The Harper Strategy Strikes Again

To which of the myriad Machiavellian Harper strategies do I refer? It's the one that says if you don't like what a group is saying, muzzle them or shut them down.

The Hill Times today reports the following:

Newly-appointed Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O’Toole has informed an advocacy group for wounded and psychologically injured veterans that it is no longer a stakeholder adviser to the Veterans Affairs department.

Mike Blais, who helped launch Canadian Veterans Advocacy in 2011 to advocate for veterans and serving Canadian Forces members who did combat tours in Afghanistan and their families, told The Hill Times that Mr. O’Toole (Durham, Ont.) gave the bad news to the group in a voicemail he left on Mr. Blais’ phone service Jan. 7.

Mr. Blais' group, which had been part of a Veterans Affairs Canada Stakeholder Committee established in 2012,

had been one of the most vocal critics of the department’s treatment of injured veterans and Canadian Forces members in the months leading up to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) decision to shuffle former Veterans Affairs minister Julian Fantino (Vaughan, Ont.) out of the post last week, following scathing criticism from Auditor General Michael Ferguson for delays in treatment for veterans.

What prompted the termination, which the 'classy' Mr. O'Toole left in a voicemail message to Mr. Blais? Here is what the former said last June in the House:

“As a veteran myself, I have been quite offended by some of the work that group does. It is not sincere. It is not based on sound policy. I understand, at committee, that they have acknowledged that their funding has come from unions”.

Setting the record straight, Blais offered the following:

The advocacy group lobbied against government budget plans in 2012 that would have resulted in job losses at Veterans Affairs Canada, he said, after which the union representing the employees provided Canadian Veterans Advocacy a donation of $2,000.

“Every department at that time took a 10-per-cent hit except Veterans Affairs Canada,” Mr. Blais said.

“We worked hard on that and the Union of Veterans Affairs Employees made a donation of $2,000, no strings attached, just a donation to the war chest. There is not tit for tat, no, nothing, right. As a consequence to that, even though it was three years ago and a meagre $2,000, they’ve been attempting to label us,” Mr. Blais said.

Julian Fantino may have been replaced as Veterans Affairs minister, but his malignant, vindictive spirit clearly lives on.

Holding Police to Account

Late last month I wrote a piece for The Paper News examining the nearly impenetrable 'blue wall' that is an ever-present barrier to justice and accountability whenever the police abuse their authority, violate the public's rights, or otherwise brutalize them. One of the cases I wrote about was the disabling beating OPP Sgt. Russell Watson administered to Tonie Farrell, a 48-year-old Orillia ‘Good Samaritan’ whose only 'crime' was to try to help a woman who had been assaulted by three thugs.

The SIU (Special Investigations Unit) did its usual 'stellar' job. It found there were no reasonable grounds to charge the offending officer.

In today's edition of The Star, readers weigh in with their usual penetrating insights. I reproduce a few of them below:

Re: Good Samaritan brutally beaten by OPP officer, Dec. 30

Officer assaults citizen, causes serious, permanent injury. Officer charges citizen with assault and obstruction. SIU investigates officer but lays no charges. Judge dismisses charges against citizen, condemns officer’s actions.

Sadly, this case is not unique; it demonstrates the double standard that exists when the citizen victim of the assault is charged while the police perpetrator suffers no legal or disciplinary consequences. By setting the bar for charging police far too high, the SIU is failing its duty to protect Ontarians from the “bad apples” who perpetuate a culture of violence in police forces across the province.

How many more victims will it take before citizens take to the streets to demand accountability?

M. Goldstein, Mississauga

I was appalled to read about OPP Sgt. Russell Watson’s life-shattering assault on Tonie Farrell, and even more appalled to hear that he will face no consequences. This is another in a long line of incidents proving that our police are a law unto themselves.

If they are particularly stupid or their acts particularly egregious, judges may scold them, but the SIU will find there’s no grounds to lay a charge, and their superiors will not even discipline, much less dismiss them. Evidently Watson’s OPP superiors consider punching and kicking women to be all in a day’s work.

When police officers lie under oath, they are not charged with perjury. When they conspire to cover for each other and subvert the course of justice, they are not charged with conspiracy. That “blue wall of silence” seems to reach around the entire justice system.

If an individual’s safety is based on happening not to cross a police officer’s path at the wrong moment (or in the “wrong” skin), we’re in serious trouble. Governments at all levels must take steps to bring police under the rule of law. We cannot trust our justice system or our police if they can break the law with impunity.

Nina Littman-Sharp, Toronto

And about that curious provision in the law that allows the police to obstruct SIU investigations by refusing to turn over to them their investigation notes:

As I read this article, I became ever more appalled as Tonie Farrell was transformed from Good Samaritan to an abused victim to an accused defendant and then the SIU finding of no wrongdoing. Truly a disgrace.

The most infuriating and confusing aspect of this sorry tale is present in the following passage from the Dec. 30th article: “The SIU conducted a month-long investigation in 2013 and interviewed Watson, but he did not provide his notes, as is his legal right.”

This is a mind-boggling situation. I have never been a police officer nor faced violent danger in my employment. Nonetheless, I have never for one second considered the notes that I took with the pen and paper or computer (supplied by the employer and used during a paid workday) to be my property or facts that I could keep secret.

I worked as a quality assurance manager, and as such I performed investigations into quality issues, and as a member of the joint health and safety committee also conducted investigations on safety incidents. I cannot imagine a circumstance where my refusal to fully co-operate with my co-workers and management supervisors would not result in disciplinary action, which would appear on my HR records and, if there were repeat infractions, result in my dismissal.

My wife and close friends with whom I discussed this issue were similarly confused at learning that the rules appear to allow police officers to withhold information and not fully and completely assist and comply with investigations.

I wish to request the Star to prepare an article to explain to readers like myself the legal logic behind the ability (or “right”) of officers to withhold their field notes. This article should include a complete review of the pros and cons of this “right.” It would be very enlightening to learn of situations where the exercising of this “right” is clearly the correct course of action as well as the flip-side, such as the Farrell vs. Watson case and others like it.

Stan Taylor, Brampton

More Than Rhetorical Questions

In today's Star, Bob Hepburn has a piece that should be read by anyone who needs a brief refresher course in some of the more egregious attacks against democracy perpetrated by Stephen Harper. I offer only a short overview of the article here, as I hope everyone will read the original in its entirety:

Since he became prime minister in 2006, Harper has displayed a stunning disrespect for democracy in Canada, either approving or turning a blind eye to decisions that have undermined our democratic traditions and institutions and our faith in democracy.

Over the years, Harper has taken advantage of Canadians’ waning interest in federal politics to implement his anti-democratic initiatives and to run roughshod over Parliament and campaign rules and practices.

Hepburn then goes on to pose a series of questions that are far from rhetorical:

How does Harper get away with dismantling the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, which promoted democracy and human rights around the world for 24 years?

How does Harper get away with cutting funding for organizations such as Kairos, a coalition of church groups that advocated for human rights?

How does Harper get away with introducing a fair elections act that was so unfair it should rightly have been called the anti-democratic elections act?

How does Harper get away with slapping gag orders on public servants and scientists, preventing them from speaking to the public?

How does Harper get away with letting cabinet ministers restrict freedom of speech and information tenets, withhold and alter documents, and launch personal attacks on whistleblowers?

How does Harper get away with slamming the chief electoral officer for doing his job?

And those are just a few of the reminders Hepburn provides us with.
He ends with these sobering observations:

While some pro-democracy groups have raised alarms in the past about Harper, most Canadians have just shrugged their shoulders, albeit in disgust. They are disengaged, discouraged by government scandals and believe politicians don’t listen to them and aren’t interested in the issues that are important to them.

But Canadians cannot take democracy for granted.

During the next 10 months leading up to the October election, voters can let Harper and other politicians know they they’ve had enough.

For all Canadians, the stakes are huge. That’s because this election may be the last real chance for years ahead to restore faith in our democracy.

So, my friends, read, weep, and then disseminate Hepburn's information widely.

Harperian Hypocrisy

Keep spreading the word, brothers and sisters:



H/t Michael Nabert

Star Readers Respond To Eric Balkind

Earlier in the week, I reproduced a Star letter-to-the-editor written by Eric Balkind, who urged the other federal political leaders to amalgamate their parties as the best way to stop Stephen Harper in the next election.

That letter has provoked a number of equally well-considered letters, all worth reading, published in today's edition. Here are but two of them:

Kudos to Eric Balkind for telling it like it is. Without a doubt there are many Canadians who agree with what he writes as well as his prescription for what ails Canada: forming a new party of political moderates ahead of the coming election in order to defeat the Harper Conservatives.

Since these politicians no longer call themselves “Progressive Conservatives,” let alone govern in that spirit, it would be fitting to call the new party the “Progressive Party of Canada.” This would clearly distinguish the party and include the Green Party — which has much to contribute to a worthy vision of Canada — rather than exclude it with the name “Liberal Democrats.”

To echo Balkind, Canadians desperately need party leaders Justin Trudeau, Thomas Mulcair and Elizabeth May to put the country’s well-being ahead of their parties’ interests. Many of us fervently hope that these honourable politicians are including that conversation in their new year’s resolutions.

Salvatore (Sal) Amenta, Stouffville

John Blake, of Picton, Ontario, has a different approach, one that I favour for the 2015 contest; it is a strategy that, given the bald thirst for power both Messieurs Trudeau and Mulcair have, seems a tad more likely to be seriously entertained:

It is unrealistic to think that the NDP and Liberal parties would even consider amalgamation. Neither Mulcair nor Trudeau became leaders of their parties only to oversee the demise of his party.

With the election looming the Conservatives are in a commanding position and will probably win because they have a large bank account ready to finance the many vicious attack ads they will use against their opponents. There will be 30 new federal seats and, because of demographics, the Conservatives will win at least 14 of them and possibly more — vote splitting will give the Conservatives many more seats. Add this to their core vote and Harper will win quite possibly with a majority.

What the NDP and Liberal parties need to do is not amalgamate but co-operate on those seats that the Conservatives will probably win due to the split vote. If the NDP and Liberals co-operate and field just one candidate in such seats then there is a good chance of getting more than the 35 per cent who voted Conservative.

This would almost certainly lead to a minority government whose first order of business should be the introduction of a voting system that truly reflected the voting intentions of the people of Canada.

May what is best for Canada prevail over personal ambition!

About That Fear-Mongering, Mr. Harper

Thanks to Inse for this. He writes:

Maybe to try and counteract the obviously upcoming increase in security measures and fear mongering by the usual suspects (and don't forget to donate to the party funds!)

Meanwhile, Back At The Trough

The steps of Peter Mansbridge and Rex Murphy, I imagine, have a bit of a spring today, content in the knowledge that they are no longer outliers in the land of journalistic conflicts of interest. There's a new kid on the block (or, perhaps more appropriately, at the trough).

The Toronto Star reports that Global News anchor Leslie Roberts has been caught in a multitude of egregious conflicts of interests, promoting on air and in his tweets the interests of clients of BuzzPR, the public relations firm he owns with a partner:

Here is but one example of that the newspaper has uncovered:

Toronto lawyer Sandra Zisckind of Diamond and Diamond has often been a Global guest, sitting at the anchor table with newsman Roberts with both her name and the name of her law firm in a bold caption on the television screen as she comments on legal issues. The spots, connected to the news of the day (a high profile arrest or liability issues related to something in the news) run for about three minutes — a boon for any company trying to build a business. What Roberts said he has never revealed, to viewers or to Global, is that he is “creative director” and part owner of BuzzPR, which provided Diamond and Diamond lawyers with media training and helped them get featured on Global news.

His defense of such practices is weak:

Roberts said he never directly accepted payment from a client to be a guest on his show. However, he acknowledged that each business client pays BuzzPR to get media exposure on Global and other networks.

The list of Roberts' moral and ethical compromises is lengthy, and the clients mentioned in the Star article have either enjoyed on-air interviews with 'their man', been treated to 'shout-outs' by him, or enjoyed his twitter acknowledgments.

Predictably, Roberts says that he has done nothing wrong; it is an assertion that offers everyone a rare and unflattering look into the soul of an on-air personality.

Personally, what I see repulses me.