Guest Commentary: Why Tim Hudak Has Failed To Catch Fire

Yesterday I wrote an entry offering my opinion on why Ontarians are not embracing Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak as the economic messiah he purports to be. Fellow blogger ThinkingManNeil offered a concise and insightful comment on Hudak's problem, which I am posting as a separate entry here:

I think that another reason that Ontarians are reluctant to give Hudak the reins of power is that most most people who remember the Harris regime really remember seeing no tangible benefits from it. Hospitals were closed, teachers and nurses were fired by the truckload, the deregulation free for all (free fall?) gave us Walkerton, the riots at Queen's Park and the execution of Dudley George, workfare that promised job training but was more like punitive community service (aka forced labour litter collection), and seeing valuable provincial assets sold off such as the cash cow 407 highway. And all the while the only beneficiaries of these changes seem to have been the Bay Street set. Now in Sparky McAusterity we see someone even more doctrinaire than Harris, and short of Ford Nation or the Harper Reich I think most folks a pretty leery of seeing a "Common Sense Revolution" on steroids...

Why Tim Hudak Is Such A Failure As A Political Leader

I realize that the subject of Ontario politics is likely of little interest to those residing outside of the province. Yet I can't help but think that the dynamics at work here are not much different than anywhere else in the country, especially when one is talking about the qualities that make for an effective political leader.

In today's edition of The Star, Michael Taube, a political analyst and former speechwriter for Stephen Harper, offers his opinion as to why it is imperative that Tim Hudak, the leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, should step down as soon as possible. The reasons he adduces for this position, in my view, miss the larger problem epitomized by people like Hudak.

Essentially, his indictment of the hapless Hudak revolves around the contention that he doesn’t have the personality, strategic skills or the common touch that [Mike] Harris cobbled together in two successive majority governments.:

Hudak flip-flopped on seemingly solid policy positions, including opposing the HST, eliminating human rights commissions and removing the health tax. His proposal for a public sex-offender registry should have been a no-brainer, but was sold poorly and turned out to be a negative factor. Opposition rivals claimed Hudak has similar policies to the U.S. Tea Party movement, and he just couldn’t escape the comparison. He even caused a communications nightmare for his party by using a loaded term “foreign workers” when opposing a Liberal plan for a $10,000 tax credit for first-time hires of immigrants.

Such an analysis strikes me as shallow and incomplete at best. While it is true that young Tim has failed to inspire confidence in the electorate, Taube's narrow ideological lens suggests that a good portion of Ontario is awaiting a leader who steadfastly projects the kind of right-wing values epitomized by Mike Harris, unquestionably the most divisive and, in my view, detested premier Ontario has ever seen. I give the electorate here a little more credit than that.

Judging by the fact that the NDP under Andrea Horwath has made some impressive gains in the province, and current Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne has inspired some respect for her willingness to raise difficult questions about transportation funding, my thought is that the voters of this province are more progressive and savvy than Taube gives them credit for. They are not looking for a return to the mean-spirited and ideologically-driven agenda so lustily embraced by Mike Harris; they are tired of the right-wing bromides that promise everything and deliver little more than misery for the masses and profligate perks for the privileged. They are hungry for policies that will be of use and relevance to themselves and their fellow citizens.

The fact that the Liberals were not trounced in all five recent by elections suggests that despite the many scandals they have been involved in, the electorate still regards them and the NDP as far preferable to the kind of anti-union, pro-corporate policies propagated by the province's right wing.

May I suggest that the time for reactionary political parties as represented by the likes of Tim Hudak is passing quickly?

A Saturday Evening Thought

An Elegant Solution

Earlier this month I posted an interview with Neil Turok, head of The Perimeter Institute and the deliverer of this year's Massey Lectures. As I indicated in my original post, I was struck both by Turok's humanity and his optimism, perhaps best exemplified when he said that almost all the problems we face are caused by human beings and are capable of being solved by human beings.

I was reminded of that sentiment today as I was editing a loan description for Kiva, a microfinance organization with which I volunteer. The woman requesting the loan lives in a slum in Nairobi, Kenya, where she wants to buy something called a Fresh Life Toilet, which provides a rather simple yet elegant solution to the problem of waste disposal, a problem of especially pressing concern in many developing countries, especially in their slums, where access to sanitation facilities can be quite limited, leading to soil and river pollution.

After editing the loan, I did some research on the device, which is mentioned in the following very informative video:

Additional information can be found here and here.

While I have written about the good that Kiva does in a few past posts, I once again invite readers to check it out for themselves. A loan of as little as $25 is a tangible way to do a lot of good in a world that sorely needs it.

The Marijuana Debate Continues

The other day I wrote a post suggesting the need for a vigorous debate on the question of the legalization of marijuana, a drug against which countless billions have been spent as part of what many feel is a failed 'war on drugs.'

In today's Star, there is a spirited discussion in a lengthy series of letters that explore this topic, two of which I will reproduce below. As well, CNN's Sanjay Gupta, in a column on the CNN website, explains what led him to apologize for his earlier condemnation of pot for medicinal purposes. A brief video of his explanation follows.


Re: Legalizing pot, endorsing stupidity, Aug. 7

Is this column about the inappropriateness of legalizing pot or the shortcomings of Justin Trudeau as the Liberal leader? Trudeau is “the political embodiment of stupid?” Because Trudeau has an alternative to the time-consuming expense of policing the use and possession of pot, Rosie DiManno has chosen to ridicule JustinTrudeau by suggesting that “maybe he should fire up a reefer and ponder it some more,” in reference the fact that his thinking about dope has “evolved.”
I have never tried pot and never had the inclination to do so. Quitting “regular”cigarettes was, for me, difficult enough. The smell of this substance is nauseating to me when I have had the misfortune to be near someone who was smoking it.

But I think that Mr. Trudeau has an idea worth considering. By not having pot legalized, we are ensuring that some young people, who may be in possession of this drug when stopped by police, could be be saddled with a criminal record that will affect their future employment.

The financial savings alone would merit the legalization of pot. The police would be free to pursue more important criminal matters. The load on the court system would be lightened. There would be more room in our jails for “real” criminals.

Finally, if legalized, the tax revenues could be comparable to those collected by the LCBO. Could we actually see a PCBO, or an MCBO?
“What about driving whilst high?” Ms DiManno asks. I believe that some police forces are now in possession of a “marijuana version of the breathalyzer” that was developed in Sweden. It can detect 12 different controlled substances including methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, morphine and of course, marijuana. Apparently, this test is equally as accurate as blood and urine tests. Therefore motorists using legalized marijuana would be subject to the same restrictions as motorists using legal alcohol.

Unauthorized growing of marijuana would remain a criminal offense, the same as bootlegging and cigarette smuggling.

I agree with Ms DiManno’s final statement that “Canada already has way too much stupidity,” but I don’t agree that Justin Trudeau’s idea of marijuana decriminalization is a part of that stupidity.

Warren Dalton, Scarborough

I agree with you that Justin Trudeau owes it to Canadians to explain how his legalizing marijuana would actually work. I have problems following his rationale for legalization. It seems to be his belief that by legalizing and regulating pot that will keep it out of the hands of our youth. We all know how successful that has been keeping tobacco and alcohol out of the hands of young people.

Not only that, in both cases legalization has resulted in a black market for both substances, with the entrance of organized criminal elements. I can see the same thing happening if we follow the same path with marihuana.

The other aspect Mr. Trudeau seems to ignore is that today’s hydroponically produced marijuana is many times more potent than that produced in the past. This makes it more likely to lead to addiction, adding even more problems to our struggling healthcare system.

I think Mr. Trudeau should rethink this subject before pushing ahead.

Larry Comeau, Ottawa

Police Power - UPATED

While the title of this post may seem a bit of a tautology, since the power of police on the streets is obvious, there are other arenas where they wield their influence in ways that may not be consistent with an open and democratic society.

For example, police are known to arrive at courtrooms en masse when one of their own is under judicial scrutiny. An egregious example occurred earlier this year when both a criminal lawyer and her client allege intimidation occurred during the trial of Raymond Costain on charges of impaired driving and assault to resist arrest; these charges followed Costain's severe beating by police in an episode captured on video:



Leora Shemesh, defence lawyer for Raymond Costain, tells a tale of what can only be described as collective police intimidation:

Shemesh said officers showed up en masse at court, surrounded her and Costain in an elevator, followed her to her car after a hearing and even took cellphone pictures of her in the courthouse.

The judge, Ford Clements, eventually tossed out the charges against Costain, but also experienced some truculence at the hands of the police"

When the camera incident was raised in court, it caused such an uproar it almost brought the case to a halt, she said.

The officer who took the picture was put on the witness stand and refused to show the judge his cellphone to prove he had not taken the picture. Shemesh said it so enraged the judge that he raised his voice with the officer before ordering him out of the courtroom, raising questions about whether the judge should recuse himself.

Yet police muscle extends far beyond the street and the courtroom. In response to Durham Police Detective Dennis Scott's attempt yesterday to intimidate Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin via Twitter, The Star's Rosie Dimanno has a column today that reveals something truly chilling about the 'long arm of the law." It is an arm that reaches into the very heart of our democracy, our government, revealed in the latter's reaction to Marin's proposal, in 2011, that the SIU (Special Investigations Unit) be taken out of the Police Services Act so it can operate as an entirely independent body:

“Take the SIU out of the PSA, with consequences for failure to co-operate. If you don’t co-operate with the SIU, you face prosecution — that simple.” This, of course, would not apply to subject officers, who would retain the right to silence shared by civilians.

In Marin's view, that would end the frequent roadblocks to investigations of the police, who frequently simply refuse to co-operate with any probes conducted by the SIU under its current legislative configuration.

The reaction of the Ontario government to this proposal? An internal Ministry of the Attorney General briefing note is telling:

“As you know, the decision was made at the time of the Report’s release that — largely due to vehement police opposition — we will not be considering the recommended legislative changes in the near term.

The note goes on:

“At some point, we may have to communicate that we will not be legislating, however that time is not now. Marin typically does not conduct any public communications regarding ‘report-backs’ — he usually gets his media hit off report releases and then moves on. We need not be overly concerned that he will criticize us on the basis of this letter.”

The motto of the Toronto Police Force, and many others, is To Serve and Protect. Perhaps it is time for civilians to ask to whom this motto is really meant to apply.

UPDATE: Many thanks to ThinkingManNeil for pointing out the following video entitled Cherry Beach, the reference, as explained here, being as follows:

The song is about local lore of how the Toronto police used Cherry Beach as a location to beat suspects. The police tried to have the song banned.[5] Hardcore punk band Career Suicide also references the slang phrase "Cherry Beach express" (referring to the supposed police practice) in their song "Cherry Beach".

And Speaking Of The Police

“Whenever allegations such as these are brought to our attention by way of a complaint, an internal investigation is launched. Community trust is important to us and we will continue to work towards maintaining the trust that the community has in Peel Regional Police.

- Staff Sergeant Dan Richardson, Peel Regional Police

While I am well-aware that there are two sides to every story, I can't help but think that the experience of this Hamilton family is consistent with a dismayingly familiar pattern: police abuse of authority, arrogance, and a measure of contempt for the public they 'serve'.