The Tyranny Of Conformity

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

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



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

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

What conclusions did she draw from those experiences?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citing Susan Delacourt, McQuaig says the experience

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Another police shooting can’t be brushed aside

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Here is Alex's sister:



Other family members are also speaking out:



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

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

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

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

I recently wrote the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many would view that as a happy compromise.

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

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

This Speaks Rather Loudly, Eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is dangerous and sad.

Andrew van Velzen, Toronto

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gary Brigden, Toronto

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

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

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

Justin Trudeau, are you listening?

George Higton, Toronto

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

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

In Trumpworld, Refraining From Violence Is 'Political Correctness'

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