This isn't about free speech.  As a Canadian, Wilfrid Laurier University graduate student Lindsay Shepherd is as free to speak her mind today as she was last week; as Laurier himself would have put it, freedom is her nationality.  This is really about saving universities from themselves.

Last week was when Shepherd was disciplined for having played a clip of an interview with University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson in her first-year communications tutorial, in a class that focused on the evolution of gendered pronouns.  Peterson himself rose to notoriety after criticizing Bill C-16, which added "gender identity or expression" to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination.  Since then, he has developed an almost cult-like following based on both his scorn of "post-modernism" and his self-help offerings, which young men especially have embraced with gusto.

Shepherd, a self-described "leftist," told the administrators she disagreed with him.  They insisted that by failing to mention this during her lecture, she had "created a toxic climate" in violation of Laurier's Gendered and Sexual Violence Policy, in particular:

3.02 Gendered Violence: an act or actions that reinforce gender inequalities resulting in physical, sexual, emotional, economic or mental harm.  This violence includes sexism, gender discrimination, gender harassment, biphobia, transphobia, homophobia and heterosexism, intimate partner violence, and forms of Sexual Violence.  This violence can take place on any communication platform (e.g., graffiti, online environments, and through the use of phones).

Note the word "harm."  Even hardened libertarians tend to agree that freedom ends where harm to another person begins, such as incitement to violence, defamation, or fraud.  A feeling of offence or discomfort does not count, least of all when the speaker simply displays the discomforting content in the context of a larger discussion.  And "violence," by definition, implies intent to harm, which the administrators admit that Shepherd did not have.

However many students complained about Shepherd's lecture, all of them need these distinctions explained to them.  Once you separate harm from offence, it's clear that she did not violate Laurier's policy in letter or in spirit.  The school's administrators might have said so in response to the students' complaints.  Instead siding with "one or multiple students" over a grad student, an associate professor, and a growing chorus of critics  faculty members will approve and monitor Shepherd's tutorials going forward.  Per university president Deborah MacLatchy, they'll also be "striking a task force" to determine how to balance open academic debate with inclusivity and diversity.

With the right input, that task force will produce something like this:

The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University.  In addition, the University may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University.  But these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions never be used in a manner that is inconsistent with the University's commitment to a completely free and open discussion of ideas.

This comes from the Report on the Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago, released in January 2015.  Several other U.S. universities have adopted the "Chicago Principles."  The first Canadian campus to do so will set a precedent that could lead students, faculty members and administrators in this country to think before they mistake offence for harm.  With the addition of language protecting the freedom to engage in academic work, as recommended by David Moshman of the University of Nebraska, administrators at Laurier will be forced to justify their interference with Shepherd.

This is the best way forward for students and professors who share Shepherd's belief in confronting uncomfortable ideas an open forum.  There is no need to avoid academia altogether, or to hand over the defence of free discussion to its least qualified, least reasonable spokespeople.  Laurier, and all campuses, must take it upon themselves to live up to the "intellectual inquiry, critical reflection and scholarly integrity" they call their cornerstones.

Photo Credit: Wilfrid Laurier University

Written by Jess Morgan

Ontarians have found a lot of problems with Kathleen Wynne's performance as Premier over the last few years, but one thing they can't fault her for is lack of stoicism.  Facing all-time low approval ratings earlier this year, Wynne has remained utterly undeterred in continuing her stewardship over the province despite facing what looks like insurmountable unpopularity and some recent calls within her own party to step down for the good of the party.  Wynne, through it all, has kept up appearances of an outwardly steadfast pride in her (dismal to many) record as the leader of Ontario over the past five years, even as her ship seems to be taking on water from all sides.

No matter how dire things have gotten, Wynne at least publicly has shown a tenacity and resolve that outmatches many current or former Canadian leaders that come to mind.  That's why it shouldn't surprise anyone that Wynne and her Ontario Liberal Party have been rigorously promoting her town hall meeting planned for 6:30 p.m. this evening at The Concert Hall (888 Yonge Street, Toronto) in spite of the regular backlash and abuse they face on a daily basis from disgruntled and disaffected members of the public venting or spewing or lashing out on social media.

At this point the savvy reader is thinking the Liberals have carefully staged this town hall meeting to avoid the gathering of an angry mob of people shouting tough and loaded and belligerent questions at an embattled Wynne.  However, looking at the size of the venue, it could be awfully challenging especially in the current climate for the OLP to find 1,200 party faithful ready to drown the room in warmth and love.  Furthermore, the event details, posted on the government website, clearly state that attendees will be let in on a first come, first served basis.  Doors open to a general public generally unhappy with the premier's performance at 5:30 p.m. for what will either be a crazy circus, a proverbially firing squad, or a well orchestrated and rehearsed production.

Although the hot-ticket event is ostensibly open to the public at large, there are still a few ways the OLP could bend fortune in their favour.  First, the listing of the event on the government web site asks the public to RSVP.  This doesn't guarantee an individual a seat but is simply meant supposedly to give the event organizers an estimate on how much seating will be needed to be provided for attendees.  It will be interesting to see how many seats the Liberals end up providing Ontarians, and if there will be a lot of people turned away.  Looking at the venue's website, the hall is versatile in hosting a range of different-sized events, meaning the town hall could have, let's say, a few hundred or up to the aforementioned maximum 1,200.  The second way in which Wynne and the Liberals can control the event from becoming a PR nightmare is to have a moderator selectively choosing planted Liberal-friendly crowd (dis)pleasers to lob softball questions at Wynne who will be all too happy to knock them out of the park with rehearsed answers.  Third, if the Liberals keep the seats limited, and they get many supporters out early, a fair amount of the hall could be filled with Wynne loyalists.  (The townhall location doesn't help rural Ontarians, few of which are Wynne fans, who can't make it to Toronto by late afternoon at the beginning of a work week.)

From a government as well operated in chicanery as the Ontario Liberals have become, I expect nothing less than some sort of combination of the above tactics employed.  However, I also don't doubt Wynne will allow for some detractors and straight-up haters to ask pointed questions and vitriolic demands/nasty comments respectively.  Wynne has shown a steely determination and poise when under fire.  She'll address their tough questions and criticism head on, without missing a beat, even if her answers will likely be unsatisfactory, sidestepping answering the ugly truth.  As for nasty comments and name-calling, she'll revel in the opportunity to turn the other cheek and act as if she still has the moral high ground.

Wynne, from observing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's mea culpa tour earlier this year, knows taking some abuse and anger from a few hoser Canadians can actually garner a politician some sympathy from the average Canadian in showing one's humility, and, for the win, one's humanity.  This could end up contrasting well against a stiff Patrick Brown, paralyzed by fear of saying anything remotely controversial or distinguishing, at the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario's policy convention next Saturday.  Furthermore, the town hall environment allows a pro public speaker like Wynne, standing on a stage with a mic and the spotlight, an incredible advantage over any would-be takers potentially in a sea of her supporters hostile to outsiders impertinence itching to take a shot at asking the consummate professional a quick question.  Wynne can then take her sweet time at dismantling any boobytraps thrown her way.  Good luck to any takers.

Nevertheless, groups like Ontario Proud intend to stoke the flames and derail Wynne's town hall.  Ontario Proud is essentially a third-party elections campaign organization that has amassed nearly 300,000 Facebook followers in the span of a year-and-a-half.  Following in the footsteps of Brexit and the US election, where social media proved to be crucial in creating grassroot support and momentum, Ontario Proud has been killing the competition (newspapers, other third-party campaigners and political parties) in Facebook engagement.  Even though Ontario Proud clearly has paid for some of its exposure and growth on the king of social media websites, its following of about 1 in every 45 Ontarians and its reach of millions of Ontarian voters is undeniable.  Ontario Proud has already hijacked a Facebook live town hall hosted by Wynne that the Liberals ended up deleting in embarrassment over the overwhelming negativity from Facebook users.  Ontario Proud then spiked the football and created a victory video.  I don't expect the Liberals will let Ontario Proud get the best of them twice.  Wynne knows luck favours the prepared.

I will be there promptly, an hour before doors open, so I ensure I get a front row seat to the show and can get a feel for the crowd.  I'll also tweet any noteworthy observations in how the event is set up and any noteworthy exchanges.  That being said, my expectations of fireworks are curbed by the knowledge that the Liberals will be pulling out all the stops to ensure this goes off without a hitch.  They fully intend to lull Ontarians' ire with banality and platitudes.  Even still, at the very least, there should be a bit of unpredictability to the live event that would allow for the element of surprise, which could allow for the odd spark to fly.  Just don't expect fire.

Photo Credit: Fox Broadcasting Company

Written by Graeme C. Gorodn

With the next federal election set for November 2019, Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer has just under two years to improve his image.  According to an Abacus Data survey released last week, only 28% of Canadians have a "very good" or "pretty good" idea of the kind of leader he is, compared to 84% for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.  On the other hand, 71% reported that they "don't know him all that well" or "don't know much about him at all."

The Conservative advertising team promptly put this ad together, asking their supporters for $38 (a nod to Scheer's age) to help put it on TV:

The reviews poured in immediately:

None of what Scheer says in this ad is unpredictable.  Family.  Hard work.  Responsibility.  Prosperity.  Down with cocktail parties and celebrities.  Up with grocery stores and soccer fields.  All that's missing is a sign around his neck that says "I DEFINITELY DON'T OWN A VILLA IN FRANCE."

The video uses one of the worst elements of the Conservative's messaging under Stephen Harper: focus-tested buzzwords in place of the positive vision they should have had after 10 years in power.  This strategy is easy for non-partisans to ignore, and easier for a sizable swath of card-carrying Tories to scorn.  Hamish Marshall, the party's 2019 campaign chair, noted as much after he spearheaded Scheer's successful leadership campaign:

The central divide in the race is . . . people who feel let down by Harper versus those who liked the government. . . . They were okay with incrementalism when we had a minority, but wanted that to end with a majority.

If this ad is any indication, the party considers it more important to please the one-point majority who don't consider "Harper 2.0" an insult.

Scheer has something else in common with his predecessor: a fortunate choice of opponent.  Between Bill Morneau, the Paradise Papers and anxiety-inducing tax reforms, the entitlement mentality that undid the Liberals in 2006 has been rearing its head continuously for months.  Soft Liberal voters are already becoming disaffected as a result, and they are a natural choice for Scheer's outreach.  In reusing that crack about cocktails vs. groceries (as if people who go to cocktail parties don't buy groceries; where does he think they get the hors d'oeuvres?), he is telling us who his supporters are, and that he is one of them.

With no hope of beating either Trudeau or NDP leader Jagmeet Singh on style, athleticism or charm, the Tories have chosen to highlight the one advantage Scheer has over both: his aggressive normalcy.  He is the church-going son of a nurse and a librarian, married to his college sweetheart, with a pre-Parliament background as an insurance broker and constituency staffer.  He divides his time between Ottawa and Regina.  His greatest vice is popcorn.

But little of that aggressive normalcy is evident in the ad's production.  It combines the plasticky image quality of a Quendelton State University commercial with the stiff, stilted delivery of Birdemic.  It is set against the backdrop of a McMansion-filled development built where grass and young trees definitely hadn't been before.  And everyone is dressed for summer in November, which opens up three possibilities:

1. This was shot in the summer and the Tories were saving it in case Scheer's name recognition stats remained just dismal enough.
2. This was shot against a green screen.
3. This was shot in suburban Phoenix (temperature as of this writing: 26 °C).

Why, instead of making the video with footage from Scheer's own backyard, did his ad team choose to place him in this synthetic suburban box?  Where are the Conservative diehards who gave him that squeaker of a leadership victory?  Where are the voters of Regina—Qu'Appelle who have kept him in Parliament for 13 years?  Where are the people who actually recognize him and weren't obviously paid to pretend they do?

If the Tories can get this ad to run during the evening news, their desired voters may remember Scheer's name.  But he can do better than this ham-fisted self-parody.  Someone as normal as he is shouldn't make his pitch this artificial.

Written by Jess Morgan

Did you get caught having clandestine cash-for-access rendezvouses with Chinese billionaires for Liberal Party of Canada fundraisers?  Not a problem, you're only breaking your own ethical guidelines set out at the start of your government, no actual laws.

Did you get caught having a top-secret, all-inclusive getaway vacation on the palatial island of the Aga Khan, head of a foundation actively lobbying your government?  Not to worry.  Just say he's your good family friend, an allowed exception under the Conflict of Interest Act for taking what would otherwise be looked at as a highly inappropriate gift.

Also caught taking a ride on Khan's helicopter, despite the rules forbidding you, the Prime Minister, from flying on private aircrafts?  No biggie, just say you're happy to meet with Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson (not "Conflict of Ethics Commissioner" as you're fond of saying at Question Period) and know that the worst case scenario is you'll pay a fine not exceeding $500.

It was also revealed your Finance Minister Bill Morneau duped Canadians into believing he put his vast fortune into a blind trust, then opted not to and held onto a million shares in his family company while also positively influencing those million shares by regulating that company's industry?  Big whoop, just say he was following the advice of Dawson, even if she only told him it wasn't required by law and didn't recommend he exploit the ethics loophole she tried to close under the Harper government back in 2013.  The public won't know the difference.

That same Finance Minister forgot to mention his directorship of a corporation that owns his French villa?  No sweat, Morneau can probably afford to pay the $200 fine meted out by Dawson from the dividends he collected from his Morneau Shepell stock in the past two years.

Clearly Something Needs to Change

The Trudeau Liberals are abusing ethical standards as badly as (if not worse than) the Harper government they once derided  and in record time.

The Conflict of Interest Act makes it clear "penalties have as their purpose to encourage compliance with this Act rather than to punish."

Maybe it's just me, but I always thought penalties were meant to punish and discourage someone from engaging in illicit activity.  In any event, with 14 Liberals already fined by Ethics Commissioner Dawson this year alone, the pathetic penalties are doing the opposite of their intended consequences encouraging a hell of a lot of infractions.

Perhaps it is time the Ethics Commissioner was given some teeth?

Scaring Politicians Straight

Let's look at some possible changes to the Conflict of Interest Act and the role of the Ethics Commissioner.

First off, there might be a problem with the Prime Minister appointing the Ethics Commissioner.  Could there be a conflict of interest in the PM deciding to keep Dawson in three six-month extensions of her term (offering $100,000 salary for each extension) while she's actively investigating him for possible misconduct?  Government watchdog Democracy Watch sure thinks so, and is taking Dawson to court over her agreeing to take a second six-month interim contract despite the Parliament of Canada Act saying an interim Ethics Commissioner can serve no longer than six months.  Because the PM is being investigated by the Ethics Commissioner, Trudeau's recused himself from picking the new one.  Instead, his House Leader Bardish Chagger and his director of communications Kate Purchase will select the new Ethics Commissioner, because of course, they have no conflict of interest in choosing the replacement possibly tasked with investigating their boss.

Maybe the process in which the Ethics Commissioner is appointed should be changed to a non-partisan (I know, how naive) outside body.

Secondly, and just as important, the so-called penalties of the Conflicts of Interest Act should be upgraded to severe punishments.  Maybe fines should far exceed $500, instead costing rule breakers tens of thousands.  Heck, why stop there?  Make certain infractions a criminal offence and give prison time for especially egregious ones.

Finally, close the gaping loopholes that are so clearly being exploited by Morneau and, according to Dawson at one point, at least three other ministers.  She's since clarified her "less than five" statement to to just one, Morneau, which begs the questions why she led the opposition and journalists on a wild goose chase.

Of course, with the Liberals recent defeating of the NDP motion to close the ethics loophole exploited by Morneau, don't hold your breath.  Don't expect the Trudeau government to take any of the above advice into consideration when they review and look at possible changes to the conflict-of-interest legislation.  Cleaning up their ethical act is not required.

Photo Credit: Ottawa Citizen

Written by Graeme C. Gordon

Speaking of his struggles with depression, last year famed young adult writer/vlogger John Green described mankind's unhelpful obsession with causal relationships.

"We need human lives to be narratives that make sense," he said, "So if we can't find causation, we just create it.  Like, people get depression because they're weak, or people get diabetes because they don't eat well, or they have heart failure because they don't exercise.  All that stuff is either totally inaccurate or overly simplistic, but we want every effect to have a cause, and when we can't find that cause we invent one."

His point was some things in life are the product of a multitude of complex variables, and thus don't have a single, magic cure because they don't have a single, magic cause.

I was thinking about Green's words as I read a recent column by John Ivison in the National Post, which looked at Andrew Scheer's poor polling with millennials, and advised the Tory leader to overcome it by remaking himself as an aggressive foe of climate change.  Ivison's logic (which in fairness, is hardly exclusive to him) presents political taste as a product of a clear causal relationship — in this case, the sorts of issues a particular demographic claims to care about, and the sort of policy prescriptions a politician or party offers.

But do people actually form their political tastes this way?  Canada's conservative parties, at both the federal and provincial level, are a revealing case study, since almost all have worked so hard over the last decade to abandon their supposedly least attractive, most stereotypically off-putting positions, but have barely broadened their appeal as a result.

At one time, it was received wisdom that Conservatives were politically stagnant because they were hesitant about homosexuality, adversarial to abortion, and too… well, let's not mince words, racist, basically.  In response, Stephen Harper was elected and reelected while strenuously refusing to relitigate the progressive status quo on same-sex marriage or abortion, running openly gay and unapologetically pro-life candidates, and even sending delegations to Pride parades across the country.  Ethnic outreach, personified by Harper's so-called "Curry in a Hurry" immigration minister Jason Kenney, earned almost across-the-board praise.

Canada's provincial conservative parties all emulated Harper's example, or were even further ahead down a similar path.  Today, issues involving LGBT rights, abortion, multiculturalism, and, for that matter, climate change, are even less contentious in provincial legislatures than in Ottawa.

And yet, when one looks at opinion polls across Canada, we still see conservatives failing to resonate with the very groups they changed themselves the most to appease.

Despite being headed by Patrick Brown, easily the country's most brazenly accommodating, fashion-following, conservative-in-name-only Tory leader, the Ontario PC Party still pulls its worst numbers from young voters, urbanites, and the highly educated.  To be sure, the PCs still generally lead these demographics at the moment — a testament to the extreme unpopularity of the incumbent Liberal government — but they remain the most fragile backers of the provincial Tories and their carbon-tax endorsing, abortion-defending, transgender-bill-supporting leader.

My own province of British Columbia is an even starker study.  British Columbia does not have a viable conservative party, which makes most consider the BC Liberal Party the "conservative" option by default.  I don't like this classification, but it's very mainstream, so let's just play along.  The BC Liberals adopted Canada's first carbon tax, appointed the province's first openly gay cabinet minister, backed anti-protest "bubble zones" around abortion clinics of the sort recently approved in Ontario (with Patrick Brown's approval, natch), and banned high heels in workplaces, among numerous other initiatives to demonstrate their forward-thinking bona fides.

They're still terribly unpopular with progressive voters.  In the last provincial election, the Liberals were wiped out in all but the most conservative parts of BC.  Last-minute polls indicated young voters preferred the NDP or Greens by margins of 10 and 20 points respectively, with similar gaps of alienation among urbanites and the highly educated.

What's clear, in short, is that a lot of Canadians are not voting for right-of-centre parties for reasons that can't be mitigated with changes to that party's platform or governing agenda.  This is because political preferences are often not entirely rational things.

A lot of decisions we make in the voting booth come from deep-seeded beliefs that this-or-that party or politician just deserves our support more than their alternative.  These tend to be deeply emotional feelings, bound up in intangible judgments of who we've learned to process as trustworthy through our particular cultural milieu, not to mention a fair bit of ignorant prejudice.  There's been some research suggesting what David Brooks calls "partyism" — hatred of people with certain political beliefs, rationalized with cruel stereotypes — is one of the entrenched social ills of our time.

It's not without reason that elections in Canada, all things considered, are generally close and competitive, with a firm party system based around stable ideological tribes.  At the next election, some minds will be changed at the margins and some seats will swap, but believing Andrew Scheer, or any leader, is simply one clever policy or marketing gimmick away from upending decades of ossified political culture is to engage in the hopeless naïveté of seeking easy explanation for our species' maddeningly inscrutable habits.

Written by J.J. McCullough