PP's Latest Aphorism

As the saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. And, dare I say, even PP might correctly take the people's pulse on occasion. However, even if he does say something that our more reactive selves may respond positively to, it hardly means he is fit for the office of Prime Minister.

There is a video I found currently circulating on Twitter that, distilled to its essence, perhaps captures the vox populi but is also a window into PP's exploitive soul. If you watch to the end, you will also be gifted with an addition to his repertoire of aphorisms to go along with Spike the Hike, Axe the Tax, Jail, Not Bail, etc.

MP Ryan Turnbull

Pay attention: Poilievre reveals who he is every day. We are witnessing a tyrant in the making. I’ve never seen anything like it. He is so completely irresponsible. Just watch #cdnpoli

"Hard time for hard crime." Not bad, eh, especially for those who like their politics distilled to a soundbite or two. However, more discerning members of the electorate have, shall we say, reservations about this wannabe prime minister.

Poilievre, Tories on wrong side of history

If Poilievre doesn’t want to be portrayed as an authoritarian leader, maybe he should stop talking like one, April 30

Shame on the Conservative caucus for walking out of the House of Commons when their leader was ejected. Pierre Poilievre’s choice of words to describe the prime minister (and refusing to withdraw it) was childish to say the least and not the language of intelligent debate we expect from our elected representatives. Further, Poilievre showed great disrespect for the Speaker of the House. By following Poilievre out, his caucus condoned this unacceptable behaviour. By all means disagree with another’s point of view, but do not sink to this base behaviour when doing so.

Katy Austin, Midland, Ont.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s ejection from question period is only the latest example of the Conservative Party of Canada’s continuous veering off toward the extremist right. The increasingly toxic comportment demonstrates frustration to be sure, but more importantly indicates a trend toward and support for aggressive, authoritarian-style politics. This disrespectful, belligerent, toxic leadership is the farthest thing from Canadian politics we’ve ever seen. It’s embarrassing for Canada. The lack of respect for civil debate and parliamentary protocols is a threat to democracy.

E. Spanier, Toronto

Comparisons to Trump

Poilievre flirts with far right while media looks away, McQuaig, April 30

Canadians ought to thank Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre for his recent outburst. After his attempt to redo his image as the nice friendly family guy, he got himself ejected from the House of Commons. It is nice when the true colours of a politician are outed, not by the opposition, but by themselves and their own behaviour. Poilievre has shown that he is grossly unsuitable as a leader, as a prime minister, and that his advisers ought not to be allowed on Parliament Hill. He has confirmed Canadians’ suspicions that he is our own version of Trump. He has proven that he remains simply a partisan, dogmatic, name calling political brat.

Allan Bowman, East Gwillimbury, Ont.

In calling opposing politicians juvenile and disparaging names, threatening to rewrite the Constitution to get his own way, appealing to extremist groups, decrying every progressive government initiative, perpetuating the wrong-headed notion that taxes are evil, showing contempt for the authority of government, it would seem that American presidential hopeful Donald Trump has his very own “Mini-Me” up here in Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre. God help us all should he gets into power.

Jonathan OMara, Whitby, Ont.

Perhaps it is only fitting that I conclude this brief post with the latest thoughts from Theo Moudakis on PP:

UPDATED: Patterns - Part 2

In my previous post I discussed how media shape the narratives by which we interpret the world. I used as its example the near-hysteria surrounding changes in the capital-gains attribution rate that the media have fuelled.

The same narrative structure seems to be permeating coverage of the widespread campus protests and activism surrounding Israel's genocidal actions in Gaza. To follow the 'official' narrative, such protests are little more than rabid demonstrations of anti-Semitism and promotion of the destruction of Israel.

For the uncritical mind, that story is all one needs to know. However, for those not content to glide along the surface of world events, it is woefully inadequate and grossly misleading. There is much, much more to the demonstrations than the cartoonish portrayals media are promulgating.

First, we hear of how violent the campus demonstrations are. However, in every news video I have seen, the 'violence' seems to start when the authorities move in to oust and arrest the demonstrators. I wonder if anyone has coverage of the minutes before the police arrive. Were the demonstrators rampaging, or were they simply strongly proclaiming their goals of highlighting the atrocities being committed in Gaza, as well as demands for transparency and divestment from Israel by the universities?

Another part of the narrative given special emphasis is that some Jewish students feel unsafe on campus because of the demonstrations. While I don't doubt that there have been incidents where direct threats have been made, one has to consider  a couple of things: is the very act of criticizing Israel part of what is making students feel unsafe? Protests are, by their nature, uncomfortable events for many. As well, students need to  acknowledge and accept that there are many Jewish students who are part of the protest.

Both points seem to be addressed in a NYT article:

Pro-Palestinian demonstrators across the country say Israel is committing what they see as genocide against the Palestinian people, and they aim to keep a spotlight on the suffering. But some Jewish students who support Israel and what they see as its right to defend itself against Hamas say the protests have made them afraid to walk freely on campus. They hear denunciations of Zionism and calls for a Palestinian uprising as an attack on Jews themselves. 

Many Jewish students taking part in the current protests say they are doing so as an expression of their Jewish values that emphasize social justice and equality. Encampments have hosted Shabbat dinners and Passover seders. At Columbia, one student said that donors have supplied kosher meals. 

Samuel Law, a graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin who is Jewish and involved in the protests, was inspired by the encampments popping up around the country. “I strongly believe that the university should be there for us to care about what we care about,” he said.

For me, the protests are reminiscent of the many campus demonstrations and sit-ins that took place in the sixties during America's war on Vietnam. The protestors were often portrayed as Communists and/or disloyal to their country. The very act of putting one's beliefs on the line became, to many Americans, an act of alarming subversion. One remembers the Kent State massacres, and we are reminded that freedom of expression is very, very conditional. Like today, express your views freely, but only if they accord with our version of the status quo.

Such an approach is ultimately counter-productive, as noted in The Guardian, never a slave to conventional narratives. 

The aftermath at Columbia University should be instructive for other universities facing similar protests, the repression and suspension of students leads to more sustained protest and broader participation. More students join in, if only just to witness. By suspending so many students, they now have very little to keep them from organizing and drawing attention to the encampments popping up across the US. 

There is some truth to the popular protest slogan: “They tried to bury us, but they didn’t know we were seeds.”

Perhaps I am an outlier in all of this, but the very act of protest, in my view, is a vital part of any democracy. To delegitimize such is to deny democracy itself, and more than that, it is a repression of the human spirit that seeks justice. 

At the beginning of this post is an excerpt from John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. On first glance he seems to be endorsing people who drop bombs when he says to [f]ear the time when the bombs stop falling while the bombers live ... for every bomb is proof that the spirit has not died. However, what he means is that when efforts at suppression and repression end, (i.e. the bombs) it means that the human spirit, or Manself, as he calls it, has withered and died. If we consider bombs both literally and metaphorically, it means to fear a time people have stopped "fighting the good fight," i.e., standing up for their beliefs and inviting retribution; the consequent impulse to squelch us is no longer needed.

And that, without question, would be a truly a dystopian world.

UPDATE: Thanks to Anon for a reference to an article by Justin Ling, which you can read here.

 

Patterns

 

As a regular consumer of media, I find myself more and more looking for patterns. While there is likely no such thing as totally consistent media narratives, I do think a preponderance of print, television and social media frame stories in ways that doubtlessly influence our perception of events.

Two recent events suggest such patterns: the Trudeau government's decision to raise capital gains taxes to a 66% attribution rate from 50% for those making more than $250,000 in such profits per year, and the coverage of the increasingly widespread protests on campuses over the Israeli genocidal actions in Gaza subsequent to the murderous Hamas attack last October.*

In a previous post, I discussed in some detail the howls of outrage from the business community over the capital gains hike; that outrage has spread to doctors, small businesses (despite some pretty strong mitigation measures) and, a group with whom so many identify, hapless cottage owners. 

There is a reason I subscribe to The Toronto Star. If there is to be a voice that breaks from the media chorus, it will be found there. A recent article by David Olive demonstrates this with some much-needed perspective, since

raising the inclusion rate on capital gains strengthens the country’s social fabric by making the tax system a bit fairer at a time of punishing income inequality.

Canada’s marginal effective tax rate (METR), which accounts for all business taxes and tax deductions by federal, provincial, and territorial governments, is the lowest in the G7.

Canada’s METR is 14.5 per cent compared to America’s 19.7 per cent and Japan’s 31.4 per cent. 

 Most critics of the capital gains reform say it will worsen Canada’s laggard productivity growth.

Those critics must answer for the chronic underinvestment by Canadian business in productivity enhancing plant, machinery, R&D and skills training during the past 24 years when the inclusion rate was just 50 per cent. 

Meanwhile, businesses have found the money for stock buybacks that inflate the price of shares to which executive pay is tied.

The anemic rate of business investment has so undermined productivity growth that the Bank of Canada recently called the situation an “emergency.” 

 It’s as if Ottawa decided that since the lower inclusion rate wasn’t boosting productivity, the government might as well tax a larger share of those idle profits.

And to use that money to finance its ambitious $8.5 housing plan, a new $1.5 billion pharmacare program, funding for more daycare spaces, one of the biggest-ever increases in defence spending ($8.1 billion), and a new $1 billion school lunch program.

And to make those additional investments without increasing the deficit, which is projected at $39.8 billion in fiscal 2024-25, basically unchanged from the previous year’s $40 billion deficit.

No one likes higher taxes. But in its reform of capital gains taxes, Ottawa has settled on a least-bad way of financing improvements to Canadian quality of life.

While that point of view may be anathema to those who regard capitalism as a zero-sum game, the rest of us should just take a few breaths and disengage from the media narrative seeking to villainize anything that seeks to make things just a bit fairer for all.

* Since this post went a bit long, I will save the discussion of campus unrest for another post. In the meantime, if so inclined, see if you can detect the pattern in that reportage. 

On Police Accountability

“Someone must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning.”

― Franz Kafka, The Trial

One of the most intriguing books I have ever read in my long reading life is The Trial. The above quotation represents the heart of the novel, about a man who endures the torturous and protracted processes of an arcane justice system. I found myself thinking about the book during the trial of Ulmar Zammer, whose hellish descent into the justice system is one almost too awful to contemplate.

The novel's resonance in the case emerges when considering the false testimony three officers gave about the circumstances of the 'crime.'  They all averred that Zameer had struck head-on Officer Northrup, testimony that was clearly belied both by accident reconstruction experts and video of what took place in the underground garage where Northrup met his fate.

One of the most troubling aspects of the trial is that it largely seemed to go forward on the basis of that false testimony. And despite the observation of the presiding judge that the case for murder was extremely weak, the Crown pressed on. There was nary a word about not having a reasonable prospect of conviction, perhaps because the case involved a police death, and Crown attorneys do value good relationships with the authorities.

So is there justice to be found in all of this? I have my doubts, since the closest anyone has come in describing the false testimony of the police witnesses is collusion, a process the Crown stoutly denied, since the officers "would have had no reason to collude." What seems notably absent in the official discussions of the police misbehaviour is the P word- perjury. The best Toronto police chief Myron Demkiw can do, in an act that smacks more of political theatre than an earnest pursuit of justice, is to have the OPP investigate his officers' behaviour.

In a statement late Monday afternoon, Denkiw referred to “adverse comments” made by [Justice] Molloy in explaining his reason for asking for the review. He did not detail those comments any further.

“Whenever the Toronto Police Service becomes aware of concerns raised by the judiciary, its governance requires that a review be conducted with respect to officer testimony, conduct, procedures, practices, and training,” the statement notes.

An Internet search suggests that charging police with perjury is fairly rare, though I note a Toronto officer was charged yesterday. The language is interesting:

The force says that in June last year, the officer gave investigators false, misleading or inaccurate information regarding a criminal investigation involving that person.

Police say the 39-year-old constable was charged this week with two counts of attempting to obstruct justice and one count of perjury.

Why is there apparently not a similar appetite to charge the offending officers in the Zameeer case?  Could it have anything to do with the fact that they lost "one of their own" in the tragic accident that took officer Northrup's life?

Of course, my lifelong cynicism suggests no charges will ultimately be filed. I stand, however, ready to be happily corrected.

 

Don't Come A-Knockin' When The Guard Dog's A-Rockin'

One has to hand it to the Americans. They seem endlessly inventive when it comes to devising new ways to inflict mayhem. However, while the following is legal in 48 states, I am sorry to inform those who love to embrace new technology that this stand-in for Fido would likely run afoul of our laws in Canada.

The company lists possible applications of the new robot as "wildfire control and prevention," "agricultural management," "ecological conservation," "snow and ice removal," and "entertainment and SFX." But most of all, it sets things on fire in a variety of real-world scenarios.

And therein lies the rub. Entertain and SFX? I shudder to contemplate the implications, especially in stand your ground states. 

More On Ulmar Zameer

H/t Graeme MacKay 

Yesterday's post highlighted the rush to judgement many people embraced when Ulmar Zameer was charged with murdering a police officer. People like Doug Ford, John Tory and Patrick Brown condemned the fact that he was granted bail. A publication ban prevented the reasons for the bail from being published, but anyone could have gone down to court to find out why bail was granted. Justice Malloy had declared the evidence very weak, and hence the bail.

But populism has its own reasons, and it is generally more politically profitable to stoke the fires of rage and bitterness than to be reasonable. Witness PP's meteoric rise in the federal polls.

Nonetheless, public opinion is variable, and there were many, including me, very much relieved that Zameer has finally achieved justice, often a rare occurrence in this fractured world. Of those who stoked the fires, many are demanding accountability.

Congratulations to Justice Anne Malloy. She analyzed the evidence in the complex Umar Zameer case thoroughly. She instructed the jury in a clear and concise manner. Through her efforts, the jury came to logical conclusions and acquitted. To top it off, Justice Malloy had the good grace to apologize to Zameer and his family on behalf of the public for the ordeal through which they had been put. She demonstrated a fine example of how justice should be administered. Truly a class act.

Bill Howes, Toronto

My faith in the Canadian justice system has been restored. Notwithstanding the deep hurt suffered by the family of Toronto police Const. Jeffrey Northrup, it is clear this was none other than a tragic accident. What we need to now see is an apology from those politicians — Premier Doug Ford, and former Toronto mayor John Tory and Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown — who so quickly and publicly assumed Umar Zameer’s guilt without knowing the full facts of the case. 

Jack Fearnall, Owen Sound

John Tory states all we can do from this experience is “learn.” Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown completely avoids the issue, Premier Doug Ford, as usual, remains silent. Not one has the decency to admit their error and apologize. But there is something each of us can do, donate to the Zameer GoFundMe program. Money cannot bring back all that the Zameer family has lost, but it can help erase the enormous financial burden. It can also reinforce the fact that Canadians actually do care.

Keith Perrott, Toronto 

Given how Mr. Ford has recently been demanding judges who will bring down the hammer on those those accused of serious crimes, a reader offers this thought:

First, I would like to address the profound need for public apologies to Umar Zameer from Premier Doug Ford, former Toronto Mayor John Tory and Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown for their unfounded accusations when he was released on bail. This should be front page and detail what they said so that the public is aware. As Zameer’s lawyer, Nader Hasan pointed out, we expect more of public officials than their stoking of hatred and tribalism when they pretend to know the facts and we, the public, do not. 

Related to Ford’s words in this case, is his desire to fill the judiciary with his “like-minded” judges whom he believes will “get tough” as their first priority, rather than seek a fair and just trial based on the facts and reasonable truths, as we observed in this trial.

We, the public, need to challenge, along with those of the legal professions, Ford’s efforts to undermine our judiciary, one of the foundations of democracy. And, reflecting on what Zameer said after the trial, we want to be able to say, in the future, that we are a fair and just country, for all. 

I wish the Zameer family peace going forward.

Penny Sartor, Toronto 

Look Before You Speak

It is obviously just human nature to sometimes react with outrage and certitude when confronted with something that seems to beggar common sense. We have likely all experienced such a response at one time or another. The recent acquittal of Ulmar Zameer, charged with murdering a police officer, is an object lesson in caution.

You will likely recall that when the charge was brought down in 2021, prominent politicians like John Tory, Patrick Brown and Doug Ford reacted with very public disgust and outrage over the granting of bail to Zameer. It seemed inexplicable to many that a man charged with first degree murder of a police officer should not be vegetating in jail until his trial. The problem was that the judge had placed a publication ban on the reason bail was granted.

While Tory has expressed some regret over his comments, neither Brown nor Ford (the later not known for either introspection or humility) have spoken a word. At least the judge in the trial, Justice Anne Malloy, expressed her apologies for the costly ordeal that the Zameer family underwent. 

While apologies might seem a mere pro forma gesture, I suspect it can do a great deal to help assuage the trauma of the family and rehabilitate Zameer's reputation; the charges led to the losss of his job, his house, and his freedom (house arrest pending trial).

Referring to Justice Malloy's apology, Andre Phillips writes that Tory, Brown and Ford should do the same:

Those politicians ought to do at least that much. They ought to apologize to Zameer for getting it so wrong and stoking public hostility toward someone who was ultimately found to be no more than a participant in a tragic series of mistakes.

They should have known better. They were clearly pandering to public opinion, which was understandably outraged by the death of an on-duty police officer. In the absence of any actual evidence about what happened that day in the parking garage under Toronto City Hall, it was all too tempting to play the “jail, not bail” card.

Two of them (Tory and Brown) are lawyers. They should have been particularly sensitive to the importance of the presumption of innocence — the foundation of our system of criminal law. It’s also the underlying reason why people charged with crimes have a presumptive right to bail in most circumstances.

It’s not a matter of “coddling criminals,” as grandstanding politicians often claim these days. It’s a basic principle that people shouldn’t be deprived of their freedom until it’s proven in a court of law that they actually committed a crime.

And there was another factor at work in the entire ordeal, say Phillips.

 All these leaders whipped up public opinion against an innocent man. The fact that Zameer is from Pakistan made it worse, exposing him to xenophobic hatred. The system eventually worked, but no thanks to politicians and others who jumped to conclusions before the facts were in.

They — and the rest of us — should learn some lessons from that. The first is: when you don’t really know what happened, just shut up. 

On that I'll end, with just one more note. A Go Fund Me Campaign exists for those wishing to help the Zameer family defray their legal costs.