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

Marit Stiles and the Ontario NDP recently booted out a controversial MPP from its party caucus. This episode serves as a cautionary tale for all political parties, but none more so than the party and movement that foolishly protected this politician until the very end.

Let’s examine what happened between the NDP and Sarah Jama.

Jama, a disability rights activist living in Hamilton, Ont., co-founded the Disability Justice Network Ontario in 2018. She also co-founded the Hamilton Encampment Support Network in 2021 which focuses on affordable housing.

Her left-wing views and regular involvement in radical causes helped her become a visible presence in a short period of time. When Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath resigned her Hamilton Centre seat to run for mayor, Jama announced she was entering the race. No-one challenged her, and the 28-year-old was acclaimed in July 2022.

Jama’s campaign faced controversy when it was revealed she held less-than-salient views about Jews and Israel. This was after an eye-raising video clip from a 2021 pro-Palestinian protest in Toronto’s Nathan Phillips Square posted on the X account of Documenting Antisemitism went viral.

She declared that Israel was an “illegitimate” country and cryptically suggested the “same people will continue to fund the killing of people here, locally, and globally.” It wasn’t terribly difficult to figure out who she was referring to. She also accused Hamilton police of “protecting Nazism” by targeting “Black Muslim Palestinians.” While the specific reference to Nazis was never determined, she described Israel as an “apartheid” state  and  stood in front of signs that say, “Zionists you will see, Palestine will be free.”

Jama was obviously allowed to make these outrageous and ignorant statements as a private citizen in a free society. The difference was that she was now running for public office. Most political parties shy away from candidates like Jama. They don’t want to be painted with a similar brushstroke – and they certainly don’t want to be associated with real or perceived racist and anti-semitic remarks. Not if they can help it, anyway.

Several organizations like B’nai Brith Canada suggested that Stiles would be wise to withdraw Jama’s candidacy. She didn’t budge, however.

Why? Hamilton Centre had been a safe riding for the NDP for decades. As an example, Horwath won comfortably in 2007 and was easily re-elected an additional four times.

Meanwhile, Jama apologized for her “harmful” comments and said “Jewish people deserve to feel safe, and should never be targeted because of their faith or their culture.” This carefully worded statement satisfied the NDP, and the matter was dropped.

Jama won 54.28 percent of the vote in the March 16 Hamilton Centre by-election. Her route to the Ontario Legislature was now complete.

The warnings that Stiles and the NDP ignored in March would rear its ugly head once more in October.

Three days after the terrorist organization Hamas launched a massive and deadly attack against Israel, Jama posted a controversial statement to her X account on Oct. 10. She depicted Israel’s actions in Gaza against Palestinians as “apartheid” and rooted in “settler colonialism.” She called for an “immediate ceasefire and de-escalation” in Gaza, and that “we must look to the solution to this endless cycle of death and destruction: end all occupation of Palestinian land and end apartheid.”

Many individuals and groups spoke out against Jama’s statement. This included Ontario Premier Doug Ford, Ontario Liberal leader John Fraser, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. Ford also announced his PC government would begin the process to censure Jama for her comments. The NDP MPP threatened to sue the Premier for libel because he had said publicly that she had “hateful views” and a “long and well-documented history of antisemitism,” among other things.

Stiles was also displeased. She spoke out against Jama’s statement and asked her to remove it and apologize. Jama did comply with a semi-apology, but her original statement remained online. In spite of ignoring this request, it appeared the NDP was going to protect its controversial caucus member once again.

Hours before the Oct. 23 censure vote, however, Stiles removed her from the NDP caucus. Several reasons were provided, including Jama reportedly being uncooperative with NDP colleagues, making unilateral decisions and endangering the work environment of party staffers. Stiles also noted that while she and Jama had agreed to work together “in good faith with no surprises,” the latter’s decision to speak against the censure motion in the Legislature came completely out of the blue.

Jama was censured by a vote of 63-23. The NDP was the only party that voted against it. She currently sits as an Independent with no ability to speak or ask questions in the Legislature. As fate would have it, she recently had a Zoom meeting with former UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, an equally controversial politician accused of many of the same things she’s faced in her short political career.

There are several lessons to be learned from the Jama-NDP episode. Controversial candidates will almost always fall back on controversy. Apologies in politics are important, but the apologetic politician has to be trusted to follow it to the letter. Losing a safe political riding is obviously unfortunate, but gaining and protecting a caucus member with a terrible track record will cost you even more ridings in the end.

There’s another important lesson in all of this.

Federal and provincial New Democrats have been repeatedly accused of harbouring anti-Israel and anti-semitic candidates, ideas and policies for years. As much as they deny these associations, they continually fall into the same trap and make these alleged ties even worse in the public eye. Had Stiles listened to the advice she was given in March and removed Jama’s candidacy, this particular allegation could have been avoided. It’s actually worth listening to your political rivals every so often.

 

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.


There has lately been more than one allusion to the Ontario Liberals’ “second straight election disaster” last June 2, 2022, when they won only 8 of the Legislative Assembly’s 124 seats.

In fact, this was slightly better than the 7 seats they won in 2018. But it was also, no doubt and for the second time in a row, not even enough to qualify for official party status.

At the same time, in the 2022 election the Liberals actually won a slightly greater share of the province-wide popular vote than the official-opposition New Democrats (23.9% vs 23.7%), who took 31 seats!

(The almost crazy imbalance between seats and popular vote here of course flows from the sometimes extreme vagaries of the current electoral system, which Liberals had a chance to change and didn’t, and New Democrats used to criticize.)

It is also true enough that in three of the four main public opinion polls since the 2022 election the Liberals have continued to finish ahead of the NDP in the province-wide popular vote — in the latest Abacus poll by as much as six points.

There is as well a history of writing the Ontario Liberals’ epitaph too early. In the 1970s many believed the Ontario New Democrats would replace the provincial Liberals, following precedents in the Mother of Parliaments across the sea.

Then in the middle of the 1980s David Peterson from the university city of London, Ontario  liberated an increasingly urban voting base from a once glorious agrarian democratic past in the family farm heartland, that then did appear to have seen its better days.

Subsequently Peterson’s new more urban Liberals led to the governing parties of Dalton McGuinty from Ottawa, and Kathleen Wynne from the old suburbs of Toronto.

Meanwhile, at their recent annual general meeting in Hamilton, Ontario Liberals “overwhelmingly voted for a one-member-one-vote system” to elect the next party leader.

With the next fixed-date provincial election in 2026 now dimly in the headlights, a few party members  may also be having second thoughts about the rural side of the old Ontario Liberals, that Peterson’s new party for young urban professionals ultimately seemed to cast adrift.

In the 1960s Ontario Liberals were still obvious enough descendants of the old “Great Reform” agrarian democrats — a local variation on the wider family farm democracy of the anglophone North American Middle West.

The Great Reform Liberals dominated Ontario provincial politics in the confederation era under “Ontario’s Cromwell” Oliver Mowat (premier 1872–1896). Then they had a historic reprise under “Canada’s Huey Long” Mitch Hepburn, in the later 1930s and early 1940s.

This party’s deepest roots were in the Class 1 family farm land of Southwestern Ontario. Mowat’s seat in the legislature was Oxford North. Hepburn’s was Elgin (also the Canadian homeland of US liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith, whose father was a farmer and prominent local Liberal).

The Ontario Liberals of the 1970s still had at least some of the old progressive rural mud of Southwestern Ontario visibly on their shoes.

Robert Nixon, leader 1966–1976 (and 1981–1982) was the last of this agrarian democratic line. And his final career as Premier David Peterson’s finance minister was a constructive link between the old rural and new urban order that finally led to McGuinty and Wynne.

The now arguably too urban Ontario Liberal Party of the 2020s could possibly use some of its long vanished agrarian democratic and “Great Reform” rural past today. Instincts of this sort played a part in the failed quest for Green Party leader Mike Schreiner as next Liberal leader.

(Mr. Schreiner grew up on a family farm in Kansas. And he currently sits for Guelph in the Legislative Assembly, home of the University of Guelph, formerly the Ontario Agricultural Collage — where John Kenneth Galbraith did his undergraduate degree.)

Is there some other way the current still somewhat misty Ontario Liberal leadership race of 2023 can bring the party’s family-farm democratic deep past at least a little back to life?

So far there doesn’t seem any obvious successor to Brant County farmer Robert Nixon in the contest. And the auto sector in Southwestern Ontario has built a base for urban New Democrats not old progressive rural Liberals.

The ancient history of the Ontario Liberal Party, however, is testament to the historical reality that a progressive rural community was once a dominant force in the regional politics of Canada’s most populous province.

A 2020s provincial Liberal movement that somehow managed to revive even a little of this old rural progressive tradition just might make a useful contribution to both present-day Ontario political culture — and its own partisan success in the 2026 election.

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.


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.