Monday, February 18, 2019

Breaking News: Gerald Butts Resigns!


For those who claim the SNC-Lavalin affair is much ado about nothing, this is certainly an interesting development:
OTTAWA—Gerald Butts, Justin Trudeau's principal secretary and long-time friend, has resigned amid allegations that the Prime Minister's Office interfered to prevent a criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.

In a statement, Butts unequivocally denies the accusation that he or anyone else in the office improperly pressured former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to help the Montreal engineering giant avoid a criminal case on corruption and bribery charges related to government contracts in Libya.
Yeah, I forgot. It is always the innocent who resign.

Mike Pence's Very Bad Day

Speaking at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, Vice- President Mike Pence quickly realized that things were not going as planned. The rest of the world can, I hope, rejoice at the strong message he receives in the following:



But wait! There's more! Note the juxtaposition of the following, where only one person in the room withholds her applause for Angela Merkel.


It would seem that actions, or the absence thereof, do indeed speak louder than words.

Saturday, February 16, 2019

The 'Evolving' Story Of Justin And Jody



Evolving is one of those words I have never particularly cared for. It can, and should, of course, most be used when pertaining to the growth and change over time of various forms of life. Too often, however, it is used as a weasel word, one that is employed to try to suggest that the first answer was incomplete rather than a lie. For a good illustration of this tactic, read about Donald Trump's evolving justifications for a border wall.

In the Justin Trudeau SNC-Lavalin Jody-Wilson Raybould imboglio, I believe we are now witnessing a concerted effort on the part of the Prime Minister and his functionaries to 'evolve' their explanation of this sordid business. Consider, for example, what the country's doe-eyed leader had to say just the other day as he engaged in some victim-blaming:



According to this story, Justin was absolutely blind-sided by her unhappiness.

Now, that 'story' has 'evolved':




Presumably, this public admission was prompted by the Trudeau government's fear that Wilson-Raybould's version of events will soon be made known; hence, repeating his denial that he "directed" her on the SNC-Lavalin file would seem to be a safe bet, since she apparently specifically asked him whether this was the case. However, where the story falters and whose spin may give those prone to vertigo some problems is that he said, as shown in the first clip, that she did not express any concerns to him.

The two stories obviously can't both be true, unless we are to believe the question was asked and answered so casually that both went away whistling a happy tune. But for those of us who care to think and are not in the thrall of misplaced party loyalty, common sense dictates that the exchange must have been fuller, with her providing a context for the question (i.e., pressure from the PMO).

So the ostensibly corrupt machinations of the old Liberals continue apace. Somehow, I wonder whether this particular manifestation of diseased morality will ever be fully exposed to the light of day.

Thursday, February 14, 2019

Just Who Was The DPA Enacted To Help?

If you watch the following interview with law professor Jennifer Quaid, you will find her take on the Omnibus Bill provision for the DPA (deferred prosecution agreement) that SNC-Lavalin salivates over very, very disturbing. Start at about the 1:40 mark. The big 'reveal' is at the 4-minute mark, when Quaid discusses what she claims is an open secret:



Of course, the Liberals denied any such assertion during yesterday's committee meeting, as they
... denounced Opposition suggestions that SNC-Lavalin had gotten the Liberal government to change the law to allow deferred prosecutions for companies like the Quebec engineering giant facing fraud charges.

In the closest thing to an explanation anyone on the government benches has offered for the change since the scandal broke last week, Boissonault said Canada adopted the legal change to allow deferred prosecutions for companies facing fraud charges to align with its trading allies and called Opposition allegations of political favouritism “specious.”
If the allegations are true, this is a far, far bigger scandal than simply trying to pressure Wilson-Raybould to go easy on SNC-Lavalin. It reeks of the rankest corruption imaginable.

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

A Political Mushroom Cloud

An atomic usually bomb expands its destructive range outward, so it is perhaps understandable that Mr. Trudeau does not yet realize he has unleashed a weapon of mass destruction whose fallout will eventually land back on him.



And here is what The Tyee writes:
...certain Liberal pundits who evidently didn’t get the sunny-feminist-ways memo have been indulging in character assassination, running a whisper campaign that Wilson-Raybould is not a team player, is difficult — one even said on the CBC that she is reputed to be incompetent. This feels very familiar to many women across the country, now rolling their eyes, recognizing this for the stereotypical cheap shots against women who beg to differ.

Ah, the politics of symbolism. Perhaps Trudeau et al. forgot that the MP for Vancouver- Granville is a powerful political and professional actor in her own right. She has a heritage of illustrious politicians in the Kwakwaka’wakw Nation. She has served as Crown Prosecutor in British Columbia, as a Treaty Commissioner, and as Regional Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, places where competence and political acumen are valued. Her public contributions are likely far from over. She is not someone to be messed with and she’s nobody’s trophy.

UPDATED: Sounds Like A Version Of Victim-Blaming To Me

I doubt that this performance will endear Mr. Trudeau to women or indigenous communities:




UPDATE: Chantal Hebert explores the optics of Trudeau's take-no-prisoners strategy:
Trudeau may hope to tilt the balance of public opinion in his favour by undermining Wilson-Raybould’s credibility. But he should worry about a boomerang effect on his already damaged moral authority.

The optics of this prime minister attacking the integrity of a prominent Indigenous champion is already dismally poor. The fact that this crisis pits Trudeau against one of the highest-profile women in his caucus makes for a lethal political combination.

The last thing the prime minister needs at a time when he has bridges to repair with the Indigenous community is to give Canadian women — including some of those around him in the House of Commons — cause to close ranks behind Wilson-Raybould.

Monday, February 11, 2019

UPDATED: Where Is The Public Good In All Of This?


H/t Greg Perry

His fulminations about the need for a public inquiry notwithstanding, it should surprise no one that Conservative leader Andrew Scheer met with officials of SNC-Lavalin to discuss the criminal charges they were facing. But to simply accuse him of his obvious hypocrisy and dismiss the controversy of Justin Trudeau's alleged attempt to interfere with the pursuit of justice is surely to ignore the increasingly fetid odour emanating from his office.

Consider, for example, what Canada's top prosecutor has to say about political and corporate interference in prosecutorial decisions:
In Federal Court documents obtained by the Star, [Kathleen] Roussel responds to SNC-Lavalin, saying that it has no legal right or entitlement to any deal; that prosecutors are independent with broad discretion on how to proceed with charges; and that under the Constitution, prosecutors are free from political or judicial interference.

She says the law passed last year allowing for what is called “deferred prosecution agreements” (a new regime that was stuffed into an omnibus budget bill) [the very kind of bill the Liberals railed against while in opposition - funny how the perch of power changes one's perspective, eh?] is explicit about what factors prosecutors must not consider in corruption cases:

“The prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest, the potential effect on relations with a state other than Canada or the identity of the organization or individual involved” where an organization is charged under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, as in SNC-Lavalin’s case.

In other words, the the director of public prosecutions is arguing that, while the law sets out other criteria Roussel could consider when weighing the public interest, she’s not allowed by law to consider whether a company is too big to fail.
Implicit is that the administration of justice should be the guiding principle behind the pursuit of cases, neither corporate nor political considerations being part of the formula.
The written brief also takes a strong stand against any political interference in prosecutorial decisions, saying it “could erode the integrity of our system of prosecution.”
And it is integrity that should be our uppermost consideration. We have, in this country, the likely accurate perception that there are two kinds of justice: one for the powerful and entitled, and another for the rest of us. To willfully and cravenly defer prosecution on the basis of who the accused is would further erode public confidence in our institutions at a time when there are many forces, both within and without, committed to sowing division and disunity.

More cynicism is the last thing we need today. It is time for the Trudeau government to pull in its neoliberal horns, respect the independence of the federal prosecutor's office, and allow the corporate chips to fall where they may.

UPDATE: An interesting new development:
The federal ethics commissioner has launched an investigation into allegations that former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould was pressured by the prime minister’s office to seek mediation instead of pursuing criminal charges against Quebec construction giant, SNC-Lavalin.

Mario Dion, the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner, confirmed in a letter to two NDP MPs that he would probe allegations that became public last week.

In his letter, Dion says that based on the complaint by the two MPs, media reports and other information, he has “reason to believe” that a possible contravention of section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act has occurred.

That section prohibits a public office holder from seeking to influence a decision of another person to improperly further another person’s private interests.

Sunday, February 10, 2019

The Shameful Behaviour Of Pharmaceuticals

Daniel Dale recently wrote a piece about how a provision in the new NAFTA could lead to higher drug costs in Canada.
Some Democrats are demanding a change to a rule that would require the U.S., Canada and Mexico to protect the intellectual property behind sophisticated and expensive drugs known as biologics for at least 10 years.

These Democrats, like Canada’s generic drug industry, warn that the new biologics rule would keep drug prices high by requiring citizens to wait longer before they can get their hands on lower-cost similar drugs known as biosimilars.
We would be wise to heed the warning.

If you have seen the Netflix documentary series Dirty Money, the episode on Valeant Pharmaceuticals is quite revealing, illustrating the rapacity of an industry whose interests lie in maximizing profits, often at the very real expense (literal and figurative) of the people it is supposed to serve. If you watch the episode, you will see that Valeant became little more than a hedge fund, buying up other drug companies for their patents, slashing R&D while at the same time rasing drug costs exorbitantly.

The following video is another story of pharmaceutical corporate greed, one that should serve as a wake-up call to all of us. It tells the tale of a drug that had been provided free of charge but is now available only for those who can pay $375,000 per year.



We are constantly told that business does things better. If that involves exploiting human misery, you will get no argument from me.

Friday, February 8, 2019

Some Habits Die Hard


In some ways, it is hard to believe that the old Liberal propensity for corrupt coziness with corporate chums has reasserted itself so quickly, barely three years into Mr. Trudeau's tenure. In other ways, it is not hard to believe at all. After all, old habits die hard.

Th latest allegation is that Trudeau tried to influence former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to help SNC-Lavalin avoid a criminal prosecution for bribery of Libyan officials in order to secure business contracts. It is an allegation the Prime Minister stoutly denies, but the fact is that Wilson-Raybould was recently demoted to Veterans Affairs.

Cause and effect? The smell of a smoking gun is in the air.

First, there is what has been described as Trudeau's legalistic denial in response to reporters' and House of Commons' questions:
“The allegations in the Globe story this morning are false,” Trudeau told reporters Thursday in Vaughan. “Neither the current nor the previous attorney-general was directed by me or anyone in my office to take a decision in this matter.”
The new justice minister, David Lametti, repeated Trudeau's words in answering the charge of interference in the House.

So, are we simply jumping to judgement, based on little or no evidence? The Toronto Star doesn't think so.
And what communications, if any, did members of Trudeau’s office have with Wilson-Raybould and her office on this issue? These are questions that can’t simply be waved away with a carefully worded blanket denial. The Globe reported that the company lobbied federal officials more than 50 times since 2017 on “justice” and “law enforcement” issues, including 14 times with Trudeau’s closest advisers in the PMO.

What exactly did they discuss? Did it include the possibility of SNC-Lavalin benefitting from a so-called remediation agreement that would allow the company to avoid a criminal trial on serious fraud and corruption charges (and therefore remain eligible for lucrative government contracts)?

And what communications, if any, did members of Trudeau’s office have with Wilson-Raybould and her office on this issue?

These are questions that can’t simply be waved away with a carefully worded blanket denial.
Susan Delacourt finds Wilson-Raybould's silence on the matter quite telling:
... she didn’t have a thing to say in the wake of the Globe and Mail’s explosive story of how the former justice minister reportedly stood in the way of a deal to let SNC-Lavalin detour around prosecutions that could have blocked it from receiving government contracts for years to come.

“That is between me and the government as the government’s previous lawyer,” Wilson-Raybould was quoted as saying in the Globe’s scoop, as well as a cryptic, “I don’t have a comment on that,” in reply to more pointed questions about how she handled the SNC-Lavalin case.

Pro tip: “No comment” only works as a clever misdirection in fictionalized political journalism. In real life, it is often regarded as confirmation.
Did she speak truth to power?

Delacourt attended a Robbie Burns dinner last week in which Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes took jabs at her own government:
One of those jabs was aimed squarely at the ouster of Wilson-Raybould from the justice job, and a joke about how an Indigenous woman lost her post for doing it well and unsettling the “white man.”
None of which 'proves' these allegations. However, it is worth noting that SNC-Lavalin, a Quebec company, has had a long relationship with the Liberal Party of Canada, even when it was out of power:
SNC-Lavalin, many were reminding us on Thursday, was the same firm that was detouring around election laws for much of that decade to put roughly $110,000 in the party’s pocket in those lean years.
And so, an old pattern re-emerges. Coupled with Trudeau's stout defence and dismissal of allegations regarding his good friend and fundraiser Stephen Bronfman over what was revealed about offshore accounts in the Panama Papers, as well as the CRA foot-dragging in going after the big corporate cheats who operate such accounts, one can justifiably wonder whose interests the Prime Minister really is protecting.

This may rankle those who believe a Liberal government should never be criticized, given the poor alternatives, but to take such a position is to be willfully and woefully ignorant.

Lord knows we have enough of that already today.

Thursday, February 7, 2019

Far Less Than Meets The Eye



The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped.

-Hubert Humphrey

By the above standard, Ontario is quickly heading for a damning assessment. Under the self-proclaimed "government for the people," the buffoonish thugs collectively known as the Doug Ford regime are moving quickly to make the province a decidedly inhospitable place for the vulnerable. With a tacit philosophy of short-term gain for long-term pain, Community and Social Services Minister Lisa Macleod is promising to clear a long waiting list for autism treatment by giving treatment dollars directly to families.
Macleod says the amount of funding will depend on the length of time a child will be in the program, and support will be targeted to lower and middle-income families.

A child entering the program at age two would be eligible to receive up to $140 000 for treatment, while a child entering the program at age seven would receive up to $55 000.
If you watch the following video, you will learn how wholly inadequate this funding model will be:


And here is another story that brings home the point equally poignantly:



Should you wish to learn more about the devastation this new policy will wreak for the 'ordinary folks' Ford purports to serve, please click here.

Today's Star editorial most succinctly sums up the bait-and-switch nature of the government's new approach:
All the government has done is to distribute the current $321-million budget for autism services among far more people. That means less support and services for everyone who is eligible. And not everyone is eligible anymore, since the government has decided to deny families with incomes over $250,000 the right to even access this aspect of publicly funded health care.
Increasingly, I suspect Ontarians are experiencing buyer's regret in their electoral choice. Unfortunately, by the time such remorse sets in, it is usually too late, and the damage done by reactionary voting is extensive and long-lasting.

Better luck next time, eh?


Thursday, January 31, 2019

Ship Of Fools

To the untutored and blunt mind, the world is black and white. Incapable of nuanced thinking, it apprehends things only as they immediately appear. While, as the old saying goes, a mind is a terrible thing to waste, when that mind resides in the President of the United States, it is both tragic and terrifying:


This, of course, is not the first time that Americans have had to endure a national leader with limited intellect. The difference under Trump, however, is that the usual correcting mechanisms are absent. First, like the fool he is, Trump thinks he is the smartest guy in the room. Hence, his reaction to the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S Intelligence Committee:



No matter what the threat assessment asserts, be it the dangers of Russia or China or global warming, or the fact that Iran has been abiding by the nuclear pact, Trump knows better. Compounding, aiding and abetting his massive ego and ignorance is a White House staffed with spineless quislings. One of the most public faces of that quisling cadre is Sarah Sanders, who suggests our hearts should not be troubled, claiming that God wanted Trump to become president.

You need only watch the first minute of the following, if you can stomach even that much:



The current American ship of state is a ship of fools. Hopefully, it will sink soon beneath the waves of history, taking the entire incompetent crew with it.

It is the only way forward for such an extraordinarily troubled nation.

Friday, January 18, 2019

Still Here

I haven't been posting much lately, and will probably do so sparingly for the next little while. The problem is that I can think of very little that is in any way constructive, filled as I currently am with a bleak and cynical picture of our species. Just to illustrate, I shall offer two brief videos that amply demonstrate a short-sighted and foolish humanity.

Exhibit One: While there can be few people who are unaware of the juggernaut of climate change quickly overtaking us and the need to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, like Pavlovian dogs (no disrespect to canines intended) they react to lower gas prices by doing this:



For Exhibit Two, please advance to the 18-minute mark of the following:



So I think I shall lay low for a little while, try to return to some semblance of equilibrium (admittedly difficult, given that I live in Doug Ford's Ontario, where education is the latest institution under attack. And that, my friends, is a whole other magnitude of stupid.)


Monday, January 14, 2019

Things We Don't Know

One of the things I have always used this blog for is to bring to readers' notice things they might be unaware of. For example, although most of us know something about the environmental and fiscal impact of rapidly filling landfills, how many of us are aware that almost 85% of mattresses can be diverted from them and recycled?

Imagine what we could achieve if the efforts outlined in the following report were to be adopted nation-wide:

Sunday, January 13, 2019

The Way We Were



At the risk of being accused of "old-fartism," I offer the following which a Facebook friend posted. While I don't agree with the implicit and explicit denigration of the young in the post, it does serve as a reminder of certain advantages Western lifestyles of yore possessed.
Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags, because plastic bags are not good for the environment. The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, "We didn't have this 'green thing' back in my earlier days."

The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."

The older lady said that she was right -- our generation didn't have the "green thing" in its day. The older lady went on to explain:
Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day.

Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things. Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags. But, too bad we didn't do the "green thing" back then.

We walked up stairs because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But she was right. We didn't have the "green thing" in our day.

Back then we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts. Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

But that young lady is right; we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day.

Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she's right; we didn't have the "green thing" back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a r azor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn't have the "green thing" back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family's $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the"green thing." We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the "green thing" back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart ass young person.

Friday, January 11, 2019

So, Anything New To Report?



Well, the world becomes harder to understand. Despite my many years on this earth, the irrationality of humans is still the thing that most perplexes me. Despite the fact that it is much later than we like to think, we are still partying like it is the 1950's. And payment is coming due.

Kendra Pierre-Louis reports that the world's oceans are warming 40% faster than had been previously estimated:
“2018 is going to be the warmest year on record for the Earth’s oceans,” said Zeke Hausfather, an energy systems analyst at the independent climate research group Berkeley Earth and an author of the study. “As 2017 was the warmest year, and 2016 was the warmest year.”
The fact that the oceans are absorbing so much heat means that surface temperatures are not nearly as high as they would be without this buffer. However, there is a massive downside to this reprieve:
... the surging water temperatures are already killing off marine ecosystems, raising sea levels and making hurricanes more destructive.

As the oceans continue to heat up, those effects will become more catastrophic, scientists say. Rainier, more powerful storms like Hurricane Harvey in 2017 and Hurricane Florence in 2018 will become more common, and coastlines around the world will flood more frequently. Coral reefs, whose fish populations are sources of food for hundreds of millions of people, will come under increasing stress; a fifth of all corals have already died in the past three years.
An additional effect is rising sea levels.
As the oceans heat up, sea levels rise because warmer water takes up more space than colder water. In fact, most of the sea level rise observed to date is because of this warming effect, not melting ice caps.

The warming alone would cause sea levels to rise by about a foot by 2100, and the ice caps would contribute more. That could exacerbate damages from severe coastal flooding and storm surge.
Some of the worst effects of climate change were once thought to be waiting until 2050 and beyond, a measure of time people had a hard time getting agitated about. The fact that some of those worse effects are already being felt through more intense storms, hurricanes, wildfires, etc. should be sobering.

And yet we largely continue to ignore all of this, get outraged at the mere mention of piddling carbon taxes and felt massively aggrieved when people suggest moderation of our bloated, carbon-intensive lifestyles.

Can our species be saved or, more to the point perhaps, do we deserve any manner of salvation from what we have wrought?

Thursday, January 10, 2019

A Further Descent Into Banana Republicanism




While the Toddller-in-Chief continues with his temper tantrum, and the American government shutdown is now in its third week, it is good to know that unpaid federal workers are not being forgotten. Indeed, the U.S. Coastguard has offered a plethora of suggestions as to how its employees can get through these difficult times.

I'm sure they will make all the difference in the world:

- Have a garage sale - clean out your attic, basement and closets at the same time.

- Sell unwanted, larger ticket items through the newspaper or online.

- Offer to watch children, walk pets or house-sit.

- Turn you hobby nto income

-Have untapped teaching skills and expertise? Tutor students, give music or sports lessons.

- Become a mystery shoppers. Retailers are desperate to check how their in-store customer service is and will employ you to shop and rate their
service.


It must be comforting to all that in this time of crisis, good old American know-how and stick-to-it-ness will win the day.

Tuesday, January 8, 2019

UPDATED: A Breath Of Fresh Air

Newly-elected Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez articulates the kind of values that progressives pine for in their political leaders. Given the gladiatorial nature of American politics, the chances of her vision coming to fruition are probably slight; however, just getting her ideas out there in the public arena is an accomplishment, one sure to spark a great deal of heated discussion in many quarters.

While the following video is about 14 minutes in length, even watching just a few minutes will give you a measure of the woman:



You can read more about her, and see additional video, here.

UPDATE: Predictably, the perpetually aggrieved and threatened and outraged rabid right has already launched a full frontal assault on Ocasion-Cortez.

Sunday, January 6, 2019

Things We Would Like To Forget



One of the benefits of receiving the print edition of the Toronto Star seven days a week is the Sunday edition. While not necessarily replete with news, the Sunday paper frequently embraces the opportunity to explore issues in depth. Today, Mitch Potter looks at an aspect of Canada's bigoted past, something, I suspect, we would all like to forget.

Unfortunately, I cannot provide a link, as it is not on the Star website, but here are some excerpts:
Let’s start with the seemingly benign but in fact casually racist phrase “Restricted Clientele” — a phrase that appears in a wide range of old advertisements for jobs, apartments and resorts in and around Toronto.

It wasn’t just Toronto advertisers that employed the words. “Restricted Clientele” can be found in old newspaper ads from Vermont to Miami. Unpack the phrase and it bleeds blatant anti-Semitism and white supremacy.

A few examples: a mid-’30s ad for the now-defunct Beaumaris Hotel and Yacht Club in Muskoka offering sumptuous accommodation and “cuisine par excellent” with the glaring caveat, “Restricted Clientele.” Nearer to home, a 1935 classified ad for “attractive, newly decorated rooms with screened verandas” on Centre Island in Toronto Harbour, “Restricted Clientele.”

A cluster of ads for ski resorts in the Laurentian Mountains entices Torontonians to make the journey “90 miles north of Montreal” to sample the best runs this side of the Rockies. A majority of those ads include the phrase “Restricted Clientele” but one in particular, a1941 ad for Mont Tremblant Lodge, juxtaposes that small-type condition beneath a much larger banner message proclaiming, “Skiing For All.” What they are really saying is “Skiing for all white people, excluding Jews.”
Of course, "restrictive clientele" is a euphemism, a phrase that sounds innocent but obscures an ugly truth. Oftentimes, such niceties were disposed of entirely, and the prejudice was quite blatant:
... far more direct — is the phrase “Gentiles Only,” which recurs in Star classified ads throughout the first third of the 20th century. Here’s a typical example from the mid’30s: “A fast-growing factory has a good opportunity for two neat, quiet women to fill good permanent positions. Gentiles only.”
Or how about this one?
... the Toronto-based Independent Order of Foresters, a fraternal benefit society that was among the first to offer not just friendship but to extend insurance benefits to average working families... in 1937 — Foresters launched a series of ads championing the organization ... All seven of the ads include these three toxic words: “White race only.”
Uncomfortably, racist exclusions were relatively common in the last century, and they extended into home ownership. In 1944, a Toronto labour group, The Workers’ Education Association (WEA)
announced it had developed plans for “ideal workingman’s home.”...The price: just $4,700.
But there was a catch:
... when WEA officials purchased the property, they discovered an unwelcome surprise on the deed: a so-called “restrictive covenant” preventing the land from being sold to “Jews or persons of objectionable nationality.”
While such covenants on new developments were ultimately struck down, old ones were allowed to remain. Consider the section of Hamilton, Ontario known as Westdale:
Westdale was envisioned as an exclusive white Protestant neighbourhood. Specific groups such as blacks, Asians, Slavs, and Jews were unable to purchase homes; near the end of the Second World War restrictions upon Jewish home ownership were lifted whereupon many relocated from the central part of the city. However, legal loopholes allowed for discrimination to persist into the 1950s.
The lessons of history are often ignored. However, with bigotry increasingly rearing its ugly head worldwide, now would be a good time to make an effort to remember our recent past, lest we make the same mistakes again.


Thursday, January 3, 2019

What Fools These Mortals Be!

We humans are a strange species. Despite access to almost unlimited information and data, far too many prefer to notice only what is front of them at the present moment, simply reacting rather than anticipating and planning. Probably the best illustration of this is the fact that the majority of countries, and this certainly includes Canada, wring their hands when disaster strikes and pay the upfront costs of many billions of dollars instead of putting that money to better use: mitigating climate change and adapting to it. Interestingly, at least in Canada, that shortsightedness breaks down somewhat along gender lines, as you will see shortly.

If you have five minutes to spare, three stories, beginning at the four-minute mark, amply illustrate the above:

Monday, December 31, 2018

A Note of Thanks To A Very Important Group



I am currently reading a book by Seymour Hersh called Reporter. If you are unfamiliar with him, click on the link I have attached to his name, and you will see what a long and distinguished career he has had as an investigative reporter who first notified the world of the My Lai Massacre, one of the mos egregious war crimes committed by the United States during the Vietnam War.

Although I have read only about 100 pages thus far, the book serves as a reminder of the very hard work, determination and integrity that are the foundations of true journalism. I highly recommend the book.

Since this is the end of the year, may I also suggest that you read this Star editorial, which begins as follows:
When U.S. President Donald Trump, the purported leader of the free world, calls members of the media “enemies of the people” and refers to anything critical of him as “fake news,” it’s clear that freedom of the press, one of the pillars of democracy, is imperilled.

And so are the lives of too many journalists.

Indeed, Reporters Without Borders says 63 professional journalists were killed around the world in 2018 as a result of doing their jobs, a 15 per cent increase over the previous year. It blamed their deaths on “the hatred of journalists that is voiced, and sometimes very openly proclaimed, by unscrupulous politicians, religious leaders and businessmen.”
The editorial then goes on to list the names of those killed this year, It is a sobering read.

Also in today's Star is a piece by the public editor, Kathy English, well worth perusal. Entitled What readers should know about journalism, it should be especially instructive to those who disdain contemporary journalism as "fake news" or adamantly refuse to pay for one of the true pillars of democracy.

I will leave you with an excerpt of a recent piece by Paul Berton, the Hamilton Spectator's editor-in-chief, in which he enumerates some of the reasons people should subscribe to a newspaper, reasons that should resonate with all of us:
1. A newspaper subscription, whether it's for print or digital editions, helps keep you informed.

2. It allows you to better understand the world around you.

3. It helps you live your life productively by giving you a glimpse of opportunities and new ideas.

4. It keeps you safer by reminding you of risks or pointing out new threats.

5. A newspaper — digital or print — is more reliable than an increasing number of other popular news and information platforms today. Reliable information is increasingly lost in the new wave of misinformation and disinformation.

6. Once you start reading the news regularly, it's a joy you'll look forward to and a habit that's hard to break.

7. It is said children who grow up in households where a newspaper is delivered are more likely to attend post-secondary education.

8. Journalism helps shape public policy, by telling you stuff governments often don't bother to, or indeed try to hide.

9. Journalists hold public officials to account.

10. Newspapers connect communities.

11. Newspapers tell us about each other.

12. Journalism helps us help each other, by sharing stories that spur action or charity.

13. Newspapers put the world in perspective, describing people who aren't as lucky as we are, whether they are sick neighbours or homeless people downtown, or refugees in far-off places such as Syria or Myanmar.

14. Journalism takes you places you've never been and places you may never go, whether these places are just down the road in an off-limits building, or in a remote valley in the Himalayas or a city in North Korea.

15. Newspapers tell us how we can aspire to something greater, by showing us what is possible, what can be done, who can do it, and how.

16. Journalists ask questions many are afraid to ask. They demand answers from people who are often reluctant to provide them.

17. Journalists tell us they've at least asked questions we are all curious about, even if answers are not forthcoming or available.

18. Responsible newspapers, and good journalists, believe in a balance of views and equal time for all reasonable viewpoints. We may not agree with all of it, but we try to reflect all views.

19. Good newspapers decry increasing polarization in society and try to promote healthy debate.

20. Journalists make the world a better place, despite increasing utterances to the contrary.
Happy New Year, everyone, and here is to a better informed, more critical-thinking 2019 populace.

Saturday, December 29, 2018

Think Again, Canada

I sometimes feel that many Canadians are complacent about climate change, assuming that we will somehow be protected from the worst of its effects. As this CTV 2018 weather review amply illustrates, such thinking is unforgivably naive:


Friday, December 28, 2018

Calling The Rewrite Department

Also, a new cameraman, ideology and leader might not be a bad idea for the Conservative Party of Canada:



Thursday, December 27, 2018

The Climate Year In Review

Go ahead. Tell me that climate change is an unproven theory.



Meanwhile, if you live here in Ontario, 2019 will likely prove at least as depressing as the second part of 2018 has been:
In the midst of this season of giving, a precious treasure is being taken from Ontarians; the hard-won tools that protect our environment are being stolen in broad daylight by a provincial government that claims the need to do this to fight “red tape” and make Ontario “Open for Business.”

It has taken Ontario’s current provincial government remarkably little time to sweep away an array of laws and policies that are crucial to the protection of Ontario’s natural environment and farmland. It took decades of discussion by previous Ontario governments, academics and other experts for these environmental safeguards to be finally put into place.

The heart and soul of the Environmental Bill of Rights Act is the oversight provided by the creation of an independent environmental commissioner. A bill to cut “red tape” strips the commissioner of many of her powers and much of her independence.

Similarly, the Greenbelt Protection Act, intended to give permanent protection to this area, became law in 2004 after decades of studies, planning and debate. The act was intended to give permanent protection to an ecosystem of forests, streams and farmland surrounding the Golden Horseshoe. Less than six months after their election, the Ford government has introduced legislation that opens the door to development within the Greenbelt.

It has also taken decades for governments, including Ontario’s, to accept that harmful climate change is real and to take action to slow its acceleration. Ontario’s cap-and-trade program was introduced less than two years ago by the former Liberal government.

By July of this year, the Ford government had repealed those regulations and quickly replaced them with a scheme which the environment commissioner considers only a fraction as effective as the one it replaced.

If this were a movie, it would be called How Doug Ford Stole Christmas.

The effects of the Grinch’s theft of Christmas presents were at least limited to inhabitants of the small village of Whoville. The same cannot be said of Doug Ford’s theft of some of our most precious gifts of a clean and healthy environment. The harm will be felt throughout Ontario by both present and future generations. Nor is there any evidence that the eventual redemption of Dr. Seuss’ Grinch will be replicated by Ontario’s Grinch. This movie is not likely to have a happy ending.

John Swaigen, Toronto

Saturday, December 22, 2018

Payment Is Now Due

For those who don't want to be saddled with additional costs such as carbon taxes to battle climate change, may I humbly suggest that the price of doing nothing is even greater, as the following amply illustrates.

Start the video at the 4:15 mark:



Clearly, payment has come due.

Thursday, December 20, 2018

On Demagogues Debasing Language



“[The English language] becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts... if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

― George Orwell, Politics and the English Language

The language sins of politicians are many, but there is surely a special place in hell for those whose distortions, lies and hyperbole ultimately render words meaningless. Such are the sins of demagogues like Donald Trump and Doug Ford.

While a single post cannot hope to address all the complexities of language abuse, I'd like to offer a very limited exploration of why language is so regularly debased today, especially by the aforementioned culprits:

1 - Neither Donald Trump nor Doug Ford is very bright. As Orwell said, our language becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish. The truth of this is readily apparent if, for example, one notes the fondness with which Donald Trump abuses the mother tongue.
Trump uses a pretty small working vocabulary. This doesn’t seem to be a conscious strategy, though it works as well as if it had been. Much was made during primary season of the way in which reading-level algorithms (unreliable though they are) found his speeches pitched at fourth-grade level, ie the comprehension of an average nine-year-old.
The workhorses of his rhetoric are charged but empty adjectives and adverbs. Things are “great”, “wonderful”, “amazing”, “the best”, or they’re “crooked”, “fake”, “unfair”, “failing”. He sprinkles intensifiers liberally: “a very, very, very amazing man, a great, great developer”.
Concisely put, the simple language mirrors a simple mind or, as the NYT succinctly put it, Trump has the intellectual depth of a coat of paint.

Like Donald Trump, Doug Ford's language reveals a paucity of intellectual heft, a fact reflected in his use of hyperboles, absolutes and superlatives. Consider his statement about chum Ron Taverner (found at the two-minute mark on the linked video):
"There's never been a more popular police officer in this province than Ron Taverner..."

"The front-line police officers, the OPP, are more excited than anyone. They're looking forward to actually having a commissioner that actually cares about the front-line people."

He will be the best commissioner that the OPP has ever seen."
And then there is this whopper:
He also praised Taverner as “a cop’s cop” and insisted OPP officers have been ringing his phone off the hook.
Sadly, people like Ford and Trump, as I wrote in a recent post, are oblivious to their limitations, instead fancying themselves to be the smartest person in the room. This delusion prompts them to make the kinds of statements that invite only ridicule and dismissal from discerning minds, while having a totally different effect on their base of supporters.

2 - A coincident fact is that supporters of demagogues tend to like language that is simple and direct. It helps to solidify their world as one of absolutes, either good or bad, black or white. Real thinking entails hard work, but because we tend to be a rather lazy species, when a politician offers the 'answers' without requiring any cerebration, many will readily swallow the Kool-Aid. A world of absolutes can be very comforting, and helps to demonstrate that the demagogue is 'a man of the people.'

Consider the above examples in this light: "great",“amazing”, “the best”. "He will be the best commissioner that the OPP has ever seen." There is no room for doubt in such language, is there?

And unfortunately, it can be very effective. In his 2016 book, “Enough Said: What’s Gone Wrong with the Language of Politics?”, Mark Thompson examined effect of Donald Trump's fractured pronouncements:
“Trump’s appeal as a presidential candidate depends significantly on the belief that he is a truth-teller who will have nothing to do with the conventional language of politics,” warning that:

“We shouldn’t confuse anti-rhetorical ‘truth telling’ with actually telling the truth. One of the advantages of this positioning is that once listeners are convinced that you’re not trying to deceive them in the manner of a regular politician, they may switch off the critical faculties they usually apply to political speech and forgive you any amount of exaggeration, contradiction, or offensiveness. And if establishment rivals or the media criticize you, your supporters may dismiss that as spin.”
Without doubt, this analysis is equally applicable to Mr. Ford's acolytes, who show cult-like to their man, despite his manifest incompetence, an incompetence that Martin Regg Cohn addresses at some length in his column today:
Our embattled premier is uniquely accursed because he is so often the author of his own misfortune. At year-end, Ford keeps running the ball into his own end zone — colliding with allies, trampling on teammates, fumbling at every turn, blinded by hubris.
Unquestionably, my post barely scratches the surface of how demagogues abuse language. Clearly, however, an informed awareness is the best defence against such debasement succeeding, but that awareness can only come with an engaged and thinking electorate, the greatest enemy of people like Doug Ford and Donald Trump.


Tuesday, December 18, 2018

Is The List Another Piece Of Fiction From Doug Ford?

My guess is "yes'"
“I could sit here and give you all the items that weren’t accurate in that letter and there’s endless ones. I could give you a list of all the Police (Services) Act that was broken throughout that whole letter, but none of you want to report on that,” Ford said, blasting the media for being “a little slanted” in its coverage.

The Gift That Keeps On Giving


H/t Theo Moudakis

Meanwhile, Martin Regg Cohn reminds us why Doug Ford is not fit to lead the province:
Never mind, for now, the potential misdirection of law enforcement and miscarriage of justice as the premier’s office rammed the appointment through, potentially skewing or shielding him (if not others) from future police probes.

Forget, for a moment, that no one stood up to him in cabinet — not the chief law officer of the Crown, Attorney General Caroline Mulroney; nor the minister of community safety, Sylvia Jones, who supposedly oversees policing; never Greg Rickford, the minister ostensibly responsible for Indigenous affairs.

Spare a thought, instead, for those most affected by Ford’s manipulation of the OPP if his latest gambit works.

Think of our Indigenous peoples.
At the very time Ford tried to foist Taverner onto Ontario’s biggest police force — North America’s third-largest — Ontarians were learning about the recurring racism (politely and technically described as “systemic racism”) in the Thunder Bay police force in recent years. Why would Ford perpetuate that kind of disconnect by installing as commissioner a crony from Etobicoke with no feel or familiarity for the issue that overlays OPP challenges?
And Star letter-writers weigh in on the fiasco that is the Ford government:
Doug Ford governance

Looks like this consists of making up two lists: one of all the people and institutions that he has a grudge against, so that he can pass legislation and take steps to get even with them; and another of all the people he considers as friends, so that he can offer them choice, unqualified appointments.

John Marsh, Scarborough

I wish to comment on the impending appointment of Ron Taverner as the commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, and to express my dismay at the way Premier Doug Ford and Nipissing MPP Vic Fedeli and the government you lead continue to sacrifice integrity to ego and reason to expediency.

It is my perception that one of you is not smart enough to know the difference between self-gratification and the common good. That the one who knows better — Fedeli — continues to stand by and take no principled stance is breathtakingly shameful.

Please do something to stop the Ontario Provincial Police and every fine thing that they stand for in this province from being dragged to the sleazy level of political cronyism that you and your government inhabit.

Perhaps one of you even has the courage to pick up the telephone to speak with an actual average citizen in this province about this very compelling issue.
Frank Petruzella, North Bay
The government of Ontario may be exceedingly weak, but the vox populi is still strong, the latter something to be very thankful for at this and any other time of the year.

Monday, December 17, 2018

What They Don't Know Can Hurt Us All



My good friend Dave, who lives in Winnipeg, has a very keen mind and makes it a steady practice to be well-informed about public matters. Consequently, at times he is overwhelmed by the political corruption and ineptitude that, as a citizen, he must bear witness to. Sometimes, in a sardonic moment when confronted with and seized by especially egregious examples of said shortcomings, he says to me, "Lorne, I wish I had been born an idiot!"

I empathize with how he feels, but while both Dave and I know that ignorance can be bliss, we also are acutely aware it can be dangerously destructive, especially when that ignorance exists in high office.

One of the most distressing aspects of contending with people's significant educational and intellectual limitations is that all too frequently, they think they are the smartest person in the room. For such individuals, problems are easily defined, and solutions simple. All the time others spend on lengthy and detailed analysis is time wasted to such people. In the best of situations, the espousal of such misplaced arrogance is limited to family and friends; in the worst, it infects government, and you wind up with ones led by the likes of Donald Trump and Doug Ford, both of whom regard themselves, no doubt, as brilliant, but who others see as manifestly incapable of heading a hot dog stand, let alone a government.

And so we find ourselves in Ontario led by a buffoonish premier, Doug "Backroom Dealer" Ford, taking the province down a path of national ridicule and lost opportunity. It can only get worse.

Happily, there are still those souls (notably outside of government or in the opposition ranks) unwilling to turn a blind eye, resolutely insisting upon a public accounting. Rob Ferguson writes:
The odds are against Toronto police veteran Ron Taverner ever being able to effectively lead the OPP because controversy over his friendship with Premier Doug Ford has done irreversible damage, policing experts say.

Concerns about potential conflicts of interest will always linger, several law enforcement sources said Sunday.

“You’re not doing any favours putting him in that job,” former RCMP commissioner Bob Paulson told the Star, echoing remarks from others in the field.

“I don’t see how this can be fixed,” said a retired senior police executive who requested anonymity to speak freely.

“If there’s any perception of a linkage like the pictures of him arm-in-arm with Premier Ford, how is the public ever going to have confidence?”
The fact that Taverner has temporarily stepped aside should be the occasion of only limited relief. Until his appointment as the new OPP Commissioner is unequivocally quashed, there is still public peril:
Should the appointment proceed, “he’s going to have trouble, subject to the members of the OPP looking over his shoulders wondering about every inquiry he might make,” Paulson predicted.
Because the OPP conducts investigations of politicians, (the gas plant investigation is one well-know instance) any hint of an unseemly relationship with those in power is anathema to public confidence:
“There’s investigations into the government, into the bureaucracy or into departments, things that if they’re not the government that the government would surely want to know and be able to manage,” Paulson said.

“The government knowing about things in advance is not a good idea, particularly in those kinds of investigations. Because then you get into all sorts of shenanigans of tainting evidence and tainting your investigation.”
Michael Armstrong, a retired chief superintendent of the OPP’s organized crime division, had this to say:
“One thing I took out of being in a leadership position is people want to look up to you. Don’t be somebody that they’re making jokes about. They want you to be the person they can look up to and aspire to be.”
I don't envy what lies ahead for the OPP's reputation, practices and morale should Taverner ultimately become commissioner. But I worry more about what such an appointment will do to the people of Ontario. And it will just be more evidence that they elected a man wholly unfit to lead this province in any but a downward direction.


Sunday, December 16, 2018

Why Are We Complacent On Climate Change?

That is the question posed in this Global News report, which offers some interesting insights on the issue. My only quibble with it is that too much emphasis is put on climmate change being a far-off problem when, in fact, it is on our collective doorsteps right now.

Saturday, December 15, 2018

UPDATED: For Your Consideration



If you have been reading my last few posts, you will know that I have been gripped by outrage over the corruption and cronyism surrounding the Rob Ford appointment of longtime pal Ron Taverner to the OPP's top post. Not content to simply write about it, I have started a petition which reads as follows:

ON Monday, December 17, Ron Taverner is to be installed as the new commissioner of the OPP. Premier Doug Ford must delay his installation for the following reasons:

- Because the OPP is charged with investigating allegations of wrongdoing on the part of provincial politicians, all such investigations must be impartial. Because of the Ford family’s longstanding friendship with Mr. Taverner, it is a valid public concern whether this would be possible.

- Several questions have been raised about political interference at the highest levels in the selection of Mr. Taverner. The perception of bias, whether real or imagined, is destructive to public confidence in the rule of law and the impartial administration of justice.

- Concerns have also been raised about the qualifications of Mr. Taverner for this post. During the candidate search, the requirements for the job of OPP Commissioner were lowered after the original posting, some alleging this was done to favour Mr. Taverner’s selection. A position of such importance and responsibility must be assumed by someone who is fully qualified and experienced.

Please join me in my petition to convince Premier Doug Ford to do the right thing and suspend Ron Taverner’s appointment as OPP Commissioner until a full investigation into the selection process can be conducted.

If you are interested, you can sign the petition by clicking here. As well, feel free to pass it along to anyone who might also be interested in expressing their disgust over this impending appointment.

UPDATE: iPolitics reports the following:
The Ford government is delaying the appointment of its controversial pick for the province’s top police officer until the appointment process can be investigated.

The dramatic reversal comes after weeks of mounting criticism of the appointment of Premier Doug Ford’s family friend, Ron Taverner, to the post of OPP commissioner.

Friday, December 14, 2018

What Is An Authoritarian Bully To Do?



It is perhaps to state the obvious that political strongmen (I'm sure this applies to women, too) tend to surround themselves with those who will readily do their bidding. It is also true that they are very sensitive to criticism. Indeed, they do their utmost to discourage the latter. For compelling evidence, one has only to look at the long list of people Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin have disposed of.

Things are not quite as straightforward for the authoritarian bully ruling in a democracy. To be sure, such a person surrounds himself with sycophants, those willing to do his bidding in the hopes of maintaining and advancing their stations in life. For evidence, one has only to look at the supine nature of people like Caroline Mulroney and Christine Elliott serving the whims of Ontario premier Doug Ford.

However, unlike North Korea and Russia, true democracies have an obstacle to brazen, unlimited abuse of authority. It is called a free press, something Doug Ford is doing his damnedest to evade and vilify. But try as he might, the press is proving indefatigable.

Consider some of the latest revelations and commentary. Today's Star reports that Doug Ford was desperate to reward (for services rendered?) his good police pal Ron Taverner:
Toronto police Supt. Ron Taverner was offered the top position at the Ontario Cannabis Store and considered for a deputy minister post in the months leading up to his appointment to the job of Ontario Provincial Police commissioner, sources have told the Star.

Taverner, a close friend of Premier Doug Ford, rejected the idea of running the government cannabis store, and longtime bureaucrats at Queen’s Park made it clear the veteran Toronto police divisional officer did not have the normal qualifications to oversee the massive Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

“Doug wanted to do something for Taverner. That is what we were hearing,” said one source.
The NDP’s community safety and correctional services critic, Kevin Yarde, asks a salient question, one that we should all be asking:
“If Taverner’s swearing-in goes ahead on Monday, what will Ford be demanding of him?... It’s critical that police forces operate without political interference and without conflicts of interest — real or perceived.”
The Star is not the only news journal keeping tabs on Ford's Machiavellian machinations. The Globe and Mail is also deeply troubled. One of the red flags it has identified is the unseemly and wholly inappropriate alacrity with which pal Tavener leapt to Ford's defence over the demand that the OPP provide a large camper-style van whose purchase was to be "kept off the books":
Instead of looking into the substance of these very serious allegations, including a claim the Premier’s office asked police to break the law, the man on the verge of becoming Ontario’s top cop appears to have focussed his inquiries on what really matters: the size of the van.

He told the Toronto Sun that the vehicle Mr. Ford’s office wanted was more of an “extended-size van” than a “large camper van." And anyhow, the Premier – the man who didn’t hire him – is “a big guy and it would have more room for he and his team to work while on road.”

Great detective work, chief.
Writes Marcus Gee:
Democratic countries put a wall between leaders of the government and leaders of the police for a reason. If the police are beholden to those in power, it opens the door to political arrests. Police become guard dogs for the rulers instead of guardians of the public. People stop believing that the police will enforce the law without favour.

Even in a fortunate country like Canada where a descent into authoritarianism is remote, it is unwise to have a top cop who is the chum of a premier. Police sometimes have to investigate government leaders accused of lining their pockets or playing loose with election rules. How is the public going to trust the police to probe potential crimes or misdemeanors of the Ford government with Mr. Taverner in charge?
And while strongman Ford is happy to vilify the acting OPP Commissioner Brad Blair of sour grapes in his complaint about Tavener's appointment, he is by far not the only one to see peril here. Former RCMP commissioner Bob Paulson is also calling for an investigation:
“What you need here is someone with complete integrity and confidence to be able to go in and review the whole process, all of the outstanding issues, and report publicly to say, ‘No, no, you’ve got it all wrong, this is a good guy, he’s the guy.’ Or, ‘This stinks and ought not to have ever happened.’”
The press and concrned officials are clearly doing their jobs in seeking to hold Backdoor Dealer Doug to account. However, the rest is up to us, the citizens of Ontario.

Thursday, December 13, 2018

Which Will It Be, Apathy Or Outrage?



In my previous post about the Doug Ford OPP scandal, I wondered if people are still capable of collective outrage. It is a concern shared by The Star's Martin Regg Cohn:
... Ontarians are facing their own moment of truth as the layers of deception are peeled back from the premier’s alleged secret meddling over the next OPP chief. Doug Ford’s loyal chief.

The outgoing OPP chief has blown the whistle on Ford and Taverner. But are we listening?

Are Ontarians to be governed by the rule of law, or by the misrule of a miscreant who bends the rules and rewrites our laws? Shall our premier indulge his personal peccadilloes — in a customized camper paid for “off the books” to deceive taxpayers and lawmakers — and then cover his tracks?
And without question, there is much to be concerned about:
People of all political stripes and partisan colours cannot but be disgusted by the whiff of favouritism, the smell of meddling, and the stench of coverup, for this is not merely a matter of right or left, but reckless wrongdoing. This is not about ideology but idiocy.
Maybe he will get away with it. Possibly the public will put up with it. Perhaps the press will move on. Presumably the opposition will go on holiday. Ultimately the OPP will be transformed into the Ontario Premier’s Police.

And Ontarians will grow accustomed to their chief executive interfering in law enforcement at the very top, just like in America. Trump fired Comey, and Ford hired Taverner.
Fortunately, not everyone is giving Ford a pass on something that is looking increasingly felonious. In The Star's print edition, Ted Green of Ariss Ontario writes:
Re OPP head calls for Taverner review, Dec. 12

Rather naively, I have frequently thought how fortunate I am to live in a province absent the concerns of a turbulent, frightening leader as one can witness south of our border. My smugness is gone and we see more and more similarities in leadership styles now within the governance of our province and the U.S. The most recent concern is the government’s appointment of Premier Ford’s good friend Mr. Taverner as OPP Commissioner. This appointment is so far removed from passing a ‘smell test.’ One hopes the Office of the Ombudsman can remedy another area of a slippery slope that the premier seems to be leading us down.
As well, in another reminder of the vital role the press plays in a healthy democracy, The Star editorial board weighs in:
Of all the destructive things that Doug Ford has wrought since his government took office at the end of June, surely none is worse than the damage he has inflicted on the credibility of Ontario’s most important police force.

Of course, there’s an awful lot of competition. Weakening rules on the environment, axing crucial watchdog positions, sabotaging Toronto’s municipal election, undermining Hydro One... the list goes on.

But naming an old Ford family friend to be commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, manipulating the rules along the way and putting the independence of the force at risk, takes the cake.
So what will it be from the citizens of Ontario? Will it be apathy or outrage, a submissive shrug of the shoulders or a long-lasting and productive anger at a man (and his minions) who now sees the entire province as his and his backroom friends' personal fiefdom?

The answer to that question is of vital consequence both to the province and to the state of democracy today.

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

UPDATED: Backroom Dealer Doug Meets With Resistance



Doug 'Backroom Dealer' Ford, the buffoon currently occupying Ontario's premier's office, is likely surprised that his appointment of personal pal Ron Taverner, one that reeks of cronyism and corruption, is meeting with resistance. As reported in The Star, the interim OPP commissioner has filed a complaint to Ontario’s ombudsman, asking for a review of the appointment.
The 11th-hour move by interim commissioner Brad Blair is the latest development in a roiling controversy over the appointment, and comes less than a week before Taverner, 72, a close friend of the Ford family, is scheduled to be sworn in as top cop of one of the largest police services in North America.

In a lengthy letter to Ontario ombudsman Paul Dubé, Blair asks for Taverner’s installation to be delayed pending a review of the appointment and makes serious allegations against the Ford government.
The letter's disturbing allegations point to a covert politicization of the provincial police force that should worry all of us, given that any investigation into wrongdoing by politicians is its domain. The reek around Taverner's appointment is only the most visible part of this subversion:
His letter claims the decision to name Taverner as commissioner was made prior to a Wednesday cabinet meeting where the decision was said to have been made; that the job posting was “changed without convincing justification,” and that the hiring panel had “questionable authority” and the interview panel members changed at the last minute.

The letter also claims that Ford’s chief of staff specifically requested that the OPP purchase a “large camper type vehicle and have it modified to the specifications the premier’s office would provide us.” According to the letter, there was a request that these costs be “kept off the books.”

Such a request, asking for “monies spent to be hidden from the public record” is at minimum a violation of the Ontario government’s financial policies, the letter said.
But wait! There's more, as they say, including
... asking for specific police officers to be in his security detail — ones that Ford “would feel comfortable with.” Blair goes on to claim that Ford requested a face-to-face meeting over the issue, and said that if then-commissioner Vince Hawkes would not address the issue, “perhaps a new commissioner would.”

“Ultimately, the premier’s request was approved and implemented by the OPP,” according to the letter.
Only the dimmest and the most ideologically ardent could look at these allegations and see nothing wrong.

Let's hope the ombudsman does his job. Let's also hope that our collective capacity for outrage still exists.

UPDATE:
Andrea Horwath is calling for the RCMP to investigate Ford's SUV demand with the best quote I have seen thus far about the scandal:
"It's a bad episode of 'Pimp My Ride,' where the premier actually asks the OPP, or one of his operatives, Dean French, whoever it was, to put together a camper-style vehicle that is pimped out with all the premier's specifications, and that the supplier of said vehicle is somebody that the premier is going to choose," she said.