger fish.

Just last week FINTRAC, which tracks money laundering and terrorist financing among other things, announced it had levied a stiff $1.1-million penalty on a Canadian bank for failing to report a suspicious transaction and various money transfers. But it declined to name the institution involved. Meanwhile it is busy naming players who have been slapped with fines of $15,000 or less.

And CRA has drawn criticism for quietly offering an amnesty deal to unnamed multi-millionaire clients of the KPMG accounting firm who were allegedly involved in tax avoidance on the Isle of Man. The Canadian Broadcasting Corp. reported that the group was required by CRA only to pay back the taxes they owed, plus interest. Yet the CRA routinely prosecutes and names people who fail to file tax returns or otherwise run afoul of the law.

For more details about how the CRA has one approach for most of us and another for the monied class, click here; you may also want to watch the following video:



To close, I'll leave you with this excerpt from the Star editorial that likely sums up how so many of us feel:

If the government hopes to “give Canadians greater confidence that the tax system is fair to everyone,” its agencies should be prepared to publicly name offenders. Cutting deals to spare Ottawa the trouble of prosecuting, or to preserve the “good name” of financial institutions and their wealthy clients, isn’t going to reassure anyone other than the scofflaws themselves.

Ottawa shouldn’t be in the business of shielding those who have gone to extraordinary lengths to insulate themselves and their assets from public scrutiny.

Policing: A Contrast In Methodologies

We've all seen the videos depicting the murder of Sammy Yatim at the hands of Toronto police officer James Forcillio. Although Forcillo has been held to partial account for his foul deed, most realize, I think, that things didn't have to end the tragic way they did.



And with new and disturbing allegations of police misconduct being perpetrated against the family of Alex Wettlaufer, the public has every right to be gravely concerned about a constabulary that appears to regard itself as a sovereign power, meting out punishment and death at will with little or no real oversight or control.

But it doesn't have to be that way. The Toronto Star carries a story contrasting the execution of Yatim with the far more measured approach of an Ohio police officer, Joshua Hilling who, despite immediate peril, fires his weapon only once on knife-wielding suspect Javier Aleman and pleads with the suspect to drop his weapon in a protracted encounter that speaks so well of him. Unlike Forcillo, Hillman sought to deescalate the situation in order to save Aleman's life.



You can read a full analysis of the differences between the Yatim and Aleman cases in how the officers handled the situation here. One can only rue the fact that someone like Officer Hilling was not present when Sammy Yatim had his crisis. Had he been, the odds are that the young man would still be very much alive today.

Are The Toronto Police Re-Victimizing The Family Of Alex Wettlaufer?

I cannot imagine the ongoing pain that the family of Alex Wettlaufer is experiencing. Less than a month ago, 21-year-old Alex was killed by police under suspicious and troubling circumstances, details of which will be withheld from the public for up to a year as the SIU carries out its investigation.

However, the loss of a young family member may not be the only grief the family is currently experiencing. According to an anonymous message I received last night, the police are compounding that pain in ways which, if true, offers us a deeply troubling and frightening insight into a force that may be totally out of control.

It is common knowledge that when the police feel in any way threatened, either by the courts or by individuals, they make their intimidating presence felt. Their past harassment of former Toronto Police Services Board Chair Susan Eng and an array of civic representatives attests to the long and vindictive memory of the Toronto Police. And when their own credibility is on the line in court cases, a wall of blue dominates and intimidates witnesses and lawyers.

I cannot attest to the veracity of what follows, but this anonymous source brings forth allegations so disturbing in nature that they surely merit further investigation.

I have heard so much about this incident from a friend I've known for 20 years, who themselves has known the family for decades, and watched all the kids grow up. Details that DO NOT match up with what is being reported.

Alex was only dropping his girlfriend off at the subway, because he didn't want her walking there at night by herself. Afterwards he took the usual shortcut home along the ravine, as many of the kids from the neighbourhood have for generations. It would seem this was a case of mistaken identity, and Alex died because of this mistake! The family was told he was shot by 3 different officers after the autopsy was complete. And the strangest part... the cellphone he was using to call his family when he was shot was apparently NOT recovered by the police!

And to add to this bullshit, the family home has been raided, not once but twice. Three of Alex's siblings have been arrested and charged for things like mischief and threats because of angry posts on Facebook. The raids were conducted under the pretense of looking for drugs and weapons, but of course nothing was found. The family is scared, as they are being harassed by the police to the point that they are afraid to say anything.

These details should be all over the media, and it pisses me off so much to hear what this poor family is going through because the police made a mistake and are making their life a living hell to save their own asses! Now I can't speak to the veracity of any of these details, as we all know how personal bias can change things that are said as they are shared between people, but something is definitely not right here. The travesty of this incident and the subsequent actions by the police should be all over the news.

This is much worse than the Yatim shooting if the police are truly guilty here. It makes me so sick thinking the police will likely get away with this shooting.

I have urged my anonymous correspondent to take the appropriate measures to ensure that these allegations get a full and very public investigation.

Now This Is The Kind Of Story I Like To Read About

The opportunity to report about something positive in the kind of blog I write is rare. For example, while reports abound of corporate theft and paltry remuneration for the workers that make big profits possible, less common is a story about a business doing the right thing. Well, here is one such story.

All through the night, the workers at Nebraskaland Inc., a meat distributor in the Bronx, roam the alleys of a cavernous warehouse, piling boxes of beef and chicken onto pallets in subzero temperatures. Until last year, many were paid $10 (U.S.) an hour, a little above the minimum mandated by New York State.

Then Richard Romanoff, the company’s owner, saw a news segment about a movement started by fast-food workers to push the minimum wage to $15 an hour. “I’m going to speak straight with you, my managers wanted to get people as cheap as they could,” Mr. Romanoff said. But something about the idea “really clicked,” he said. Last summer, Nebraskaland began gradually increasing the lowest hourly wage at the company, which will hit $15 at the end of this year.

One can rightly ask if we are witnessing a growing momentum in the movement toward raising minimum wages, a movement that captured not only Romanoff's but also national attention a few years ago when marches and strikes began in the fast-food industry to raise wages to $15 per hour. And it seems to be getting results:

In the past week, two of the most populous states in the country – California and New York – enacted legislation to raise the minimum wage to $15 within six years. Major cities, such as Seattle, Los Angeles and San Francisco, have pledged to increase their minimum wage to $15 in steps. In Portland, Ore., the minimum hourly pay will rise to $14.75.

It would seem that some employers are starting to get the message, and they are putting the issue into propoer perspective:

At Nebraskaland in the Bronx, Mr. Romanoff said roughly half of his 250 workers are benefiting from the wage increases, at a yearly cost to his company of about $350,000. “You pretend it’s an increase in rent, or electricity – you deal with it, one way or another,” he said.

Meanwhile, the number of applicants for job openings has quadrupled as news of the pay hikes spread.

Mr. Romanoff acknowledged that for some industries – including some of his customers, like supermarkets – such increases would be a challenge. “I just know for me, why wouldn’t I do it if I can afford it?”

Enlightened business leadership is a term I usually use ironically. I am happy that at least for today, I can speak of it literally.

What Are They Hiding?

You tell me.

The federal agency that levied a $1.1-million fine against a Canadian bank for failing to report a suspicious transaction had intended the hefty penalty to send a stern message to the financial sector. Instead, it has fuelled an outcry over why the name of the penalized bank has been kept a secret.

On Wednesday, all of the Big Six Canadian banks said they were not fined by Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FinTRAC, leading to speculation that the offending bank is a smaller entity or the Canadian branch of a foreign institution.

FinTRAC said that the fine, the first of its kind levied against a Canadian bank and paid two weeks ago, was supposed to act as a deterrent against taking a loose approach to reporting standards. Rules have been toughened up in recent years in response to money laundering and terrorism financing activities.

But it is unclear how this deterrent is supposed to work when the offender is granted anonymity and whether an unintended consequence of the fine is that it casts suspicions upon the entire financial sector.

While FinTrac has been happy in the past to name names, its reluctance to identify a big player is perhaps best explained this way:

Michael Baumbach is director of Toronto-based Diamond Exchange Toronto Inc. which was fined $12,750 and named by Fintrac in March. He says the agency is unfairly punishing smaller firms like his jewelry business, which is trying hard to comply, while letting bigger players with deeper pockets off the hook.

He believes the bank’s name was kept secret because it has resources at its disposal to give Fintrac a legal headache. Meanwhile, he feels powerless when trying to get answers about why it fined his company, which now faces bankruptcy over what he says is an unjust fine.

“The banks are not just going to sit back and have their names slipped, but a small company — we can’t do anything,” he said.

“All they’re doing is putting the smaller businesses out of business and the bigger businesses who have the legal clout to contest it, obviously they’re not naming names because of the fact that these companies will do something.”

Yet another reminder that the thing we call justice can too frequently be a fluid and elusive concept, more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

A Little Hard To Swallow

Despite the fact that I think and write a great deal about the disparities and inequities that plague our society, I am almost embarrassed to admit that until now, I had never heard of something called The Big Mac Index, launched, according to a recent article in The Star, in 1986 as a “lighthearted guide” to global purchasing power.

While its original purpose was as a tool to make exchange-rate theory more digestible, it has also become a barometer of purchasing power. In Britain, for example, which currently has a minimum hourly wage of ₤6.70, it would take 26 minutes of minimum wage labour to buy a Big Mac. That country has a target minimum wage of ₤9 by 2020, at which level it would take only 18 minutes to make the purchase. How does this compare with other countries?

Denmark is well ahead of the pack at a current 16 minutes. Australia: 18 minutes. France: 25 minutes.

Canada? A chart in the Financial Times shows our country at 33 minutes, which closely equates to a minimum-wage worker in Toronto, at $11.25 an hour, paying $6.10 for two all-beef patties, special sauce, etc. That same worker can look forward to a Dickensian 15-cent-an-hour increase come October.

This is not good, and our country could ultimately become an unenviable outlier when it comes to fair compensation, since the movement for increasing the minimum wage is gaining momentum in many jurisdictions:

Last Thursday, California passed a six-year phase-in to a $15-an-hour minimum wage — a landmark achievement as it’s the first state-wide success in the country. Seattle started its phase-in a year ago, with a $15-an-hour target set for Jan. 1, 2017. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who spent part of the winter travelling around in a “Fight for $15” branded bus, saw his push for a statewide $15 minimum watered down Thursday, but scored significant gains nonetheless, including a three-year phase in to $15 in New York City from the current $9.

Such increases are to be embraced, not opposed. As I noted recently, California's goal of increasing its wage will raise the incomes of 30 to 40% of workers in that state.

But what about all those fraught cries that such moves will result in massive job loss? According to Britain's Low Pay Commission, and as reported by The Star,

the commission wrestled with the predictable “job killer” charge — that businesses facing increased costs will flee or retrench, hurting vulnerable workers the most.

The “range of evidence,” the commission found from more than 140 research projects, was that the national minimum wage “has succeeded in raising pay for workers without damaging employment or the economy.”

While most past increases have admittedly been more gradual and modest in scope, the Commission

points out that businesses have previously worked around increased payroll costs by a variety of measures, including reducing non-wage costs or increasing productivity.

And there is one more thing that neither the Commission nor critics consider: the likelihood that the vast majority of people will not object to paying a little more for their products since it will allow their fellow-citizens the opportunity to conduct their lives with a little more dignity and a little more security.

Who could argue with that?

The Lord May Move In Mysterious Ways

... but I wish He would choose better messengers:

The Outrage Continues

In the weekend Star, Tony Burman gave five reasons that Canada should cancel the Saudi arms deal, an immoral agreement which the Trudeau government refuses to budge on. I will simply give the headings of his arguments here:

1. Canadians oppose it

2. Canada is being bought off

3. Saudi Arabia is an awful regime

4. Canadian arms are undoubtedly killing innocent people

5. Canada’s arguments have no moral core

In response to that column, Star readers offer their views:

Canada must cancel the contract selling armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia. Yes, let's pay the agreed upon penalties. Canadians are not so venal as to be ready to sell the lives of thousands of people, and in the process, sell their souls for a handful of coins.

Better to pay the penalty for cancelling the sale than the ones implicit in the ratifying of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In the latter case Canada will be liable to pay corporations that deem to be shortchanged by enacting legislation to redress old wrongs, like First Nations inequalities or environmental protection.

Canada should cancel this deal with Saudi Arabia and not ratify the TPP. We expect this government to deliver on the profound human values that have been a hallmark of Canada.

Bruna Nota, Toronto

Once again Tony Burman masterfully and succinctly provides us with an excellent and well-reasoned article on this very serious and important topic. Is our government listening?

As a Canadian and member of the Liberal party I call upon the government to reconsider the Saudi arms deal. Do we really want the blood of those weapons when used on our hands? Is this what Canada stands for? I think not. While this is a complex issue, there is a line to be drawn in the sand.

Canada is not “back” when it sells out its moral fiber with such a deal.

Janice Meighan, Toronto

Mr. Burman provides five compelling reasons why Canada should kill the $15 billion arms agreement with Saudi Arabia. Here are two more:

1. Canada may have bypassed its own tough weapons export control laws to ink this deal. In doing so it circumventing its own rule of law and due process.

2. Canada needs to bring Saudi Arabia's extremist theological and financial support for groups like Daesh, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and the like to light rather than trying to gain from it.

Ali Manji, Thornhill

Unfortunately, given the obdurate stance of the Trudeau government, it is doubtful that any of these compelling points will move any of our representatives' hearts and minds on this very important issue.

A Little Bit Of Justice

Just when I fall into despair that justice will ever prevail, the gods send me a small bone:

Former Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro lost his appeal of his election overspending case and was taken away to jail Tuesday, after an Ontario judge found he had committed offences that “strike at the heart” of the democratic process.

Del Mastro was convicted in the fall of 2014 for violating the Canada Elections Act during the 2008 election and was sentenced last summer to a month in jail.

Justice Bryan Shaughnessy, who heard Del Mastro’s appeal in Oshawa, offered this grave assessment of the latter's sins:

“Violations of the election spending limits and deliberate and concerted efforts to evade compliance with the honest and truthful reporting of contributions and expenses, such as occurred in this case, is a serious affront to our democratic system of government and fairness of our election process,” he said.

“The offences that Dean Del Mastro committed … are serious and do strike at the heart of our democratic electoral process.”

Never, I suspect, has there been a better poster boy for the morally-depraved universe of the Conservative Party that existed under Harper, a legacy that may well-resist the party's current attempts at renewal.

Lest We Forget

The Star's Tim Harper reports that Kellie Leitch, one of the robotic but very malleable mainstays of the former Harper regime, has become the first declared candidate for the Conservative Party's leadership.

I hope no one forgets her appearance with Immigration Minister Chris Alexander during the Conservatives' desperate and divisive bid to hold on to power during the last election. She and Alexander made a good team, given that both are singularly devoid of even a shred of personal integrity:

The Panama Papers

Marie over at A Puff of Absurdity offers a very good overview of something that is certain to have long-lasting reverberations, The Panama Papers. Be sure to check out her post.

The Toronto Star reports the following:

In the largest media collaboration ever undertaken, more than 370 journalists working in 25 languages dug into 11.5 million documents that revealed Mossack Fonseca’s [a Panamanian law firm renowned internationally for establishing shell companies] inner workings and traced the secret dealings of the firm’s customers. The more than 100 news organizations involved shared information and hunted down leads generated by the leaked files using corporate filings, property records, financial disclosures, court documents and interviews with money laundering experts and law-enforcement officials.

Significantly, the only Canadian media organizations to participate in the consortium undertaking this massive investigation are The Toronto Star and the CBC/Radio Canada. At least someone in our country is concerned about the public good.

Why is this such an important investigation? First and foremost, it identifies a panoply of individuals and companies whose main motivation is tax avoidance. Their allegiance to themselves and, in the case of corporations, their shareholders, is paramount.

It should be stressed here that the vast majority of those involved in these schemes are doing nothing illegal, merely taking advantage of loose tax laws that permit such avoidance. But to me, this points to an incontrovertible truth about some wealthy individuals and many corporations: they feel no obligation to pay the country of their residence their fair share of taxes. In other words, they are putting their own financial security and profits above the land that nourishes and hosts them, the land that provides them with an educated workforce and the infrastructure that make their wealth possible.

And that should serve as a cautionary tale of great magnitude as we contemplate, for example, signing both the CETA and TPP free trade deals. The Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions of such trade agreements give priority to corporations over state sovereignty so that should a country's laws impinge upon a company's profits, that company can sue the government. Given that The Panama Papers will confirm that loyalty and patriotism are concepts foreign, indeed, inimical, to those who pursue profit at almost any cost, there is surely reason for real caution.

The investigation is a wake-up call for governments to amend tax laws that in fact aid and abet theft from national treasuries. Here at home,

... Canadians have declared $199 billion in offshore tax haven investments around the world, according to Statistics Canada.But experts say that figure is a small fraction of the Canadian offshore wealth that goes undeclared.

The precise annual cost to Canadian tax coffers is unknowable. But credible estimates peg Canada’s tax losses to offshore havens at between $6 billion and $7.8 billion each year.

One need not have an especially rich imagination to consider how an increase in federal coffers of that size could be used for the benefit of all.

Every so often, thanks to circumstance and the indefatigable efforts of investigative journalists, the curtain is pulled aside and we are able to get a peek at an underlying and ugly reality. Ours is a world in which selfishness and evil often prevail, thanks to the complicity of far too many and the shield of darkness behind which much of this takes place.

Perhaps The Panama Papers can help to bring some much-needed light and eventual reform to this shameful and unjust state of affairs.

UPDATED: Pondering The Precariat

California, as you have likely heard, is raising its minimum wage to $15 by 2022. Although the efficacy of the increase is being hotly contested, with some claiming it will lead to substantial job loss and others citing studies that show just the opposite, the fact is that it will raise the incomes of 30 to 40% of workers in that state. And that statistic alone underscores the plight of the working poor and the precariously employed, not just in the U.S., but also in Canada. In the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area, for example, those employed in part-time, contract and temporary work is an astonishing 52%.

Those are statistics we can no longer ignore.

In a good and prescriptive editorial, The Toronto Star makes some solid arguments for both governments and unions to be much more involved in ameliorating this abysmal situation. It suggests that the federal government needs to do the following:

- Enhance the Canada Pension Plan. Precarious workers at the bottom of the rung have little opportunity to save for retirement.

- Make Employment Insurance benefits easier to get. Precarious workers may not work long enough in temporary jobs to receive them, or the benefits may run out long before they have found a new job.

- Create a national pharmacare program. Canada is the only country with a universal health-care system that fails to cover the cost of prescription medicine. Right now 85 per cent of those earning less than $10,000 and 70 per cent of those earning between $10,000 and $20,000 — in other words, precarious workers on the bottom employment rung — don’t have an employer-provided health plan.

- Create a national, affordable child care system that will enable parents to take on new jobs when they’re offered.

There is a role for provincial governments as well. Ontario, where one in eight workers makes the minimum wage, can do the following:

- Raise the minimum wage to at least $12 an hour, and aim for $15. As one economist put it, the current minimum wage of $11.25 “falls far short of any suggested benchmark: productivity gains, the average industrial wage, the living wage, or the poverty line.”

- Beef up the Employment Standards Act to require employers to give paid sick days, ensure temporary workers are paid the same rate as fulltime workers doing the same job, and follow the example of Australia, where casual employees must be paid 15 to 25 per cent above minimum wage to compensate for having fewer benefits.

- Enforce the Employment Standards Act with more inspections and follow-up fines and charges. Companies in violation of the act should be ineligible for government contracts.

Unions can help as well, by reaching

out to precarious workers in temporary and part time positions and represent them on issues from wages and scheduling to minimum hours per week.

There are all kinds of arguments brought forth on a regular basis to oppose many progressive measures such as minimum wage increases, ranging from job loss to having to pay more for goods and services. The issue of job loss has been studied, with some finding it decreases employment and others finding no such effect.

However, it seems to me that there is only real question to be asked, and Canadians are in a unique position to answer:

Are all of us are willing to pay a little more, be it through taxes or the cost of goods and services, to ensure that all of our fellow citizens' lives are defined by much more than quiet but deep desperation?

UPDATE: Although not discussed in this post, another redistributive policy approach gaining a fair amount of traction is the guaranteed annual income, about which I have written many times on this blog. Canadian Dimension has a very interesting piece on the concept and its possible negative consequences if not implemented correctly. Click here to read it.

Will The Trudeau Government Ignore The Warnings?

As pointed out by The Mound, Joseph Stigliz has issued a dire warning to Canada about the dangers of the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership); essentially, it will enrich the few at the expense of the many. As well, he has warned about two other grave dangers the pact poses for our country:

The controversial but not-yet-ratified trade agreement could tie the hands of the Trudeau Liberals on two key parts of its agenda — fighting climate change and repairing relations with aboriginal people, the Nobel-winning professor warned Friday.

During the recent World Economic Forum in Davros, he spoke to his old friend and now International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland about his concerns, perhaps best summing up its impact on the daily lives of a great many working people this way:

... the deal benefits big business at the expense of working people, driving down the bargaining power of workers, including their wages.

Despite Freeland's openly-professed enthusiasm for another trade agreement, CETA, which carriess with it similar perils, one can only hope that she listens to her old friend with open ears and has influence with our new prime minister. So far, the signs are ambiguous:

Freeland’s spokesman Alex Lawrence said the government is keeping an open mind about the deal and is following through on its promise to consult widely with Canadians.

“Many Canadians still have not made up their minds and many more still have questions,” Lawrence said.

The House of Commons trade committee is studying the TPP — a process that Freeland has said could take up to nine months.
Lawrence said the committee would travel across the country as part of its outreach to Canadians.

After that, Freeland has promised that only a vote in Parliament would ratify the deal, which was negotiated under the former Conservative government.

When an economist of Stiglitz's stature speaks, none of us can afford to turn a deaf ear.

For a more detailed discussion of this issue, here is a Q&A with Stiglitz.

Elizabeth Warren Dissects Donald Trump

Start at about the 2:40 mark, and you'll see how she does it:

This Needs Little Comment

H/t Toronto Star

I do hope all of the equipment Trudeau is selling to the Saudis is stainless steel. You know how difficult it is to remove blood splatter.

The Id Of Trump

The id is an important part of our personality because as newborns, it allows us to get our basic needs met. Freud believed that the id is based on our pleasure principle. In other words, the id wants whatever feels good at the time, with no consideration for the reality of the situation.
H/t All Psych

Or expressed another way,

The id is the primitive and instinctive component of personality. It consists of all the inherited (i.e. biological) components of personality, including the sex (life) instinct – Eros (which contains the libido), and the aggressive (death) instinct - Thanatos.
H/t Simply Psychology

Although Montreal Simon does a far more comprehensive dissection of Donald Trump in his post today, last night's reports on NBC Nightly News seems to uncover some darkly infantile aspects of the would-be presidential nominee's psyche. Watch the the first clip in each of the following, and I think you will see that there are likely forces beyond the alleged billionaire's control that explain much of his 'musings.'

While his supporters may like the fact that he seems unscripted, saying what's on his mind, perhaps some will begin to get of sense of how dangerous such impulses could be were they granted free reign in the White House.

Some Disturbing Signs

I won't for a moment pretend that I am not glad to see Justin Trudeau's Liberals as our new government. But as happened with a vice-principal we teachers once welcomed with open arms as a relief from the previous administration, my early hopes for real change and integrity of purpose are being steadily eroded.

Let's start with Stephane Dion, our foreign affairs minister. As pointed out yesterday in a post by The Mound, he has quickly condemned the appointment of Canadian Michael Lynk as the United Nation's Special Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine following pressure brought to bear against him on apparently groundless accusations of being biased against Israel. So much for any hopes that Canada would take a more balanced, less reflexively supportive approach to Israel.

Then there is Dion's refusal to reconsider the Saudi arms deal, despite that country's abysmal human-rights record and terrible incursion in Yemen as it leads a coalition to stop the Shiite rebels known as Houthis. This has led to massive starvation resulting in the malnutrition and deaths of about 1.3 million children, including little Udai, who succumbed at the age of five months:



There are growing disappointments domestically as well. One of them, as The Star's Carol Goar points, is the failure to act expeditiously in ending the Harper-initiated CRA witch hunts against charities:

Trudeau pledged to “end the political harassment of charities” by the Canada Revenue Agency — not wind it down gradually, not keep hounding charities that ran afoul of the previous Conservative government to preserve the independence of the agency’s charities directorate.

Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier quietly changed the plan. She allowed the 24 ongoing audits to take their course in case “serious deficiencies” were found. When they were completed, she would end CRA’s political activities auditing program. The affected charities — which include Oxfam Canada, Environmental Defence and Canada Without Poverty — remain on tenterhooks.

As well, Tim Harper points out a reversal of a stance the Liberals took while in opposition:

When the former Conservative government agreed to hand over private banking information of Canadians to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, the Liberals led the growing chorus of indignation.

Their opposition started meekly but built. They tried to amend the law, which they portrayed as a loss of sovereignty and an unnecessary bow to American pressure. They accused Conservatives of breaching Canadians’ charter rights and unconstitutionally discriminating against Canadians based on their country of origin.

Now that they are the government, however, the Liberals are singing from a different hymn book:

Then they went silent. Then they were elected and now they defend the agreement they once vilified.

The first 155,000 information slips on Canadians with U.S. roots were shipped to the IRS on schedule last Sept. 30, in the middle of the election campaign when Washington told the Canada Revenue Agency it was not eligible to ask for an extension of the order.

And Canada's much-vilified temporary foreign workers program is getting new life under our new administration. Thomas Walkom reports

Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are tiptoeing back into the minefield that is Canada’s temporary foreign workers program.

They are doing so carefully. This month’s decision to relax the rules for seasonal industries wishing to hire cheap foreign labour was not publicly announced.

Instead, the information — that such industries will be able to hire unlimited numbers of temporary foreign workers for up to 180 days a year — seeped out through the media.

This move, of course, will simply facilitate and extend low-paying jobs that Canadians refuse to do instead of allowing pressure for better wages to mount on employers in fish-processing, child care (nannies in particular), and Canadian resorts.

There have been other disappointments as well, one of which I wrote about recently pertaining to Chrystia Freeland's thinly veiled enthusiasm for CETA, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. Disingenuously, the International Trade Minister extolled its benefits while ignoring the severe challenges it will pose to both our sovereignty and our workforce.

There is much that the Liberals have thus far accomplished; perhaps our proudest moment in recent history has been our remarkable achievement of bringing over so many Syrian refugees in such a short period of time, an achievement that has won world-wide admiration. But doubtless there is more disillusionment in store for Canadians as they rediscover ours is a world that too often inflicts both political and personal disenchantment upon even the most optimistic.

When all is said and done, our final evaluation of this government's first term in office will have to revolve around whether its accomplishments outweigh those disappointments.

Is Donald Trump An Idiot Savant?

If he is, I have yet to discover the one area he is good at, other than mendacious self-promotion. Witness his egregious and profound ignorance of everything beyond the very narrow domain of Trumpworld in the following:

The High Cost Of Free Trade

Despite the rhetoric by our political and corporate overlords about the wondrous benefits of free trade, multitudes of people on both sides of the border are becoming increasingly aware of its true costs.

In today's Star, readers weigh in with their usual penetrating insights:

Re: Next U.S. president won't nix trade pacts, March 19

As free trade deals are in the spotlight this U.S. election cycle most of the discussions are vague in details, often serving up false choices or straw men instead of pragmatic insight into the issue. This is common practice among politicians, I’m not surprised. Even Bernie Sanders is kind of vague, or when he is detailed the media cuts to commercial.

But I am very surprised at David Olive with comments like, “And that also has nothing to do with trade deals” in reference to low wages and anti-unionization practices in America. I believe that with free trade deals, employers have gained tremendous leverage over labour with the simple threat of “accept our offer of a low wage or we ship your job overseas.”

Empirical evidence sure leads us to this conclusion. I sure don’t see free trade bringing us tonnes more good paying jobs as was the selling feature a few decades ago. Now new trade deals are just presented as “good for the economy.”

Then after trying to justify current trade practices as good, David Olive suggests the poor economy “has almost everything to do with three decades of bipartisan public policy that has withheld economic fairness from the majority of the U.S. population.” Well please be specific. What exactly are those unfair economic policies? Perhaps labour outsourcing, which free trade enabled. Or union busting, again enabled by the tremendous leverage trade deals granted employers.

If the argument that technology has replaced many of the jobs, why did factories move to cheaper labour markets.

Don’t take me wrong, I agree with free trade. My maple syrup for your grapefruits duty free, no problem. I’m even happy with CCM skates on the retail shelf with Asia-branded and produced skates right beside them, duty free. Now that’s free trade.

Let’s compete for market share and the consumer wins. But anecdotally, CCM skates made in Asia and sold here is not in the implied spirit of free trade.
What we’re experiencing now is vastly advantageous to corporate owners, not at all for workers.

As Donald Trump offers up scenarios of China vs America in trade deals we see one of those false choices. It’s really ownership vs labour; China is just the benefactor. China did not dictate that American companies move to China; the American companies made those choices.

Another sidebar advantage for ownership under free trade is by having local jurisdictions offering up low property taxes and such incentives to attract manufacturing plants. These trade deals are sure looking lopsided.

Doug Lata, Pickering

Re: TPP will put Canadian concerns up against U.S. demands, March 21

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has devastating potential in terms of our environment and our democracy. It gives big business and industry powers equal to or greater than that of our elected officials.

The people of Canada didn’t vote for international big business in our election; we voted for elected representation. The TPP would diminish our nation’s sovereignty and allow other nations to set our standards and pricing. International trade is a great idea but not at the cost of our nation and democracy.

Justin Trudeau must stand by his election promise and allow public consultation on this deal. This is a deal that will directly affect many Canadians and we need to be heard.

Barbara Rose, Toronto

With "Full speed ahead" the battle cry of our intrepid 'masters,' expect nothing to change in the foreseeable future.

Spotlight

Given that they are generally aimed at a younger demographic, I rarely watch movies these days. However, on the return leg of our trip, one of the films offered by Air Canada was the award-winning Spotlight, important for a few reasons. The winner of two Oscars, the movie

tells the riveting true story of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Boston Globe investigation that would rock the city and cause a crisis in one of the world's oldest and most trusted institutions. When the newspaper's tenacious "Spotlight" team of reporters delves into allegations of abuse in the Catholic Church, their year-long investigation uncovers a decades-long cover-up at the highest levels of Boston's religious, legal, and government establishment, touching off a wave of revelations around the world.

I will engage in no spoilers for the film, but I have to say it resonated with me in two very important areas. The first involves my own history of being subjected to both verbal and physical abuse during my Catholic school days, abuse that began early in Grade One with the strap, progressing to being made to 'stand in the corner,' a common method of public shaming and ostracism in those days, to slaps across the face, all by the third grade. As I recall, my infractions usually involved, as they used to say, 'talking to my neighbour.'

Things got worse in high school, where the same methodology (minus the strap) was employed, but in a much more intensive way. Teachers, both lay and cleric, seemed almost demoniacally driven to wear down any sense of our self-worth, suggesting our worthlessness on a regular basis. The physical abuse escalated to being slammed over our heads with heavy books, more forceful slapping across the face, and outright mockery.

I vividly recall my Grade Eleven physics teacher being especially cruel one particular day. I did not know the answer to a question when called upon, so he asked someone else who, with his textbook open but concealed, read off the answer, at which point the teacher said, "Whoa, slow down, Potter, slow down. Warwick is kind of slow." His bon mot was met with a response of general hilarity throughout the classroom, and absolute humiliation on my part. But I was hardly the only victim. There was a lad in the same class who had a stutter, and I will always remember that same teacher trying to hide his amusement whenever he gave an answer.

I could tell you so many stories, but the above serves to illustrate, I hope, that even though I was never a victim of sexual abuse, what I did experience left a deep scar for many, many years, and an abiding hatred for those who had subjected us to such measures. It was a hatred I only managed to let go of well into my forties.

I often think that those experiences were the genesis of my own extremely strong aversion to abuse of power in its many shapes and forms. They helped make me what I am today, both the good and the bad.

However, beyond my own personal reasons for valuing the movie, there is a much greater lesson to be had from it. It underscores very effectively both the power and the importance of the press, the same press that we find in our time under constant financial barrage. Had it not been for the doggedness of the Boston Globe and its reporters, the scope of both the abuse and the concealment at the highest diocesan levels would never have come to light, and the priest would have continued to be relocated to other parishes, free to carry on their predations. The movie is both an indictment of the tawdriness, cowardice and complicity of the Catholic Church and its many prominent Boston lay supporters, and an extollment, in a very quiet way, of how the profession of journalism can often rise to noble heights.

So yes, I still subscribe to a print newspaper, despite the ever-rising costs, because I know that good work costs money and a great deal of time. Think of all the investigative stories you have read over the years, and the results that ensued. My own paper of choice, The Toronto Star, has a remarkable track record of getting things done, often to the point of affecting both and provincial governments to the point of inspiring remedial legislation in a number of areas.

The battle will never end, as long as we live in such an imperfect world.

Enlightened Leadership

Having just returned from Southern California, I have no intention of indulging myself in travel reminisces at the expense of my readers. I'll only say that thanks to my son Matthew, it was one of the best experiences of my life. It also yielded some very interesting insights.

As people who check my blog regularly may know, I tend to be very critical of politicians, police and big business. In their own way, each often massively abuse their authority. Yet I also try to balance my criticisms by acknowledging good practices when I find them. The California chain, In-N-Out Burger, is one business that epitomizes both respect and opportunity for its employees, something that, in an ideal world, would be the norm.

Begun in 1948 by Harry Snyder and his wife Esther, and still a family-run chain today, it is freed from the corporate demands that so often mean treating employees like dispensable and replaceable tools. Like the exceptional corporate-owned Costco, it knows that investing in its workers is key to its success. While all store employees start at the very bottom (cleaning tables, floors, etc. before they can even cook a burger), the job's potential is quite significant. Consider these facts:

In-N-Out starts their employees at $10.50 [now $11] an hour. That's the highest of any fast food chain in the country.

While the median wage for a manager of a fast food store is $48,000 per year, employees at In-N-Out can eventually work themselves up to $120,000. That's otherwise unheard of in the industry.

According to Carl Van Fleet, the current CEO, there are solid reasons behind being an industry leader:

Our founders, Harry and Esther Snyder, started In-N-Out Burger in 1948 and were focused on taking great care of our customers, taking great care of our associates and maintaining an intense focus on quality. That focus remains firmly in place today and paying our associates well helps us maintain it.

We strive to create a working environment that is upbeat, enthusiastic and customer-focused. A higher pay structure is helpful in making that happen but it is only part of our approach. It is equally important to treat our associates well and maintain that positive working environment in all of our restaurants.

So good remuneration is only part of In-N-Out's formula for success. It offers benefits that are indeed rare in so many workplaces today, and almost unheard of in the fast-food industry. The perks for full-time employees and their dependents include

- a package of medical, dental, and vision benefits
- a retirement plan with a Defined Contribution Profit Sharing Plan and 401(k) Plan
- company contributions made into the plan

Many part-time employees also qualify for the above, as well as the accrual of six days cumulative sick-leave days per year, flexible working hours to accommodate people's needs, chain-wide closure on Christmas Day, Easter, and Thanksgiving, and free meals on work days.

Oh, and one more thing. In response to consumer demand, the chain has committed to use only antibiotic-free beef, although no date for implementation has yet been announced.

We ate at one of the stores, and I can tell you four things: It was very busy, despite it being about 3:30 in the afternoon; all the employees were polite and appeared very positive; the food was quite good (everything, including the buns, are fresh and never frozen), and the prices were excellent.

All in all, In-N-Out Burger appears to be an industry leader in a field where so many shameful and demeaning practices abound. Too bad others refuse to acknowledge that healthy profits and respect for employees are not mutually exclusive.

California Dreamin'

Thanks to a very generous Christmas gift from my son, who will be joining us from Edmonton, my wife and I are heading off to Southern California for a five-day trip. Ever since I was a teenager I have wanted to visit The Golden State, but for reasons that include my almost infinite capacity for procrastination, I have not. I think my son recognized if I was ever actually going to make the trip, he would have to give me a big push. Thank you, Matthew.

I should be back blogging in a less than a week. See you then.

Saying Goodbye To Alex For Up To One Year

.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I was a teacher for so many years; maybe it is because I have been a parent for even longer. But the fact is, I cannot get the killing of Alex Wettlaufer out of my mind. Unfortunately, however, although I will be thinking of him, I doubt that I will writing anything more about him for up to as much as one year. That is how long we may have to wait for the results of the SIU 'investigation' into his death at the hands of the Toronto police.

As reported in yesterday's Star, the only paper, by the way, that seems to be showing continued interest, the deeply flawed Ontario Police Services Act says

officers “shall not, during the course of an investigation by the SIU into an incident, disclose to any person any information with respect to the incident or the investigation.”

The regulation is intended to ensure the integrity of the independent investigation, but some critics say it creates a situation where the public is left in the dark about a high-profile issue, often for months at a time.

This means, according to the SIU, that

it cannot reveal whether Wettlaufer was armed because the investigation is ongoing. The vital piece of information may not be provided until the probe is completed, a process that typically takes several months, or up to a year.

In other words, there will be no information forthcoming on anything that will either confirm or refute growing public suspicion that another Sammy Yatim tragedy has occurred, nothing to suggest that people needn't be increasingly fearful of a force that is sworn to protect and serve them.

The Wettlaufer family, which hotly contests the suggestion that Alex was armed, is not willing to wait for this drawn-out and inexcusably long process to play out.

They are now hoping to find a lawyer to help obtain any surveillance video that may have captured parts of the incident, Timothy [Wettlaufer] said. They want to obtain as much information as possible that could help explain how his “soft-hearted” brother wound up fatally shot by police.

The family is hopeful TTC cameras may have captured some of the initial altercation, which began near Leslie station. However, Timothy said he is concerned there may be little independent evidence — such as witness accounts or video evidence — from the dark ravine where the shooting occurred.

From the broader community, there have been calls for much-need reform to the act that is preventing the release of any information:

Darryl Davies, a criminology instructor at Carleton University, said the province should consider changing the Police Act, currently under review by the ministry of community safety. Davies says there is far more information about fatal shootings when they don’t involve police, and that’s not they way it should be.

“There is no justification for treating the cases differently. In fact one could argue that because the shooting is by a person employed, trained and paid by a government entity that there should in fact be more transparency and not less,” Davies said.

Even some police are frustrated by the constraints of the act:

Mark Valois, a former Toronto Police officer and retired use-of-force training officer, said the legal gag-order ... can be “very frustrating.”

“Absolutely there’s times when things happen, and things are hitting the news, there’s rumours and you might read something and say, ‘that’s not what happened, but I can’t say anything,’ ” he said.

Secrecy inevitably invites suspicions of coverups, sanitization of facts, the illegal fabrication of police notes and the development of 'plausible deniability.'

So goodbye for now, Alex. You may be tragically gone, but you are not forgotten.

ONE FINAL NOTE: The gofundme campaign to raise funds for Alex's funeral is ongoing. So far 29 people have contributed just under $1700. Should you care to lend a helping hand to the family at this very difficult time, please click here.

In A World Where Truth Mattered

....this might be significant. Unfortunately, the more Donald Trump lies, the more popular he seems to become with his acolytes, who laud him for his 'authenticity'. Too bad so many Americans seem to have slipped into a parallel universe.

The Tyranny Of Conformity

Yesterday, KirbyCairo wrote another of his thought-provoking posts, this one on the current plight of the federal NDP and its search for renewal. That prospect is dim, Kirby says, unless the party can break free from what he calls the top-down party structure and its inability to address issues that matter to Canadians. It is a plaint that was also echoed, but with a different emphasis, in a piece by Thomas Walkon in yesterday's Star. And now, the former NDP candidate for Toronto Centre, Linda McQuaig, writes about the tyranny of conformity imposed upon political candidates.

First, some background. You may remember this moment of frankness from the last federal campaign, (start at the five-minute mark on the video) and the fireworks that ensued:



In her column today, McQuaig discusses why she entered the political arena:

I ran (unsuccessfully) as the federal NDP candidate in Toronto Centre in the 2013 byelection and again in 2015, with the dream of putting into action progressive ideas I’d championed as a journalist. In jumping into politics, I realized I was giving up some of the freedom I’d enjoyed as a columnist and author to become part of a team with a collective message.

What conclusions did she draw from those experiences?

... it strikes me that the iron hand of party discipline — by which all three of our major political parties keep tight control on their messaging — can also have the effect of limiting debate and discouraging independent thinking, to the detriment of our democratic system.

It was a fact brought home to her by her experience depicted in the above video showing how her honesty was used against her:

Out of the blue, ... [Michelle] Rempel was trying to goad me into saying something negative about the oilsands.

I knew I was supposed to “pivot” — that is, deftly switch to something in line with party messaging.

Host Rosemary Barton sided with Rempel and pushed me for an answer.

So — to pivot or not to pivot? If I didn’t pivot, I knew I’d be stepping into a trap laid by Conservative strategists to portray the NDP as anti-development. But if I did pivot, I felt somehow I’d be betraying the planet.

After a split second in which I saw my political life pass in front of me, I decided to side with the planet, saying “a lot of the oilsands oil may have to stay in the ground if we’re going to meet our climate change targets.”

The ensuing ado included being predictably pounced upon by Harper, as well as other Conservatives and Liberals, including future prime minister Justin Trudeau, who denounced my “extreme” position.

Others recognized it as a mere statement of fact, but, of course, facts seem to have little relevance or value in political campaigns.

Citing Susan Delacourt, McQuaig says the experience

seemed to reinforce the case for tight political messaging based on the rule, as reported by Susan Delacourt in her book Shopping for Votes: “Do not talk of sacrifice, collective good, facts, problems or debate.”

In other words, avoid complexity and controversy — or anything else that assumes the voter is capable of accepting the responsibility of citizenship.

Much to her credit, the journalist questions whether this is the right way to go.

The pressure to conform and adopt a 'group-think' mentality is one of the chief reasons I have avoided being involved in groups for most of my life. I am glad that Linda McQuaig recognizes that such constraints are not for her. Her voice is much stronger, more appreciated and more effective as a journalist seeking to be a constructive contributor to some much-needed national debate than as a mouthpiece for a political party. We are all the better for it.

UPDATED: More On Alex Wettlaufer, Toronto's Latest Young Person Killed By Police

If we are given to even modest introspection, it seems inevitable that the longer we live, the more we develop an increasing appreciation not only for the wonder of life but also its shortness and fragility. The older we get, the more we are witness to a parade of people who enter and leave our orbits, sometimes by choice, but more often by the cold fact of mortality. The exits that hurt us the most, of course, are of those we have known and loved. Yet the latter represent only a minute part of the larger human experience, but if we watch, listen and read carefully, even those we don't know touch us in some ways. I feel that way about Alex Wettlaufer, the young man killed Sunday night by Toronto police, about whom I wrote yesterday.



Unlike his friend Sammy Yatim, who met the same fate as he did, Wettlaufer will likely not occupy a large part of public consciousness, owing to the singular absence of video documenting his demise. I suppose that is why there was absolutely no followup on last night's news; the media were consumed instead by the attack on two soldiers by Ayanle Hassan Ali at a recruitment centre, an attack that Toronto Police Chief Mark Saunders was only to happy to hold a press conference about, despite the usual official reticence 'because the investigation is ongoing.' Silence thus far is the only official response to the killing of Alex.

But one media outlet has not forgotten the young man whose life was so cruelly cut short. Today's Toronto Star, in a solid editorial, bears witness to that life and discusses, as I tried to do yesterday, the implications of his death. I am taking this opportunity to reproduce the entire piece, one that I hope you will read:

Another police shooting can’t be brushed aside

We’ll have to wait weeks or months for the official version of what exactly went down late Sunday night in a park in North York. But even before all the facts are known, there are serious questions about the circumstances surrounding the death of Alex Wettlaufer.

He’s the 21-year-old man who was shot dead by Toronto police just before midnight on Sunday. The province’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU) is on the case, so the usual veil of silence has been drawn over the incident.

But this much is known: Police say they had “preliminary information” that two men were fighting at the Leslie subway station and one of them had a gun. Investigators say one man fled into the nearby park. There was a confrontation with police, and Wettlaufer was fatally shot.

Wettlaufer’s family, however, tells a very different story. They describe him as a quiet man with a full-time job whose ambition was to join the military. His mother, Wendy, says he was on his cellphone in the park, talking to a family member, at the moment he was shot. “He was crying, saying that he’s being surrounded,” she told CP24. “They kept telling him to put the weapon down, and he kept hollering telling them he didn’t have a weapon.”

Did Wettlaufer have a gun? Or did police mistake his cellphone for a weapon? These are among the questions that SIU investigators, who look into all deaths involving police, must try and answer amid the disturbing claims from Wettlaufer’s family.

Without video or other independent evidence, though, they will have to rely mainly on the version provided by police themselves. Wettlaufer cannot give his side. And in the wake of the Sammy Yatim shooting, many people will be understandably skeptical of the story told by police.

Yatim’s death in 2013 was captured on video from multiple angles. It showed a Toronto policeman, Const. James Forcillo, shooting Yatim eight times on an empty, stopped streetcar. In January, Forcillo was convicted of attempted murder – but there’s little doubt that without the video evidence he would have gone free. That’s what happened with every other officer charged with murder or manslaughter.

Ironically, Wettlaufer attended the same school as Sammy Yatim and they were said to be friends. The public was shocked by Yatim’s death because the video showed conclusively that it simply didn’t have to happen. He was trapped alone on the streetcar and there was no good reason to shoot him. Chief Mark Saunders himself acknowledged at the time that his force had lost public trust.

After that, Torontonians are in no mood to quietly accept the death of yet another young man in questionable circumstances. His shooting is another argument for all officers to wear body cameras, so there would be independent confirmation of how the confrontation developed.

In the absence of that, the public will expect a thorough investigation that does not take the official explanation at face value.

Doesn't Alex Wettlaufer deserve to be remembered by all of us, not just his devatated family and friends?

UPDATE: There is a gogundme campaign to help cover Alex's funeral. If you might be interested in contributing, please click here.

"I'm Angry! So I'm Voting For Donald Trump"

So says Andrew Klavan. Watch his video to find out why:

Now Sammy Yatim's Friend Has Been Killed By The Police

I have long held to the belief that had there been no video evidence, there would have been no charges, no trial and certainly no conviction of James Forcillo in the police murder of Sammy Yatim. The well-know blue line would have made sure of that. I cannot help but wonder if we will see that alternative reality play out in the latest Toronto police killing, this one, eerily, of Sammy Yatim's friend, Alex Wettlaufer.

While it is still very early in the investigation, and I am very mindful of the pitfalls of jumping to conclusions, what I have read and seen thus far is not encouraging, and I am left with a sadness over the loss of another young person, this one but 21 years old. Here is what we know so far:

The incident began just after 11:15 p.m. Sunday, when officers arrived at the Leslie subway station at Leslie St. and Sheppard Ave. E. to investigate reports of a fight between two men. Toronto police tweeted late Sunday that one of them had a gun.

Investigators say one of the men fled to the nearby park, where there was a confrontation with Toronto police, including members of the Emergency Task Force, that resulted in police fatally shooting Wettlaufer. At 11:34 p.m., paramedics were called to the scene. They transported the man to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, where he was pronounced dead.

Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU), which probes incidents of death, serious injury and allegations of sexual assault involving police, was called in early Monday morning to investigate. SIU spokeswoman Jasbir Dhillon said the probe is still in the early stages, and investigators cannot yet say if Wettlaufer was carrying a gun.

“It’s part of the investigation, whether or not he was carrying a weapon,” she said.

That last line, to which I have added emphasis, raises questions. In most early investigations, whether a weapon was found is part of the basic information released to the public; given the egregious incompetence of the SIU, about which I have written many times, I have no confidence the truth will necessarily emerge.

As well, if police insist that he had a gun, will forensics tests be done to look for gunpowder residue to determine if it had been fired? If none is found, or he did not have a gun, how will the police explain killing him? Will we be given the kind of contemptuous lie that likely would have been given about Sammy Yatim had there been no video evidence, i.e., that he was lunging at police, menacing them in such a way that they had no choice? If so, I think we would be fools to uncritically accept such self-serving pap.

Perhaps some truth can be found in the news reports carried on local television.

In this first video, you will hear the shots fired by the police. There is no indication that they had been fired upon:



Here is Alex's sister:



Other family members are also speaking out:



Given the contempt for transparency that many police services seem to be showing these days, we, the public, have every right to be asking hard questions and demanding answers and accountability. I make no apologies for my own cynicism and suspicions.

For a parting context, perhaps the final word for today should be given to Lilieth Rankine, a neighbour who knows the family well:

“He’s a good kid, went to school, finished school,” she said. “I don’t get it . . . What happened? Can you imagine what the community is going through?”

Sometimes Progressives Can Be As Dogmatic As Their Right-Wing Counterparts

I recently wrote the following:

One of the things that I think distinguishes progressives from rabid reactionaries is that the latter tend to have reflexive positions on key issues, while the former can appreciate nuance.

I do believe in the general validity of that thesis, but it is also true that some who embrace the progressive title can be as inflexible, dogmatic and reactive as their far-right counterparts. A very interesting story in The New York Times about the repurposing of old oil rigs amply demonstrates this.

Dr. Milton Love, a professor of marine biology at the University of California Santa Barbara, has researched marine life at offshore drilling sites, and says that

the location of these rigs — in marine-protected areas in a cold current that swoops down from British Columbia — have made them perfect habitats for fish and other sea life.

“They are more productive than coral reefs, more productive than estuaries,” ... “It just turns out by chance that platforms have a lot of animals that are growing really quickly.”

Most stunning of all is that Dr. Love's research has determined that most of the life was actually created at the rig rather than having come from other parts of the ocean and settled around the massive concrete pylons.

While there is growing momentum to leave large sections of the decommissioned rigs intact (80 feet below the surface so as not to impede shipping lanes) after wells have been capped and cemented, the concept has also provoked strong opposition from some surprising quarters:

“It’s seen as something which benefits the oil industry, and opposing the oil industry is the role taken by many environmental groups,” said George Steinbach, the executive director of the California Artificial Reef Enhancement program, a nonprofit advocacy organization funded by the oil industry.

“People here have been waiting for these oil platforms to go away,” said Linda Krop, an environmental lawyer with the Environmental Defense Center, an advocacy group based in Santa Barbara, where several offshore rigs can be easily seen from shore.

Ms. Krop disagreed that the science is settled on the role of the rigs in fostering marine life. Regardless, she said, leaving the rigs up would be tantamount to rewarding polluters with the windfall of not having to pay to remove them.

“When they built those platforms, that was a cost that they took into effect,” she said.

The savings to the oil industry cited by Ms. Krop is something of a red herring. While it is true that only partial decommissioning would save big oil an estimated $1 billion,

under the law, oil companies would be required to put at least half of the money they save into state coffers to fund conservation programs.

Many would view that as a happy compromise.

Personally, I find the kind of dogmatism expressed by Linda Krop and the Environmental Defense Center a little hard to understand, given the obvious benefits research has shown would accrue by keeping the rigs intact. While one may have genuine reasons for opposing views, adamantine ideology cannot qualify as one of them.

In any event, treat yourself to some stunning images of the marine life to be found around these rigs which have, for all intents and purposes, become artificial reefs:

This Speaks Rather Loudly, Eh?

While the woman in the above photo, Birgitt Peterson, claims she was provoked and that her Nazi salute has been misinterpreted (I'm sure such mistakes happen all the time), and a right-wing site offers a lamentably lame spin on her, as they say, actions speak louder than words, eh?

That is not to say, however, that Toronto Star readers' words fork no lightning as they discuss their views of the the U.S. descent into fascism via Donald Trump. All of the missives are excellent, but I reproduce only a few of them below:

The Trump phenom might be ugly, as your editorial states, but it says a lot about the anti-intellectual stream that exists in American society. It’s not just Trump, but most of the Republican candidates for president are worse. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are downright scary. They look like characters in a bad Hollywood movie.

This is the country that put a Man on the moon and developed the Internet, but a good chunk of America is quite ignorant and knows nothing about the rest of the world. And in many ways, why should it? It has a huge domestic economy where internal trade is more important than external trade. They don’t need to look outside their borders.

But saying that, there is no excuse for ignorance. Let’s face it, many Americans, including most Republicans, still believe in Creationism. They believe the world was created in six days and many deny climate change. Even though cities like Miami and New York will be under water in a hundred years.

Obviously, Donald Trump plays to the anger many feel over their lot in life; lost jobs due to globalization and the hollowing out of the American manufacturing sector. Trump speaks to their fears, even though he has no real solutions. Crazy American elections aren’t new, just look at 1968 with the likes of Richard Nixon, George Wallace and Hubert Humphrey. But what is consistent in American life, despite their immense power, is their parochialism and small mindedness.

That is dangerous and sad.

Andrew van Velzen, Toronto

I have read literally hundreds of negative reports on Trump campaign, yet not one article mentions why he is so popular. Although the average American does not know for sure why things are so bad regarding wages, job opportunities or how the 2008 Wall Street fiasco screwed them out of millions of homes, they instinctively know they are being lied to. It would be nice if the schools taught the real history of what has been happening and what led to World War II, but somehow I doubt that is going to happen.

Add to that the “dumbing down of America” that has been in full swing since the mid 1970s and this is what America has become.

All we have to do is look at Germany in the 1930s. They were probably the most educated and advanced society in the early 20th century, yet they allowed a tyrant into power who led the world to a world war.

And why did this tyrant get into power? The economy had collapsed, the German dollar had collapsed and people were desperate for help. Now we see America with cities in ruin, poison water, jobless people living in tent cities and they do not have the social net we have in Canada.

Let’s be honest. The so called 1 per cent has put us in this position and Trump is the answer the Americans have come up with.

If we do not wake up and realize that without a solid middle class, we are doomed to repeat history, then people like Trump will rule.

Gary Brigden, Toronto

Perhaps a significant block of American voters are responding to Donald Trump not because they admire a bully, but because in one respect at least he’s finally speaking to something that no North American politician, and few elsewhere, have dared to speak to in a generation, something that has detrimentally affected and continues to affect virtually every working-class person on the continent.
The so-called “free trade” deals that have been imposed continentally for the past 30 years were calculated to wipe out domestic manufacturing, simply and solely for the sake of somebody else’s bottom line. Although new deals in the offing still persist in callously promising us the moon, they only ever leave a decimated economy at street-level, and diminished opportunities to prosper for succeeding generations. This is clear to anyone who has experienced life in such an economy, such as the current generation of Canadians.

Trump speaks to the fraudulent nature of these multiple ersatz trade deals, which plainly have always had more to do, even in the latest proposals, with investor rights than with broad economic advancements.

If Trump is finally talking turkey about the daily lived fraud that North American workers have endured for too long, and if his message in this respect is resonating with workers, then perhaps his opponents and his critics might take a lesson from his strategy and finally start talking real cases themselves.

Justin Trudeau, are you listening?

George Higton, Toronto

To borrow sardonically from The Bard, who seems to have seen it all,

O brave new world / That has such people in't!

In Trumpworld, Refraining From Violence Is 'Political Correctness'

Watch as Rachel Maddow traces the evolution of violence in the Trump campaign, aided, abetted and encouraged by the demagogue himself: