Harlem Pastor James David Manning Makes Pat Robertson Seem Entirely Sane

If you can get past the particularly offensive homophobia and racism here, I think you will see what I mean:

Last Night's At Issue Panel

The comments of guest panelist Althia Raj, from The Huffington Post, are worth the price of admission here as she declares, in no uncertain terms, that The Fair Elections Act is legislation aimed at voter suppression. In reaction, the attempt at stoicism by Peter Mansbridge, currently embroiled in his own controversy, is also noteworthy, in my view. The fun begins at about the 12:30 mark:

Not Everyone Has Drunk The Kool-Aid: A Doctor Speaks Out On The Health Effects Of Tarsands' Development

As reported in The Vancouver Observer, grave health risks from the Alberta tarsands are both statistically significant and deeply disturbing.

A northern Alberta doctor, John O'Connor, was invited to Washington to brief two U.S. Senators who are against the proposed TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline that would carry bitumen from Alberta to Texas. O'Connor told them there have been the devastating health impacts of the tar sands on families – effects, he says, that have been willfully “ignored” by the Canadian and Alberta governments.

He sighted statistics for rare cancers – of the bile duct for example – that have shot up 400 times for what is considered normal for a tiny community, such as Fort Chipewyan – which is downstream, to the north of the oil sands.

“These are published, peer-reviewed studies that indicate that the government of Alberta and Canada have been lying, misrepresenting the impact of industry on the environment,” said O’Connor.

Unfortunately, his warnings have, not surprisingly, fallen on deaf Canadian governmental ears. Yesterday, In Washington, he clearly hoped for more open minds.




Without doubt, Doctor O'Connor has a prominent place on Harper's Enemies List.

The CBC Responds To My Complaint About Rex Murphy

I received the following email yesterday from Jack Nagler, Director of Journalistic Public Accountability and Engagement at the CBC, regarding my conflict of interest complaint about Rex Murphy. Because the review is ongoing, I am treating this only as an interim response. I therefore present the letter with no commentary on my part, but please feel free, as always, to express your own views here.

Thank you for your Feb. 5th email to the CBC Ombudsman about Rex Murphy. There have been suggestions he is in a conflict of interest because he has given paid speeches to groups supportive of the oil industry, and suggestions that the CBC should have disclosed this fact when he addressed the subject of Neil Young’s anti-oilsands initiative on The National last month.

While I don’t believe there is a conflict of interest, there is a serious issue about transparency, one that we are reviewing at the moment.

But let me address both concerns.

On the question of Mr. Murphy and the alleged conflict of interest:

First, Mr. Murphy is not a full-time employee of CBC News He is a self-employeed freelance. He does some work for CBC. He also does outside work, including speaking engagements.

Second, -- and I want to emphasize this -- the very reason Mr. Murphy appears on The National is to do analysis and express his point of view – he is not a regular reporter. We even call his segment on the program “Rex Murphy’s Point of View" to distinguish it from regular reports. His perspective on the oilsands, whether viewers agree with it or not, is an analytical argument based on facts, and is perfectly valid commentary.

He has been utterly consistent in expressing those views for a long time, and he makes the same broad points whether he is talking on The National, in a newspaper, or in a speech at a public event. We have no reason to question the independence and integrity of those views. That is important. Yes, Mr. Murphy holds an opinion that people in the oilpatch may like and agree with. But it is a considerable leap in logic to suggest that he is therefore in the pocket of this industry.

There is much more detail on all this included in a recent blog post by CBC News General Manager and Editor-in-Chief Jennifer McGuire, which I encourage you to read at: http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/community/editorsblog/2014/02/a-question-of-conflict.html

You might also be interested in what Mr. Murphy himself had to say in response to the critique of his ethics. He wrote an op-ed piece this past weekend in The National Post that you can find at: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/02/22/rex-murphy-speaking-my-mind-no-matter-the-issue/

Third, the most important consideration for us is whether we are providing our audience with a varied and balanced perspective on an issue as important as oilsands development – and I believe we are. You may note that Mr. Murphy’s “Point of View” segment criticizing Neil Young was a response to a feature interview The National aired with Mr. Young two days earlier. There’s no other national newscast that gave Mr. Young and his views that kind of platform. It’s all part of us fulfilling our mandate as the public broadcaster to reflect diverse opinions and to offer Canadians the opportunity and the information they need to make up their own minds.

The other question, as I noted at the beginning, is that of disclosure: what information can and should we share with the audience about the outside activities of freelance contributors to on CBC News?

In policy and practice we support the idea of transparency, not just for Rex Murphy but for all of our contributors. But implementing this is not always as simple as it sounds.

There are a set of complicating factors, ranging from how much we can legally demand of our freelancers, to privacy rights of our employees, to what constitutes “full disclosure”. Is it only paid speeches we should disclose? Or do we need to be concerned about journalists who attend charity events, or moderate a public forum? Does the content of a speech matter, or does the mere act of getting in front of a lectern make it a question of public concern? And finally, how do we share the disclosure so the audience can properly judge for themselves what’s appropriate?

All are good questions. In light of your concerns and those of others about Mr. Murphy, our senior editors are reviewing the way we deal with the issue to ensure we are appropriately transparent with our viewers. I expect that review will be completed in the next few weeks. When it is we’ll be sure to post it. In the meantime, we thank you for your patience.

You should also be aware that the CBC Ombudsman has already launched a separate review of this subject. The Office of the Ombudsman, an independent and impartial body reporting directly to the President, is responsible for evaluating program compliance with the CBC's journalistic policies. When that review is complete, it will be posted on the Ombudsman's website at www.cbc.ca/ombudsman.

I hope this response has reassured you of the integrity of our news service, as well as our willingness and desire to serve Canadians properly.

Sincerely,

Jack Nagler

Director of Journalistic Public Accountability and Engagement,

CBC News

Rick Mercer On The 'Fair' Elections Act

With Rick on the job, there is always reason for hope:

His Hands Are All Over It

Like an ugly stain that resists the most determined efforts at removal, Bill C-520, a 'private member's bill' proposed by Conservative MP Mark Adler, has Stephen Harper's signature and paranoid paw prints all over it.

The bill, about which I have written previously, would require all employees in parliamentary watchdog offices — such as the auditor general, ethics commissioner, or Elections Canada — to disclose any “partisan activity” in the decade before joining the office.

The fact that it has the full backing of the Prime Minister's Office is key to understanding both its genesis and the mentality that informs it, a mentality that those who follow Canadian politics closely are, of course, already acutely aware.

Without question, Harper and his cabal are the worst infection that ever invaded our political system. Their much chronicled acts of contempt against democracy, far too numerous to recap here, are ample testament to that fact. Fueled by suspicion and paranoia of Nixonian proportions, they see their enemies everywhere. To qualify as an enemy, one merely needs to stand in opposition to Conservative policy or voice a contrary opinion. And like the bully who never stops until he has what he perceives to be complete victory, Harper continues his relentless war against our cherished values and traditions, almost all of which must seem inimical to his ideology and agenda.

Fortunately, Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of this raging disease within our midst and are banding together in what Montreal Simon calls The Great Canadian Resistance. And happily, membership in that resistance is not limited to 'ordinary' citizens.

As reported in today's Toronto Star, Ottawa’s parliamentary watchdogs have taken the rare step of banding together to raise concerns over the bill. Indeed, in a letter to the House of Commons committee studying C-520, the watchdogs call the provisions very broad, vague in its definitions of “partisan” conduct, and warn the legislation could affect their ability to do their job.

“Examining the conduct of an employee following an allegation of partisan conduct may have an impact on the particular files, audits or investigations conducted by the employee in question,” the letter reads. “Such examination could halt or hinder an ongoing file, audit or investigation and cause delay.”

And of course, that is precisely the intent of the bill: to create such fear of repercussions for doing their jobs that they will be continuously second-guessing themselves, ultimately to the point of paralysis.

Like the effects of a wasting disease, each day the health of our democracy withers a little more, and there is only one cure. Let us hope that with the efforts of all concerned Canadians, 2015 will see a massive re-engagement at the ballot box, the last thing that the Harper cabal wants, because they know it would mark the end of their gravely unhealthy rule.

Yond Zach Paikin Has A Lean And Hungry Look

Zack Paikin, the son of TVO Agenda host Steve Paikin, has announced that he will seek the Liberal nomination for the Ontario riding of Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas. While I am heartened whenever I see young people who are politically engaged, the 22-year-old Paikin is an extraordinarily conservative, overly confident and some would say arrogant Liberal; he is not someone who would garner my support.

The following is representative of what I deem to be his callow, blinkered and rather distasteful views. In an Ipolitics article in October 2012, he

argued that the Canadian criminal justice system was in need of reform because former Livent CEO Garth Drabinsky has been denied full parole after serving a year and change of a five-year fraud sentence — but was granted day parole while serving the rest of his time.

He also noted that Drabinsky is a long-time family friend. Arguments for freeing him from the shackles of a halfway house today include the fact that Ragtime, one of the mega-musicals Garth produced prior to his criminal ordeals, made Zach cry. (An unfortunate typo — “literally balling my eyes out” — was later corrected.)

While young Zach may indeed have a political career awaiting him in the future, in my view he needs considerable seasoning before making that leap.