On This Election Night

 What made me think of this?

Springing The Trap

In his ongoing efforts to evade responsibility for the plight of the homeless and their consequent encampments, Doug Ford set a trap. And like hungry mice eager for an ort from the table, 12 Ontario big-city mayors shamelessly took the bait. 

It all began when Mr. Ford very publicly suggested he wanted 

Ontario’s Big City Mayors, an association of 29 municipal leaders, to show “backbone” and support using the notwithstanding clause by putting it in writing “if they really want the homeless situation to improve.” 

The whiff of cheese too strong,  

the leaders of Barrie, Brampton, Brantford, Cambridge, Chatham-Kent, Clarington, Oakville, Oshawa, Pickering, St. Catharines, Sudbury and Windsor sent a letter to Ford on Thursday...

“We request that your government consider the (measures) … and where necessary use the notwithstanding clause to ensure these measures are implemented in a timely and effective way.”

Too their credit, cities like Toronto, Burlington and Hamilton refused to join in the request, apparently aware that the 'solution' on offer was  misdirection of the vilest kind.

Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward, chair of the mayors’ group, wants to see “one point person, a specific minister or ministry, in charge of solving this” and a province-wide plan including more supports.

She said the “issue becomes, if you are using the notwithstanding clause to close down encampments, but people have nowhere to go, we’re no farther ahead.”

 Others also saw the offer of the notwithstanding clause for the ruse it is.

Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow, who did not sign the letter, “believes the notwithstanding clause isn’t a real solution,” said her spokesperson Shirven Rezvany, urging the province to create more supportive housing, boost social assistance rates and reinstate rent controls, among other things.  

“I would hope that the government would actually be working with municipalities to build the housing we really need.”

Ontario Green Party leader, Mike Schreiner, had this to say: 

"To me, this is a complete failure of the Ford government to build deeply affordable, non-profit, co-op and supportive housing. If they are going to take the extreme measure of taking the constitutional rights away from people who are experiencing homelessness, where are those people going to go? There are no homes for them to go to."

As I said in my previous post,  Doug Ford, like so many other 'leaders', has debased the nature of the political contract, reducing it to a transactional one. It is good to know that there are at least a few who still understand that the whiff of some pungent cheese is no guarantee of a feast for all.

 

If You Live In Ontario

 ... you will understand the following

H/t Moudakis

One of the dubious accomplishments of Ontario Premier Doug Ford's government has been to reduce the relationship between the governed and those who govern to a transactional one. No more are there entertained the lofty sentiments of a John Kennedy, who famously said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

No, those days are long gone, to be replaced by crass efforts to convince everyone that government exists only to make your life better (an illusion that some people only latter discover is untrue) through egregious vote-buying.

Forget the common good. Forget the larger issues that demand sacrifice from all (climate change, rampant homelessness, drug addiction, etc. etc.) And, of course, forget about the fact that these giveaways preclude any effort to re-upload provincial responsibilities that are bleeding property taxpayers dry.

As is often the case, however, I am prevented from slipping into complete despair by the fact that a few see through the entire facade.

Doug Ford spending nearly half of Ontario’s tax windfall on $200 ‘rebate’ cheques, Oct. 20

What a fiscally irresponsible premier we have. 

First, Doug Ford scrapped the $120 licence plate renewal fee, costing the province about $1.1 billion a year. Wasn’t that money necessary to fix our roads, highways, bridges, etc.? Then Ford broke a contract one year early with the LCBO to the tune of at least $225 million. (This could go as high as $1 billion with the projected repercussions.) Apparently getting beer at the corner store is more important than putting money toward, let’s say, health care.

Now he wants to give $200 to each taxpayer regardless of their income. (Naturally this will not include the most vulnerable among us who do not pay taxes.) This will cost $3 billion. That’s BILLIONS of dollars that could have gone to hire the doctors, nurses and support staff required to cut surgery and emergency wait times; ensure mental health care for children who now have to wait years for help; fund schools properly so they don’t have to fund raise for necessities; subsidize homes for the homeless. Think about this as you spend your $200 bribe for your vote that could have been used for the greater good — improving the lives of the entire population of Ontario.

Susan Ross, London ON 

A deplorable stunt

This is one of the most bizarre decisions that I have ever witnessed by a government institution. Ontario has a huge debt burden which is being compounded by annual deficits. Apparently the Ontario government thinks it should be rewarded (at the expense of their growing debt obligations) but they should be condemned for such a deplorable stunt.

Robert Woodcock, North York

Ford stop this crazy circus. We don’t find it amusing

What kind of a clown act is that, sending us back our own money intended for our welfare? Thanks, but no thanks. That $3 billion is our tax money. It would go a long way in areas in desperate need of funding. We are not amused. The only clown act we want to see from you is of the disappearing kind.

 Frances Sedgwick, Toronto

A Good Story

In our fractured world, it is often hard to anything remotely resembling good news. However, occasionally a story comes along that reminds us that a better existence is possible. The following is  one such story.

Despite all the bruiting about $10 daycare in Canada, something that is proving difficult to achieve, I cannot imagine a story like this here.

"The Evil that Men Do"

While it can be convincingly argued that Justin Trudeau has done many good things during his tenure as prime minister, it is usually the shortcomings of leaders that are remembered. The following letter attests to that fact:

Trudeau has earned his political enemies

.

Current polling indicates Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is nosediving the Liberal party toward a devastating defeat in the coming election, possibly to third party status. Trudeau’s long record of loose promises — his admitted duplicity on proportional representation elections in 2015, his refusal to tax the financial and market assets of the wealthy the way Canadian homes are taxed, his refusal to redirect $18 billion per year in oil and gas subsidies into clean energy, his anemic energy transition support for ordinary Canadians, his willingness to see average Canadians crushed by dizzying interest rate hikes “to fight inflation” rather than regulate the price-gouging corporate executives whose record profits are actually driving the inflation — have all earned him a united front of enemies from across the political spectrum.

It’s telling that Trudeau still refuses the one thing in his power that would prevent a Conservative majority from sweeping in this coming election: enacting Proportional Representation elections (equal representation for every vote, with no vote splitting). Trudeau would rather let Poilievre win absolute control of government with only 40 per cent of the votes, than give up Liberal/Conservative disproportionate control of the political system . It is well past due for the Liberals to call an emergency leadership review and replace Trudeau and his luggage with a progressive team player, like MP Nathaniel Erskine Smith, for 2025. The coming months will tell where the Liberals’ real priorities lie — with the corporate aristocracy, or with the rest of us. 

D’Arcy McLenaghen, Toronto 

UPDATED: "Anticipatory Obedience"

Anticipatory obedience is a term I was unfamiliar with until reading an article in The Guardian.

[I]n On Tyranny, Tim Snyder’s bestselling guide to authoritarianism. Snyder defines the term as “giving over your power to the aspiring authoritarian” before the authoritarian is in position to compel that handover.

It appears that is precisely what has happened at The Washington Post. The newspaper's editorial board had drafted its endorsement of Kamala Harris for U.S. president, but then its owner, Jeff Bezos, intervened and forbade it. It appears that Bezos, who also owns Amazon and Blue Origin, wants to make sure that if Don Trump wins the race, his businesseses, which compete for government contracts, will thrive.

Within hours of making that decision, 

high-ranking officials of [Blue Origin] briefly met with Trump after a campaign speech in Austin, Texas, as the Republican nominee seeks a second presidency.

Trump met with Blue Origin chief executive officer David Limp and vice-president of government relations Megan Mitchell, the Associated Press reported.

Meanwhile, CNN reported that the Amazon CEO, Andy Jassy, had also recently reached out to speak with the former president by phone. 

Those reported overtures were eviscerated by Washington Post editor-at-large and longtime columnist Robert Kagan, who resigned on Friday. On Saturday, he argued that the meeting Blue Origin executives had with Trump would not have taken place if the Post had endorsed the Democratic vice-president as it planned.

The was additional fallout.

 In their criticism of the Post’s decision on Friday, former and current employees cite the dangers to democracy posed by Trump, who has openly expressed his admiration for authoritarian rule amid his appeals for voters to return him to office.

The former Washington Post journalists Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, who broke the Watergate story, called the decision “disappointing, especially this late in the electoral process”.

The former Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron said in a post on X, “This is cowardice with democracy as its casualty”.

The cartoon team at the paper published a dark formless image protesting against the non-endorsement decision, playing on the “democracy dies in darkness” slogan that the Post adopted in 2017, five years after its purchase by Bezos. 

The Post was actually the second major paper to veto a presidential endorsement. 

The Post’s non-endorsement came shortly after the billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times, Patrick Soon-Shiong, refused to allow the editorial board publish an endorsement of Harris.

Unfettered and fearless journalism has always been crucial to stable, well-functioning democracies. With the craven, self-serving sycophancy of people like Bezos and Soon-Shiong, it is clear that America's drift toward authoritarianism is no longer limited to the unhinged MAGA  crowd. As a consequence, all are diminished and endangered.

UPDATE: In today's (Oct.29) Star, Andrew Phillips writes:

The point is that by ordering their papers to stop short of endorsing Trump’s opponent the owners are showing weakness in the face of a candidate who has made clear he’s prepared to violate every norm of democracy. Make no mistake: Trump will take advantage. “If Trump sees a sign of weakness,” former Post editor Martin Baron told the New Yorker over the weekend, “he’s going to pounce even harder in the future.” 

The Corrupt Use Of Political Language

I hardly know what to write these days. With the world engulfed in darkness, everything seems too big to address. Perhaps sticking closer to home, dealing with smaller issues that may be amenable to correction, is the best course. We'll see.

It has probably not escaped your attention that language, especially language coming from outside the arena of politics, has become debased. Every question is met with an anodyne, political answer that adeptly, if not transparently, evades anything resembling a truthful response. It is one that models what our politicians are eminently skilled at. The following is one such example.

The Durham police, already being investigated for corruption, finds itself embroiled in yet another instance of the law's subversion:

Chris Kirkpatrick, deputy chief of the Durham police, was allegedly driving his unmarked vehicle through a school zone in June when he was stopped for speeding. 

The next day, Kirkpatrick was stopped again, this time for allegedly travelling more than 50 km/h over the speed limit — an offence that, according to the Highway Traffic Act, should lead to a charge of stunt driving, a license suspension and the immediate impounding of the driver’s vehicle.

Both times he was let off, according to an internal complaint made by a Durham cop and shared with the Star. 

What is interesting about this case is the 'followup' after the Durham police chief referred this corruption to its police services board, which then had the Peel police investigate. The problem is that after Peel filed its report with the Durham board, there was no public report, just ....... silence, followed by the usual political use of language.

The mayor of Ajax, Shaun Collier, is the chair of the civilian board, but refused to answer any questions about the report. 

Collier did not respond to followup questions sent earlier this month by email, including why the board, a civilian body intended to represent the public’s interests, had not made public the findings of the Peel police investigation.

In August, the police board sent the Star a general statement, attributed to Collier, that did not address the specific allegations against Kirkpatrick, but said all allegations against police are investigated “with the firm objective of ensuring accountability.” [All emphases mine]

The statement continues: “All members of the DRPS are expected to be exemplary in their behaviour, and this is especially true of leaders of the organization. If misconduct does occur, regardless of the member’s rank, appropriate action will be taken.”

Such obfuscation has not gone unnoticed:

The police board’s refusal to make public the investigation into Kirkpatrick illustrates the “significant gaps in our police accountability framework,” said Danardo Jones, a law professor at the University of Windsor. 

One of the main purposes of a civilian police board is to promote accountability and transparency within the police service, Jones said, so a police board operating with “this veil of secrecy … is obviously problematic.” 

Instances of contempt for the public, and concealment of wrongdoing amongst the guardians of public safety,, are never pretty to bear witness to. Equally troubling is the use of language that does nothing to illuminate the truth but instead betrays deep disdain for the people they, in theory, serve.