LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Month: September 2020

Despite a closed border with the U.S, there is a contagion of a bold variety of racism creeping north.

In Red Deer, Alberta on Sunday a small anti-racism rally was busted up by belligerent counter demonstrators.  At least one T-shirt emblazoned with the white supremacist Sons of Odin logo was spotted in the crowd.  The confrontation was caught on video.  It was loud and violent and there was at least one assault caught on camera.

Alberta Justice Minister Kaycee Madu made a statement about rights of free speech and peaceful protests.

"Violence and threats of violence at peaceful protests are unacceptable, period.  All Albertans, regardless of race, religion, or creed, have the right to live their lives peacefully and I denounce any instance of bigotry and intolerance," said Madu, who is the first Black justice minister in Canada.

However it took until Tuesday for him to make the statement.

The lag in response to the Red Deer incident is puzzling all round.  It took the RCMP a while to find the altercation in the first place and put an end to it.  They say the rally location was moved at the last minute after threats from the counter protesters.

It also took until Tuesday for the RCMP to issue a statement and a call for witnesses.  They are, at least, investigating now.

One member of the UCP cabinet did react on Monday. Multiculturalism Minister Leela Aheer took to Twitter that day to declare: "I'm deeply disturbed by the events that occurred in Red Deer.  I strongly condemn any threats of violence against people that are participating in peaceful assemblies."

It was more timely than other government responses but didn't really address the nub of the matter.

Most concerning was Premier Jason Kenney's reaction.  He retweeted Madu on Tuesday, emphasizing not the minister's message on bigotry and intolerance, but rather the right to peaceful protest.

None of the government reactions called out the core issue of racism by name, a reluctance which was quickly jumped on by NDP Leader Rachel Notley and government critics.

The likelihood of the rally in Red Deer resulting in some kind of violence should not have caught anyone unawares.

Earlier in the month the same anti-racism group that held the Red Deer demonstration, the Black Indigenous Alliance, held a rally in Ponoka, another central Alberta town.  It was also disrupted by counter protesters.

A video was already circulating from a well-known right wing Alberta agitator signalling that the Red Deer demonstration would be targeted and intimating that there could be violence.

The city of Red Deer meanwhile is taking pains to distance itself from the racist stereotype that has bedevilled central Alberta since the days of Holocaust denier Jim Keegstra.  This isn't typical of the town, they stress.

City mayor Tara Veer issued a statement denouncing violence and racism.

Both Veer and Supt. Gerald Grobmeier, the officer in charge of Red Deer's RCMP detachment, say the troublemakers aren't even necessarily from Red Deer.

"I'd like to say that a lot of people that were here weren't necessarily from here," said Grobmeier.

There has always been a tinge of bigotry in fringe groups in Alberta.  It creeps in to taint movements organized for more legitimate political expression, including western alienation.

But with the increasingly virulent and bold racism being expressed in the U.S., white supremacists are feeling bold to fly their colours in public.  The "all lives matter" and fighting "antifa" rhetoric doesn't even come close to giving them cover.

Provincial and police authorities in Alberta need to react quickly to stop violence and counter hate.  And they need to use the word racism.

You can't fight what you won't name.

Photo Credit: CBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

kathy-kerr

More from Kathy Kerr

Click here for more

f you went by the commentary during the entirety of this pandemic, you would think that Justin Trudeau and the federal government have unlimited powers over all areas of jurisdiction in this country, and that Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act 1867 are mere cop-outs to shift blame for inaction.  Nevertheless, some of the most important aspects of this pandemic, whether it's healthcare, opening schools, or the issue of rent both domestic and commercial are all the domain of the provinces.  Not that you'd know it, given how many people have consistently howled that Trudeau has to do something about these issues.

Last week, new Conservative leader Erin O'Toole was doing his part to blame Trudeau for the problems in the pandemic response.  When O'Toole found out he had been exposed to COVID-19, he performatively lined up at a testing centre despite having priority testing available as an MP (because parliament is an essential service), and when he was turned away, he blamed Trudeau and his government for not approving rapid testing like other countries have.  Small problem there the long testing lines and inadequate lab capacity is solidly the fault of Ontario premier Doug Ford, and his government's bumbling ineptitude.  Yes, Health Canada as a federal regulator does make the call on approving new testing methods and devices, but so far, they are not satisfied that the rapid tests are suitable for use because they have too high a rate of producing false negatives precisely what you don't want in a pandemic, where someone with a false sense of security can become a super-spreader.  Sure, the American Food and Drug Administration may have approved these tests, but their emergency approvals are based solely on self-reported data and they have not done the due diligence on their own something that Health Canada is doing for a change.  This is not a bad thing.

O'Toole has also been critical about the federal commercial rent assistance program, citing that too few businesses were eligible to access it, and too few of those were accepted.  Again, there is a problem with his narrative it was the premiers who decided on the terms and conditions attached to this program while the federal government put up money using a fund they were able to access.  Problems with the design of the program should rightfully be directed to the premiers, and yet we've seen premiers who were demanding that Ottawa unilaterally change the program, which would be a clear violation of the division of powers landlord-tenant relationships are the domain of provincial governments.  The federal government can't unilaterally do anything about it, no matter how many people demand that the federal government do something about rent subsidies.

The disability supplement is another initiative that has fared poorly in its execution, and O'Toole again cited that as a failure of the government, quoting a CBC article to that effect.  The problem is that once again, this is largely an area of provincial jurisdiction, which the CBC article failed to mention.  The federal government has very few levers that they can access to offer this assistance program, which is why they had to go with the federal disability tax credit as their qualification/delivery mechanism something that is not accessible to many persons with disabilities in this country, thought the federal government did say they were going to try to broaden the eligibility and improve processing of applications as part of this temporary support.  There is no database of disabled people in the country that they can simply tap into in order to disperse funds to them.

We've also seen op-eds calling on the federal government to create a "temporary federal education minister" to coordinate the back-to-school responses around the country, though the federal government did dispense billions of dollars to the provinces both in their Safe Restart Agreement, as well as an additional $2 billion payment that was a bit of political theatre where Trudeau claimed he was listening to the concerns of his caucus and parents across the country.  But there would be no basis for creating such a minister because there would be no actual supporting bureaucracy to accompany it.  Education is solely a provincial jurisdiction (in spite of the federal government putting up dollars to post-secondary education in the country).  Does anyone think that the federal government should go on a hiring spree to create a bureaucracy devoted to education for the duration of the pandemic or should they simply leave it to the responsible jurisdiction to manage?

Throughout the pandemic, we have repeatedly seen demands that the federal government invoke the Emergencies Act in order to assert jurisdiction over any of these areas, be it public health, rent, or what have you.  None of these demands make any sense given that the federal government doesn't have the bureaucratic competence or capacity to meaningfully do anything, and even if it comes down to providing money for the provinces, even then there have been squabbles over strings attached to that funding after all, the federal government has a responsibility to know that its dollars are going to be used on what the provinces say they will be used on, and not to simply pay down debt or offer a tax cut (and yes, this has happened in the past).  That hasn't stopped anyone from acting as though the federal government is the parental order of government that simply delegated jurisdictional authorities to the provinces when clearly, since the original Constitution was drafted, they were given separate spheres of responsibility.

This also brings up a particular issue in that has been irking me over the past six months, which is that premiers are being given a pass for their poor performance Doug Ford especially while all of the focus has been on Trudeau, for things that are not his fault or responsibility.  Federalism is a Thing in this country, and if we can't even hold the right levels of government to account for their successes and failures, then why do we bother having provinces anymore?

Photo Credit: CTV News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

Screen Shot 2024-02-26 at 11.27.30 AM

More from Dale Smith

Click here for more

The federal Liberals unveil a new Throne Speech when Parliament reconvenes on Wednesday.  If the rumours are true, it could contain the most left-wing political agenda in Canadian history.

Higher taxes to pay down the estimated $432 billion federal deficit seems like a strong possibility.  Publicly funded programs related to childcare, pharmacare and the environment are being touted.  There's even some chatter a universal basic income could be introduced.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said the Throne Speech will be "ambitious and responsible."  Nothing seems to be pointing in that direction, however.

The Liberals are definitely taking a huge political gamble.

They're in a minority government situation.  Trudeau's personal popularity went up during COVID-19 when he was doling out money, but has taken a real beating during the WE Charity scandal.  The PM's reputation was already tarnished due to previous scandals (three instances of wearing blackface, two planes controversy), and his third trip in five years to the Ethics Commissioner has raised eyebrows.  The enormous deficit he tallied, and kept under wraps until the political opposition demanded transparency, has left many people worried that Canada will be up its eyeballs in debt for generations.

Plus, this left-leaning federal government's rumoured shift even further to the left is being done for strategic purposes.  Trudeau hopes to entice one of the two left-leaning opposition parties to support his Throne Speech and keep the 43rd Parliament afloat.

On the surface, the Liberals seem to have the most to lose.  Here's the funny thing: that's actually not the case.

If the Liberals are brought down by this Throne Speech, and are defeated in the next federal election, it would be humiliating in the short term but a Godsend in the long run.  They would be out of power for a few years, but it would be the perfect opportunity to get rid of Trudeau.  The politician that progressives championed as a replacement for former US President Barack Obama has turned into a huge liability, and a massive albatross on their political fortunes.  The sooner the Liberals boot him out, the better off they will be.

The Liberals could then bring in someone like Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland or former Bank of Canada/Bank of England governor Mark Carney to become the new party leader.  This would help refresh their political brand, and likely create a more realistic vision than progressive policies that mostly miss the mark, deficits that magically take care of themselves (and don't), and sunny ways that are closely followed by dark days.

No, the Liberals don't have the most to lose from a Throne Speech they're going to unveil.  The party that does is the NDP.

You have to move the chess pieces a little further down the board to understand why.

The NDP is one of two left-leaning parties that the Liberals rely on heavily for support in the House of Commons.  The other is the Bloc Quebecois.

However, BQ leader Yves-Francois Blanchet said last month that Trudeau, Telford and former Finance Minister Bill Morneau were "mismanaging" government affairs.  He seemed perplexed by scandals such as WE Charity, and had apparently lost confidence in the Liberals.

Blanchet was going to move a motion of non-confidence in October if all three individuals didn't resign.  Parliament was then prorogued, which changed the schedule to a degree.  As for his demand, only Morneau has resigned from cabinet.

If the BQ leader is a man of his word, he won't support the government on Wednesday.

Erin O'Toole and the Tories aren't going to support the Throne Speech if these types of rumoured left-wing policies are part of the Liberal agenda.  There are three Green MPs and two Independents, but they won't make a difference in the final tally.

Jagmeet Singh and the NDP will, therefore, play the role of kingmaker.  There are some potential pitfalls in doing so.

If the NDP supports the Liberals and they'll be tempted, because the rumoured policies will mesh with their own they have to hope and pray that another major scandal doesn't rock Ottawa.  If it does happen, they'll be directly blamed by some Canadians for keeping the Liberals in power when they had the chance to bring them down.

If the NDP joins the opposition and brings down the Liberals, they'll be directly blamed by some Canadians for not supporting this government (albeit an ethically challenged one) and helping prevent a costly election campaign in the midst of a pandemic.

Won't the other opposition parties receive a share of the blame?  Yes, but the NDP is the only political party that hasn't clearly outlined why they will, or will not, support the Liberals on Wednesday.  Since they're the final piece of the puzzle by default, most of the blame will head in their general direction.

The NDP can't afford either scenario to materialize.  The party only has 24 seats in Parliament.  It's floundering in the polls, and is reportedly strapped for cash.  Even the smallest loss of 3-5 seats could set them back several elections in terms of support and fundraising.

Trudeau and the Liberals have probably gamed out some of what I outlined here.  They're willing to take an enormous gamble in the political ocean, and catch a social democratic fish to win the biggest prize of all: political survival.

Photo Credit: CBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

michael-taube

More from Michael Taube

Click here for more

Conservative Party leader Erin O'Toole is coming under a lot of fire for his nationalistic/protectionist "Canada First" rhetoric.

Apparently, such talk doesn't pass muster with economic theory.

One headline I saw, for instance, declared, 'Canada First' might make for good politics, but it's bad economics", while another screamed, "These jobs are not coming back': economists pour cold water on O'Toole's Canada First policy".

Should any of this concern O'Toole and the Conservatives?

Nope.

After all, he's running to be Canada's next prime minister, not the next winner of the Nobel prize in economics.

Indeed, generally-speaking, all politicians routinely promote economic policies that make economists cringe.

Why is that?

Well, the answer is simple; the average voter doesn't care too much about economic theory, they care about perceptions.

When US President Donald Trump gets up on a stage and promises to put "America First" by imposing a tariff on China, economists will point out that, according to their fancy theories, such a policy will only hurt American consumers by driving up the costs of imports.

But many voters will perceive Trump's firm stance as standing up for American workers.

In short, trade protectionism appeals to our tribal nature, which is something O'Toole is undoubtedly banking on when he criticizes "corporate and financial power brokers" who "love trade deals with China that allow them to access cheap labour."

Maybe the economics department at the University of Toronto won't like this view, but it will make sense to a lot of Canadian voters.

Or consider the economic politics of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Keep in mind that even before the COVID crisis necessitated massive amounts of government expenditures, the Trudeau government was spending tax dollars with reckless abandon, which resulted in Canada facing deficits for as far as the eye can see.

That's kind of massive government spending that keeps the economists over at the Fraser Institute up at night.

But did average Canadians care?

Nope.

For most people national debts and deficits are just abstract concerns.

As a matter of fact, back when I was working for an advocacy group called the National Citizens Coalition, I helped compose a study on Canadian attitudes towards fiscal issues.

What we found was a lot of people didn't even understand the concept of a national deficit, nor did they realize the scope or scale of the deficit or debt.

In other words, people weren't even aware of the terms of the debate.

What people perceive, on the other hand, is that government spending ensures they have a good quality health care system, good schools, generous social programs, etc.

And any government that says it will cut spending in the name of fiscal responsibility, will face the wrath of worried voters who want to protect their entitlements.

Of course, the paradox of politics is that those same worried voters don't want to see their taxes increased to pay for all those social programs.

If taxes absolutely must be raised, then they should be paid by "someone else."

This leads politicians on the left to make promises about raising taxes on the "rich" or on "big corporations", a policy which many economists argue would undermine our economic productivity.

By the way, on a side note, when it comes to pushing economic policy, whether it's considered good economics or bad, politicians will usually seek to avoid specifics, since this can lead to trouble.

Recall how in the 2008 federal election the Liberals, under then leader Stephane Dion, promised to implement a "green shift" carbon tax plan, an idea which economists tended to like.

Yet, that didn't stop the Conservatives from immediately pouncing on the scheme, calling it a "tax on everything", an attack which wilted Dion's chances.

That's why it's smart politics to keep any economic policies you want to promote as a politician concise enough to stick on a bumper sticker.

When I was working on a Republican Senatorial campaign, for example, our economic "platform" was short and sweet: lower taxes, smaller government, fairer trade.

That's it.  It's all we needed.

At any rate, my point is, O'Toole shouldn't fret if economists don't like his policies.

As American economist Thomas Sowell, once put it, "The first lesson of economics is scarcity … The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

Photo Credit: CBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

gerry-nicholls

More from Gerry Nicholls

Click here for more

All of us worked in politics, back then.

I worked for John Turner's Liberal government, and my then-girlfriend worked for Brian Mulroney's Conservative Opposition.

On the afternoon of September 4, 1984, I was heading home to Calgary and law school.  So I went to the Ottawa polling station where she was volunteering.

She was sad to see me go (I guess), but happy about what was happening: her party was winning, and mine was losing.  We said our goodbyes and I headed to the airport.

In those days, there was no Wi-Fi on planes, because there was no Wi-Fi.  There wasn't even an Internet.  So when you got on a plane, you didn't know what was happening down on Earth.

Down on Earth, Brian Mulroney was heading towards one of the biggest Parliamentary victories in Canadian history.  When all the votes were counted, his Conservatives would win 211 of 284 seats in the House of Commons.

The Liberals, formerly a majority government, would go from 135 seats to 40.  It would be the worst election result for a sitting government in Canadian history until that point.

My Dad picked me up at the airport.  I was happy to see him, and happy to be back in Calgary.  But we were quiet as he drove us home, listening to the election coverage on the radio.

I've never told this part of the story before: as we pulled into my parents' Northwest Calgary driveway, John Turner came on the radio.  He had won his seat in Vancouver Quadra, but his party had been decimated.

I'd been supporting Turner for a couple years he got to me before Jean Chretien did, basically and it was that moment.  That moment comes in every campaign, when all of your work and your ideas and your emotion and your hopes and dreams are decided by someone else.

And it was all over, just like that.  So I can't remember everything he said.

But I do remember this.  As my Dad and I sat in the driveway, listening to him, this is what John Turner said: "The people are always right."

And so I cried when I heard him say that, a bit.

That moment, to me, is always when you see political leaders for who they really are.  There are no more rallies, no more speeches, no more votes to count.  It's over.  And you get to see them for who they really are, even for the most fleeting of moments.

And that was what we saw, that is what we heard: John Turner, in his essence, was a democrat, one who believed deeply in his soul in the judgment and the wisdom of the people.  That is mostly what characterized his time in public life, too: a belief that the people's will was inviolate.

That was the pardadox of John Turner: he believed in that old-fashioned notion, the one that held that the people knew best.  They don't always, of course: witnessing the foul, fetid Trump era from afar, we all know by now that the people aren't always right.  The people are often terribly, terribly wrong.

But John Turner forever considered that to be an article of faith, a truth that deserved defending.  It reflected the dignity he showed on election night in 1984, and it was seen in all that followed when his caucus worked to jettison him, and he seemed almost perpetually bewildered by their inability to accept a democratic party vote.

Was he a man out of time?  Perhaps.  That's why he lost, some say: he clung to a long-ago, long-abandoned Canada, where there were no attack ads, no personal attacks, no Twitter.  He left in the Seventies, when politics was about service and solemnity.  And he returned in the Eighties, when politics was no longer about either.

Politics had changed.  He hadn't.  He didn't.

The last time I saw him, I introduced him at a Liberal event in Oshawa in 2015, where I had asked him to speak.  He was in a wheelchair, and he was much older.  He was handsome but no longer as handsome as he had been.  He was frail.

He listened to me as I told the story of that night, when he had said the people were always right.

Afterwards, after he spoke in supper of the Oshawa Liberal candidate, he pulled me closer.  "You remember what I said that night, eh?"

I told him I did.

He patted me on the arm.  "Good," he said.  "Good."

And then he had this far-away look, remembering what could have been, and what was.

Photo Credit: Vancouver Sun

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

warren-kinsella

More from Warren Kinsella

Click here for more

This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

Lawton

More from Andrew Lawton

Click here for more

Members of the House of Commons, Ladies and gentlemen, herewith the Speech from the Throne.

It is my pleasure to address this first session of Canada's 44th Parliament.  I would like to welcome the new members of this assembly and to welcome back returning members.

The last Speech from the Throne was delivered on December 5, 2019.  That is less than a year ago, but it feels like several lifetimes.

In that speech, which was replete with high-sounding words that signify nothing, we made many promises that went nowhere.  We told lies, to ourselves and to Canadians.

For example, there was one stirring passage in that Speech from the Throne that claimed that the Liberal government had a "mandate" for change.  It had no such thing.  It was the government with the smallest share of the popular vote in Canadian history.

But still, it said it had a mandate.

"It is a mandate to fight climate change, strengthen the middle class, walk the road of reconciliation, keep Canadians safe and healthy, and position Canada for success in an uncertain world."

Your government has done none of those things.  Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg has called the Trudeau government's environmental record "shameful."  It "is obviously not doing enough," she said.

Strengthen the middle class?  This Prime Minister would not know the middle class if it bit him on the ass.  And he hasn't "strengthened" the middle class.

His 2015 budget offered a tax cut the Liberal government claimed would greatly benefit the middle class.  In fact, their own Parliamentary Budgetary Officer said it's biggest beneficiaries were the rich.

The government often claims to have lowered taxes for the middle class.  One 2019 study says 80 per cent of the middle class now actually pay more taxes than they did before.

This government also said it would walk the road of reconciliation.  Almost immediately thereafter, Indigenous people shut down Canada's rail system and much of the economy because they had gotten fed up waiting for reconciliation.

At one AFN meeting he attended, the younger participants had an alternative Indigenous name for this Prime Minister.  It was "the one who keeps trying to fool you."

But every Honourable member knows that already.  Every Honourable member knows the truth.

The Prime Minister showed what he truly thinks of Indigenous people when he defamed and demeaned and cast out Jody Wilson-Raybould, the Indigenous leader who dared to say "no" to him.  In his actions, if not his words, we saw who he really is.

"Keep Canadians safe and healthy" in "an uncertain world"?  That is what this government said it was going to do.  It didn't.

Do you feel "safe and healthy," my fellow Canadians?  You need not answer.  We both know the answer already.

On the very day that China placed 65 million of its citizens under lockdown, this government's Minister of Health went on TV and shrugged.  She said the coronavirus posed "low risk."  She discouraged wearing masks.  She said "our country is prepared."

Tell that to the nearly 10,000 families of those who have died.  Tell that to the families of the 140,000 who have gotten sick.  Tell that to those still in hospital, still on ventilators.

Tell that to those who are getting sick again, at the fastest rate we have seen in many months.  Tell them.

That is the truthful record of this government.  Since the last Speech from the Throne, this government has been again mired in scandal, losing its Finance Minister and yet more of its reputation.

It has indebted the nation more than at any time in its history, with seemingly no plan to get us out.  It has coasted on the actions of the governments that are truly fighting the coronavirus, which is the provinces.

This is a Throne Speech that tells the truth, because the truth needed to be told.  It is not a Throne Speech like the last one, that was oozing with the usual sophistries and spin.

Will you be motivated to tell Canadians the truth, Honourable members?

Based on the record so far, the odds are not good.

God bless the Queen, etc.

Photo Credit: CBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

warren-kinsella

More from Warren Kinsella

Click here for more

Somebody had to say something. And my National Post colleague Kelly McParland did, beginning a recent column "Something weird is going on in two of the biggest, most liberal, environmentally-conscious, high-taxing, high-spending, morally upright states in the U.S. [New York and California.]  They're in a mess.  And the mess they're in isn't helping Joe Biden".  To which I have to blurt out "Riots!"

McParland isn't talking about riots.  They aren't a major issue in the Empire or Golden states, where he's discussing governance more generally.  And he's right because while there are many reasons to dislike Donald Trump, there are also a lot of reasons to think that "if New York and California are the Democratic vision of the future, it could be a pretty disquieting future."  But I am talking about riots because the problem of the Democratic vision of the future goes beyond those two states to places like Portland with underreported chronic violence where the Democrats are also in charge.

One might blame the unrest in the streets on America's painful racial history.  Many people do, and obviously they are connected.  But here's my weird thing: All the cities experiencing the worst disorder are… run by Democrats.  At the ward level, the city level, the state level, in Congress and in their presidential votes.  These are places where people have tried to implement the Democratic vision including on race, and it doesn't seem to be working.

Some Republican partisans might say the explanation lies in the Democrats' unquenchable sympathy for anarchy in the soul and in the streets.  And while Democrats would say the sorts of things partisans say in response the Republicans have a point.

The GOP has, at least since Richard Nixon, been the party of law and order and, on many issues, the party of reform through due process and the rule of law.  And yes, the party of Watergate and other breaches of law as well as decency; nobody's an angel here or even close.  But from the late 1960s on a lot of Americans who were, on most economic and even some social issues, natural Democrats leaned Republican at the presidential level because of their fear of disorder in the streets and, a secondary but not trivial issue, disorder in the world.

The same is true today.  In "red" states displays of urban insurrection get short shrift from law enforcement whereas in too many "blue" states the authorities cannot bring themselves to act decisively even in the face of arson, never mind aggressive bad manners from young thugs with their identities concealed that frighten normal people.  And it matters, politically, governmentally and even morally.

The Seattle CHAZ/CHOP was a nightmare.  Not just for country club white Republicans in lime-green pants but also black urban Democrats, progressive small business owners and others who shudder at the very name of Trump.  Violence scares people and rightly so.  And in democratic countries political violence also repels them because they know it is based on a lie.

The United States for all its painful past and its present dysfunctions, including the man in the White House, is a dynamic self-governing society where anything and everything is up for debate and attempted policy remedy.  There's no reason for rioting in the streets and nothing good comes of it.  Not even votes for Joe Biden if you think those are good.  But it gets worse.

If all the cities experiencing significant disorder are run by Democrats, and there is more of this disorder in more places than the MSM is reporting because of partisan sympathies, and if all these places have been run by Democrats since the 1960s or even earlier, the problem is not just a lack of sympathy for law and order.  There's something more basic wrong with the results of liberal governance including, and let me be frank here, on race.

If the Republicans reproach the Democrats for their bad attitude on law and order with some justice, the Democrats do the same to the Republicans on race with some justice.  Prior to the 1960s the GOP was actually better on the issue, though it's not saying much.  But that turbulent decade was a long time ago now.  And since then there's no question that anti-racism has been closer to the core of the Democrats' identity and program.  Far closer.  I'm not saying most Republicans are bigots.  I don't think they are.  But a speech on historical injustice in America goes down much better at the DNC than the RNC.  You know it does.

So why didn't it work?  You can say what you like but the results are in.  Cities that are run on the basis of liberal prescriptions for social harmony seem on the whole to be failing badly.  And not just when it comes to suppressing chronic rioting, and for that matter non-political street crime.

They seem to be failing badly at creating harmonious communities more generally.  Just as the general Democratic, and liberal, prescription for good government has miscarried badly in California and New York on everything from taxes to, yes, forest management in the former, specific Democratic, and liberal, prescriptions for good government on race seems to have miscarried badly.

One important reason, I submit, is that they encourage a sense of grievance dangerous to personal and social well-being.  Even if the grievance is as real as grievances about race are in America historically.  A focus on victimhood, on seeing things through the lens of race, gender and other tropes of identity politics, on lavish government spending as the path to human fulfilment, has led to places where the police seem out of control along with spending, public trust in authorities and one another is low and the mood is sour and surly.

I realize the pandemic lockdown has not helped; an unappreciated factor in the rioting is bored, angry, underemployed young men who see no meaningful future.  But this problem didn't start in March.  And arm-waving about how "America" is "racist" won't help us understand or fix it.

There's something Orwellian about the notion of "unconscious racism" whose main symptom is not being actually racist.  And even if you think there are a significant number of Americans whose racism is not unconscious, the plain fact is that (a) many of America's most troubled cities, including when it comes to police brutality, are run by Democrats and have been for decades; (b) these Democrats are not the old Harry Byrd/Bull Connor kind but genuinely woke folks; and (c) they are also in many places black or Latino at the local level.

So it won't do to suggest that they lack good intentions on race let alone that they are bigots.  Even if you think Trump is a bigot and many white Americans are bigots and capitalism is racist and on down the PC line, there are large parts of America where Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and their fellow-travellers have effective control of the governing machinery and those parts are falling apart fast.

It is weird.  But it won't do to call it weird and stop.  What's weird is that good intentions coupled with bad methods are failing to produce good results.  At least, it's weird to some people.  But they better wake up.

As in 2016, it really shouldn't be that hard to beat Donald Trump.  The electoral map favours the Democrats and has done, increasingly, since at least 2000.  And Trump brings a uniquely awful set of qualities to the battle.  Yet the race seems close.

So anyone who cares about social harmony, racial justice or just the political prospects of the Democrats ought to consider what that party is bringing to the battle that makes Trump a plausible contender despite everything.  Perhaps it's that when they get power, the things they care most about go badly wrong because their ideas are badly wrong.

It would explain a lot.

Photo Credit: KPTV

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

john-robson

More from John Robson

Click here for more

Alberta's UCP government never passes up a chance for a spirited polarizing debate.  And there's no more polarizing topic at the moment in North America than "defunding" the police.

The sophisticated and in-depth discussions on police budgets launched by Calgary and Edmonton just didn't fit the simplistic scenario espoused by the new right.

Alberta's newly minted justice minister, Kaycee Madu, sent a rocket of a letter to Calgary and Edmonton mayors warning them there could be provincial funding repercussions if they mess with law enforcement budgets.

"Alberta's government will closely monitor how municipalities are managing their police budgets as well as responding to calls to 'defund the police," he told the mayors.

The irony for the mayors is that Madu's previous cabinet post was municipal affairs minister, a position he felt required him to butt heads with the cities over spending too much.

Back then the UCP clawed back traffic ticket revenue to the provincial treasury that had been used by the municipalities for policing.  In rural Alberta, the government added a burden of increased policing costs on to small municipalities, requiring them to dip into their own revenue for additional police positions promised by the provincial government.

So now the mayors are particularly galled over Madu's demand that cities don't consider paring police budgets in the ongoing need to reduce city spending and reform policing and community services.

Mayor Naheed Nenshi was particularly blunt in his response.

"To time a ridiculous letter, with ridiculous slogans in it, while we're having this adult conversation just shows you're not really interested in being part of that conversation," Nenshi told reporters.

The city of Calgary and Calgary police are engaged in a soul-searching discussion of police reform to address racism and the potential to reallocate funding to address community mental health needs that increase police workload.

In Edmonton council has decided to reduce the 2021-22 police budget of close to $390 million by $11 million and put that money toward community programs that impact mental health and social inequities.  Edmonton is struggling with a homelessness problem exacerbated by the Covid pandemic.

Edmonton Mayor Don Iveson argues there wouldn't be a police funding issue if the province provided adequate funding to address social and mental health needs that increase the police workload.

"As minister of municipal affairs, (Madu) was very keen on scrubbing down our budgets," Iveson said in an interview.  "Now, as minister of justice, to suggest that we should not be looking at our largest cost centre — which is policing — seems a bit ironic to me."

Even without the current temper of the Black Lives Matter times, police budgets are always a source of contention for the big cities.  The Globe and Mail did an analysis last month that showed between 2009 and 2018, police costs in Alberta increased 66 per cent.  Spending on other municipal services increased 56 per cent over the same time period.

While Madu is busy warning the cities against playing politics with policing, the UCP is doing just that on the wider provincial front.

The government is spending $2 million to launch a study on establishing a provincial police force, similar to those in Ontario and Quebec.  In Alberta the RCMP performs the role of provincial policing outside urban areas.  But the RCMP is a creature of Ottawa and so, in western alienation terms, is an occupying interloper on Alberta sovereignty.

Despite government statements that no definite decision has been made yet on establishing a provincial force they are also looking for someone to oversee an Alberta Provincial Police Services transition secretariat.

The social media campaign has also begun on the provincial police front, with Cypress-Medicine Hat MLA Drew Barnes tweeting up a storm saying Albertans have been calling for a provincial police force for 20 years.

In fact they haven't.  Even the government's own "Fair Deal Panel" found only 35 per cent of Albertans want a provincial force.  The idea of provincial police was rejected by the  Ralph Klein government in the 1990s as too expensive to administer, but apparently Premier Jason Kenney thinks things have magically changed since then.

Taking a leaf from Donald Trump, Kenney wants to leave a "LAW & ORDER" legacy, no matter the cost.

Photo Credit: Narcity

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

kathy-kerr

More from Kathy Kerr

Click here for more

Newly-minted Conservative Party leader Erin O'Toole and his team of strategists have likely come up with a brilliant plan to topple Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government.

I say "brilliant" because O'Toole has surrounded himself with a bunch of bright people who, no doubt, will base any plan they produce on all sorts of rigorous research and data analysis.

But is that enough to win?

Probably not, since as Mike Tyson once eloquently put it, "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth".

And you better believe it won't be long before the Liberals (and their media allies) come out swinging for O'Toole.

To see how such a Liberal assault could impact on O'Toole's strategy just consider the fate of his immediate predecessor Andrew Scheer.

Scheer, like O'Toole, had a plan to beat Trudeau.

It too was also dreamt up by smart people who, I'm sure, based it on rigorous research and data analysis.

What was this plan?

Well, Scheer — who is the nicest of nice guys — was marketed to voters as a bland, middle-class dad who oozed nothing but affability and harmlessness.

The idea, I suspect, was to contrast Scheer with former Conservative leader Stephen Harper, who many Conservatives believe lost the 2015 federal election mainly because Canadians deemed him to be too aloof, too dour and too ornery.

In short, Scheer was presented as a non-threatening, nice guy, anti-Harper.

And yes, maybe this plan would have worked had the Liberals not taken Scheer's "nice guy" persona and shoved it into a media meatgrinder.

Indeed, before the 2019 federal election was over, the Liberals had successfully branded Scheer as a gay-hating, woman-despising, religious fanatic who wanted to destroy the planet's environment with massive heaps of global warming.

Suddenly, Scheer didn't seem so nice or harmless anymore.

This brings back to O'Toole, who, it seems to me, is following Scheer's strategic path.

As a matter of fact, it looks like O'Toole is trying his best to paint himself as more likable and less scary than both his predecessors.

It's almost like he's meticulously checking off some sort of "I'm not Harper or Scheer" list:

 Pro-choice, marches in gay pride parades?  Check!

Supports the Paris Climate Change Accords?  Check!

Wants his party to reflect Canada's diversity?  Check!

Believes in compassion?  Check!

What's not to like?

And if recent polls are to be believed, this plan is working as Canadians seem to be warming to the new guy.

However, O'Toole needs to be careful because, as Scheer's experience dramatically proved, a politician's likability can be mangled with a deft political punch.

I like to tell a story about how, when I was working on a primary campaign in America, I was at a meeting with a Senatorial candidate who complained that his opponent was just too likable, to which his ad guy responded, "He won't be so likeable after I get through with him."

My point is, a good attack ad campaign can make anybody look bad, even O'Toole — no matter how many Gay Pride parades he marches in.

So, what should O'Toole do?

Well, he needs to understand that the real problem for Scheer wasn't the Liberal attack, it was his own failure to have a "Plan B" when "Plan A" failed.

This is why O'Toole needs to be ready with a Plan B.

What would a Plan B look like?

Well, it's an old axiom of politics; if you can't make yourself more likable, the only thing to do is make the other guy less likable.

In other words, when the next election rolls around the Conservatives should be ready and able to fight fire with fire; if the Liberals succeed in making O'Toole's brand less likable, they will have to go after Trudeau's brand in a similar fashion.

Yup, I'm talking here about "going negative."

Certainly, the Conservatives have lots of ammunition they can use to hammer Trudeau: SNC-Lavalin scandal, the WE scandal, his handling of COVID, his blackface pictures, a weak economy etc.

So, the Liberals are vulnerable.

OK, I know there's a stigma attached to "negative" messaging (at least when conservatives do it), but sometimes being nice just doesn't work.

Anyway, all I'm saying is, if O'Toole desires it, he can certainly play the gentle kitten as his main strategic plan for victory.

That might work.

But, just in case, he better also be ready to unleash a roaring lion.

Photo Credit: CBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

gerry-nicholls

More from Gerry Nicholls

Click here for more