Kathleen Wynne is the Liberals’ Best Bet

25. January 2013 · Write a comment · Categories: Canadian politics, Education, Liberal leadership, Ontario politics · Tags: , , , , , , ,

Courtesy of Tonio Whitters

Ontario’s next Premier and leader of the provincial Liberal Party needs to accomplish three primary political objectives: stave off an election and make the legislature work, clean up the mess that Dalton McGuinty and Laurel Broten have made of the education system (yeah, no small feat), and tamper down the upward trajectory of the opposition parties.

There is no better candidate to accomplish all of those three things simultaneously than Kathleen Wynne.

In a brokered convention situation, anything is possible (see Stephane Dion), but barring exceptional and unforeseen circumstances, either Wynne or Sandra Pupatello will be taking up the mantle of Ontario’s first female Premier. (And hey, side note, Canada will get to celebrate gender parity among the premiers for the first time in our history … that would be quite the milestone!)

1. Make the legislature work

Consider the different future that awaits the Liberals in the weeks following the convention with each of these women. With Wynne, she can put a new Cabinet together (and send Broten to the obscurest of obscure cabinet positions), call back the legislature, and roll up her sleeves. With Pupatello, an effectively leaderless party can keep the doors of the legislature shut while Sandra goes and fights for the seat Dwight Duncan so graciously abdicated for her, wait while she fights another bruising by-election (have party faithful forgotten what happened in Kitchener-Waterloo?), and then likely head right back into election mode when she does finally come back to the legislature.

Haroon Siddiqui called this the nightmare scenario and it is quite an accurate description. Consider the scenario where Pupatello loses the by-election. Either she continues to fight for another seat – and have the party grow weaker by the minute – or she resigns the leadership and plunges the party into yet another leadership fight. If the party thinks this to be an improbable scenario, consider the previously cited Kitchener-Waterloo example where Liberals thought a coveted majority was within reach, John Tory’s loss to Kathleen Wynne in 2007 (lesson: leaders are not shoe-ins), the fact that the Liberal party currently sits at 28% in the polls, and the inevitable windfall of cash and resource support that the teachers unions will infuse into a by-election to defeat the Liberals by any and all means necessary.

Wynne is a less combative politician than Pupatello with a proven background of making tense and difficult situations work in her favour. Perhaps Pupatello is the candidate for a majority government but Wynne is the candidate for a minority situation – a leader who can enter the legislature on strong footing and capitalize on the momentum from the leadership race. No by-election to slow Wynne down, she can get down to the business of governing.

2. Allay teachers’ concerns & bring home disaffected Liberals

I was a strong Liberal party supporter for much of Dalton McGuinty’s tenure. The gains made in education and healthcare were important advances for this province; policies that I believed in and supported wholeheartedly. The unnecessary mess that was created by Bill 115 and the circumventing of collective bargaining rights was a cynical, political ploy straight out of a Conservative playbook that pitted parents and students against teachers. The fiscal realities are indeed something to be considered; a necessary situation for any government in this type of economic situation. The class-A bungling of relations with teachers with dramatic long-term ramifications for months and years down the road … that was completely unnecessary and erased completely McGuinty’s legacy as the Education Premier. It was the sole reason that drove me to campaign and vote for the NDP in Kitchener-Waterloo’s by-election.

The next Liberal leader needs to allay teachers’ concerns and bring home disaffected Liberals. Those are two monumental tasks. Neither Pupatello or Wynne has made the complete and strong disavowals of Bill115 that are necessary but Wynne’s leadership as Education Minister from 2006 to 2010 is admirable, and she exhibited much stronger relations and negotiating skills with the unions than Laurel Broten. Coming from the centre-left of the party, my money would be on Wynne to turn the situation around. If Wynne can repair relations with the teachers’ unions, she will prompt progressive, left-wing, disaffected Liberals to take another look at the Liberals. Choose Pupatello and those Liberals will likely become entrenched NDP supporters.

3. Target NDP votes

The next Premier will be faced with an inevitable election scenario shortly after taking office. Where do the deteriorating Liberals go for votes? According to Eric Grenier of ThreeHundredEight.com, the PC vote is much more locked-in than the NDP vote. Only 28% of PCs were happy with one of the Liberal leadership candidates compared to 49% of New Democrats. There is more room for growth among the left flank of the party and Wynne can better capitalize on those voters. It’s hard to imagine NDP supporters supporting a Pupatello-led Liberal party in large enough numbers to keep them in power. Maintaining government status will be a tremendous task for the Liberals, regardless of who takes over, but Wynne at least has a fighting chance. While Pupatello was out of politics, Wynne was in government and Cabinet during the Liberals’ most difficult time. That experience will be absolutely invaluable for someone who needs to completely and wholeheartedly understand the challenges of a minority government.

In the end, it may not matter who ascends to the Premier’s chair after this weekend’s convention. We may be looking at Premier Hudak or Horwath very shortly, and this entire leadership campaign may have been waged for Opposition Leader, or worse still, leader of the third party. Regardless, whether it be for the short or long haul, Wynne is the Liberals’ best bet.

Four Years Later, President Obama Continues to Make History

21. January 2013 · Write a comment · Categories: 2012 election, American politics, Gay rights, Marriage equality · Tags: , , ,

Getty Images

Four years ago, just as I was about to start my political science degree, I watched with pride and fascination as Barack Obama first took the oath of office. It was a truly historic moment, not just because of the significance of the nation’s first African-American President but also because of the deep and severe economic crisis that he inherited.

Today, as the President takes the oath for a second term, the man who spoke so hopefully about the possibility of cooperation and unity had given way to a President who has been hardened by the challenges of governance. This inaugural address was a forceful and courageous call to action; a blueprint for a surprisingly ambitious agenda.

It almost dared Congressional Republicans to block his policy proposals – a far cry from a President who tried, to his own detriment, to bring Republicans into the fold in his first term. This term seems to be different – Obama is not above playing the Washington political game and he seems to actually hunger for the opportunity to use the presidential bully pulpit and capitalize on his victory.

In the address, the President made clear a number of specific policy proposals. He invoked the memory of Newtown to push more gun control, spoke of the need for immigration reform to fulfill the nation’s founding creed, and made the religious, moral, ethical, and policy argument for the absolute necessity of confronting climate change:

“Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it.”

How much of this agenda will actually be realized in the second term remains to be seen and the President’s ongoing battles with Congressional Republicans over the nation’s fiscal challenges may stymie any attempts at significant policy overhauls before they even get off the ground.

But, there was one moment, one proposal in the inaugural address that was both truly historic and embodies the President’s look toward legacy instead of political opportunism. Barack Obama became the first President to publically call for movement on gay rights in an inaugural address – and it was a forceful and passionate call:

“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”

He spoke of the Stonewall riots as part and parcel with America’s civil rights movement, alongside the trailblazing events at Selma and Seneca Falls. For a President who repeatedly evokes the teachings of Martin Luther King, for him to include Stonewall alongside those momentous events is an inclusion of historic and tremendous proportions.

This is the civil rights test of our generation, he implies; an indication that the baton of equality and justice has been passed to this generation of Americans to relinquish past harms and harsh discrimination, and to bend the arc of justice toward gay rights and marriage equality.

This kind of admission would not even have been suggested for Obama’s first inaugural – the political climate too volatile, the political risks too astronomical. Those risks have been severely limited, in part because of the President’s own full-hearted embrace of marriage equality, in part because the President will never again run for office, but mostly because of the country’s rapid and fervent transition toward acceptance of gays and lesbians, and a recognition that anti-marriage equality advocates stand in fierce opposition to America’s founding ideals.

Four years after he first took the oath, President Obama continues to make history – as a leader who has transitioned from a hesitant and somewhat tepid President to a leader who fully embraces the political and combative nature of his role. A President who embraces what he believes in and will tirelessly pursue that agenda in the second term.

History will tell the tale on Barack Obama. But, gay rights is shaping up to be a hallmark of his legacy, as the first American president to really fully embrace the movement. And with the addition of health care reform, an economic recovery, and the drawdown of two wars under his belt, Obama’s legacy is already shaping up to be significant.

Yet, the second inaugural address indicated that his legacy is truly only half-written. This is a President who isn’t willing to stop fighting now. Instead, he seems to relish the opportunity to bring the fight even more dramatically for the next four years. A President who campaigned against Washington in 2008 has seemingly embraced the Washington game – the presidential bully pulpit is his and his alone, and he capitalized on the opportunity today with strength and vision.

Forward.

Live-blogging the #LPCLdr Debate

20. January 2013 · Write a comment · Categories: Canadian politics, Liberal leadership · Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Some quick thoughts:
- If Justin Trudeau hadn’t been the frontrunner coming into this debate, he would surely not have been the frontrunner coming out. He didn’t do much to differentiate himself. Of course, the luxury of actually being the frontrunner is that you don’t have to distinguish yourself. You just have to do no harm. In that sense, mission accomplished.
- Martha Hall Findlay is emerging – somewhat as expected – as the substantive voice for policy change in a crowded field of candidates. If nothing else, her candidacy will make Trudeau work harder for the leadership and actually commit to some policy views.
- There are very clearly some candidates who aren’t so sure what they’re doing there. If this debate is tantamount to the Iowa primary – the first nominating contest during the American nomination process – the candidates with the frontrunner tickets are Justin Trudeau, Martha Hall Findlay, and Marc Garneau (although he didn’t particularly shine tonight). Joyce Murray and Deborah Coyne, however, proved they will be forceful advocates for their causes and beliefs. That’s very important for a party struggling to define what it believes in.
- The Liberal Party organizers dropped the ball big time for the first debate. Way too much repetition in the topics and scattered responses to said topics – dominance on aboriginal issues, electoral reform, and housing. Not to say those aren’t important issues but other important issues weren’t even mentioned: Canada’s place in the world, Middle East (Mali, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.), debt/deficit, economy/jobs, crime/gun registry. Much tighter control of the debate topics needs to be exercised next time.
- The Liberal Party and its leadership candidates would be wise not to box themselves in on electoral cooperation. There’s no telling what’s going to be necessary in 2015 to defeat Stephen Harper and the Liberals/NDP are going to need to realize how close together they actually are on some issues, especially with Mulcair’s clear and definite shift to the centre. Time to talk about unity of progressives instead of unity of just Liberals.

Here’s my live-blog of tweets of my random thoughts and musings during the debate:

How the Pope Stole Christmas

25. December 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: Marriage equality · Tags: , , , , , ,

Courtesy of Ammar Abd Rabbo, Creative Commons

Someone go drop off a copy of The Grinch to the Vatican. Something is clearly prompting the Pope to engage in a Whoville-like extraction of all the Christmas joy this season.

If the Holy Father’s Christmas message is any indication, he has dispensed with any spreading of the Christmas spirit and has instead decided that if he’s not happy this holiday season, no one else is going to be either.

The Pope decided to use his platform – a religious platform that is arguably unmatched anywhere else – to denounce the greatest ills facing our society: same-sex marriage and non-conforming gender identities. Yes, in the wake of Sandy Hook, ongoing tensions in the Middle East, and a recent flare-up of the Israel-Palestine conflict, these are the issues keeping the Pope up at night. If this is what he keeps praying about, I have a hunch that God is getting just slightly annoyed.

In his annual address to the Vatican, The Pope has declared that marriage equality – like the other social no-nos of abortion and euthanasia – are threatening world peace. It threatens “family to its foundations” – because every heterosexual family is perfect, remember? – and that in a family with same-sex parents, children are just viewed as objects. See, now, while I’m having trouble with these assertions, I can still respect the Pope’s authority on this subject – I mean he has such a great dad to … oh, wait, yeah…

If the Pope is correct, there’s a lot of apologizing that needs to occur this Christmas season. Those damn pesky gay armies have a lot of explaining to do; they all deserve coal in their stockings. That Israel/Palestine flare-up? Must have started over who got to put a new Louis Vuitton bag on their Christmas list. And I’m not so sure how Syrian President Assad feels about being outed like that by the Pope – why couldn’t he just let the world live in blissful ignorance, thinking that his brutal killings were just the workings of a crazy dictator instead of the unfortunate ramifications of his homosexual tendencies coming to bear?

The Pope has declared his utmost support and the full weight of the Catholic Church to defeating marriage equality movements this coming year. Because, you know, denying two loving people the right to get married should be the number one priority for the Church – not hunger, or poverty, or war, or abuse, or crime, or … c’mon, trivial issues in comparison.

So, the gay and lesbian community weren’t the only ones being slammed in the Pope’s Christmas messages. No, transgendered individuals are also in the Pope’s bad graces this year – they are shirking their God-given gender identities and are trying to exert a “manipulation of nature.” The Pope is horrified that the “very duality of [gender] as previously given is what is now disputed.”

Well, I mean perhaps we need a second opinion on this subject. A female perspective perhaps. Maybe the Pope should seek the consultation of his female Priests.  Ohhh, what a shame, no luck there. The duality of rigidly conforming gender roles is working out well for him – no women in the Vatican to challenge his authority or set him straight.

The irony of the Pope speaking about the duality of gender roles while he was addressing patrons in his traditional robes, the most ostentatious, frilly dress and bedazzled hat ever designed, is not lost on me. And, if I’m not mistaken, the Vatican traditionally announces to the world that they have decided on a new Pope with pinkish smoke. Colour me confused – the Supreme Pontiff’s gender conformation leaves a little to be desired. Where’s the boy blue smoke and the manly-man trousers? Those who live in glass houses…

With the litany of Catholics who still wait to hear what the Pope has to say, his comments are not unfortunate but simply irresponsible. The ones threatening world peace are not the “gays” but the Pope himself. The things shaking the very foundations of humanity are not the actions of trans* people but the Pope’s words. The one going against God’s word and the teachings of Christianity … the Pope should look in the mirror. The Pope’s hurtful message validates every act of bullying or hate speech that has been committed against someone who is different, it emboldens the actions of politicians who hold back progress for fear of upsetting some absent, non-existent religious tradition, and it reinforces the holier-than-thou attitude that if I am strong enough and powerful enough, I can steamroll over your rights and freedoms because my bully pulpit is bigger than yours.

With thousands of teenagers around the world struggling to come to terms with their sexuality and their gender identities, with unacceptable, astronomically high rates of suicide within the LGBT community, they deserve a Pope who believes in their worth as human beings rather than one who decides to use his Christmas message – a time for harmony, love, and joy – to trash those he finds discomforting or nonconforming. During a time of year when all people are looking for from their religious figures is a little bit of hope, faith, and inspiration, perhaps we might expect a message offering even a modicum of that to the Pope’s worshipers.

The Pope does not speak for my God. He does not speak for any Christian God – a Christian, all-loving, accepting, nonjudgmental God. He speaks for himself – in support of an antiquated, discriminatory, and regressive agenda. Shame on the Pope for this message – this had no place in any dialogue, but especially a holiday one.  While the Pope may want to be a hate-mongerer this Christmas, the rest of us just want to enjoy a peaceful holiday. Perhaps he might actually read his Bible and realize the true meaning of Christmas.

Why Sandy Hook can’t become just more old news

16. December 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: American politics, Gun control · Tags: , ,

The pictures that had me welling up were the ones of the parents – parents waiting in agony to find out any news about their children, parents walking away from Sandy Hook elementary school with a grasp on their children’s hands that they seemed to wish they could hold onto forever.

In the hierarchy of unspeakable tragedy that we have been forced to confront in recent months, the 26 lives that were so brutally taken at a small Connecticut elementary school last Friday has seemed to spark emotion from the public, the press, and even the President, that other tragedies haven’t commanded. In a culture of violence that we have become all too accustomed to, the ramifications of that culture coming to bear on 20 innocent six and seven year old children – “beautiful little kids” as Obama put it – is almost too much for us to comprehend. Lives that had barely really begun; lives part of the next generation that we hope to inspire and to empower so that they create a world less violent and more peaceful than the one we pass on. More »

Woodworth must explain appearance at “cure the gay” event

17. October 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: Canadian politics, Gay rights · Tags: , , , , ,

After Kitchener-Centre Member of Parliament Stephen Woodworth’s failed attempt to reopen the abortion debate in Canada, you might have thought he would gracefully exit the spotlight of hot button social issues. Regrettably, this is not the case.

On Oct.7, Woodworth was a featured guest for an event in Quebec where he appeared alongside Michel Lizotte, an outspoken advocate who believes that gay people can become straight if they simply choose to do so.

Woodworth was criticized in the House of Commons, but has not yet responded to the criticism nor made a public statement disowning what Lizotte advocates.

At the event, Lizotte reportedly delivered a lecture on sexual re-orientation.

Lizotte advocates for gays to learn “how to be freed from thoughts, attractions or unwanted homosexual behavior while taking the path of heterosexuality.”

One of two things could explain Woodworth’s silence.

The MP could actually believe the psychologically-debunked nonsense that Lizotte trumpets.

Or, Woodworth could oppose what Lizotte advocates but refuses to publicly state his disagreement—which is equally detrimental to gay rights.

There is absolutely no psychological basis for Lizotte’s claims.

The American Psychological Association states “there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation is safe or effective.

It seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay and bisexual persons.”

Similarly, the Canadian Psychological Association asserts that homosexuality is not a psychological problem and has not been considered so by the professional mental health community for 30 years.

Let’s consider the company of past “cure the gay” advocates.

There was a large group of psychiatrists that believed in conversion theory as a way of converting from gay to straight.

German psychiatrist named Baron Albert von Schrenck-Notzing believed that all gay men needed to do was to see a prostitute and they would magically become straight.

Would we accept for a moment that if Woodworth had appeared on stage with anyone who espoused any of these methods that he wouldn’t have to denounce his company or answer about his own views?

Lizotte is no different.

His advocacy is just as offensive and damaging to the gay men and women who are struggling to come to terms with their sexuality.

With the number of gay and transgendered teens who commit suicide at alarmingly higher rates than their straight peers, it is simply irresponsible and immoral for Woodworth not to tell his constituents that he does not stand for these damaging views.

In his attempt to reopen the debate about when life begins, Woodworth stated that “our 400-year-old definition of a human being says a child does not become a human being until the moment of complete birth, contrary to 21st century medical evidence.”

If Woodworth wants to invoke his conceptions of modern medicine in the abortion debate, he must give equal time to the notion in the gay rights debate.

Woodworth cannot simply turn a blind eye to an activist who is living in 1970s psychology textbooks.

Among the Kitchener-Centre constituents that Woodworth purportedly represents are young men and women who are looking for guidance and acceptance of who they are.

If Woodworth does not have the decency to come out in strong opposition to Lizotte and his views, then perhaps he should reconsider whether he espouses the necessary values to represent the people of Kitchener-Centre.

Or, perhaps better yet, the people of Kitchener-Centre should tell Woodworth that they would like to have a full-time representative instead of one who seems to be more interested in advocating for the social issues that keep him in the national spotlight.

Rest in peace, Gloria Taylor

06. October 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized · Tags: ,

On Friday, news outlets reported that Gloria Taylor, a passionate assisted suicide advocate and the focus of a recent successful lawsuit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, has died.

Gloria Taylor inspired me to write in favour of assisted suicide in a blog post in June. Her tireless advocacy for an incredibly important and relevant cause should inspire us all to pursue the causes that we are passionate about. With grace and dignity, she put forth a strong case for assisted suicide and was attacked viciously and inappropriately by opponents because of it. Taylor put a human face on an issue that is uncomfortable and yet entirely necessary for us all to confront: the prospect of facing an inevitable and painful death without any legal recourse. Gloria Taylor wanted a choice. She wanted to be able to control the circumstances of her death; to die with dignity. In the end, she did not have to face the difficult choice which she fought tirelessly to have the right to make.

But in her absence, the only fitting tribute is a spirited defence of assisted suicide and the many terminally-ill Canadians who want nothing more than to be granted the respect and dignity they deserve at the end of their lives. One of the cause’s most passionate advocates is no longer with us but her enduring determination lives on. It’s up to all of us to ensure that we answer one of our generation’s most pressing calls: a call for recognition that assisted suicide is not an admission of defeat but rather proof that our most fundamental rights and freedoms never leave us – even in the last days of our lives.

Rest in peace, Gloria Taylor. Your advocacy inspires us to believe that change is always possible.

Is Romney a secret Democrat?

22. September 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: 2012 election, American politics · Tags: , ,

I’ve been trying to pinpoint the exact time that Mitt Romney went from being the plausible post-Obama politician to the “how did this guy get elected to anything?” politician.

Was it the moment he decided it was a good idea to let Clint Eastwood talk to an empty chair? Was it the time he mistakenly thought Britain was a Democratic state and started trashing everything about it?  Or, was it the time that he decided it would be easier to get elected by writing off half the country as “victims” who didn’t grow up with George Romney’s silver spoon in their mouths and so decided to give government assistance a try?

No, it can’t be any of these isolated instances that doomed Mitt Romney’s chances of handing over the keys of one of his umpteen mansions for access to the White House. I think the only real plausible explanation is this: Mitt Romney is secretly a devout Democrat who is throwing every aspect of this election and deliberately sabotaging his chances so that the President who should be in the political fight of his life right now can simply take a cake walk back to the oval office.

Yes, that must be it.

More »

Democratic convention round-up

08. September 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: 2012 election, American politics · Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Democrats trounce Republicans in the convention battle

Courtesy of Steve Bott, Creative Commons

As the incumbent party, the Democrats had the inherent advantage of having their convention follow the Republicans. And with only a few days separating the two conventions, the Democrats were quickly able to blunt any momentum that Republicans gained from three days of Obama bashing, although evidence suggests Romney’s convention bounce was nonexistent.

But it was much more than timing that made the Democratic National Convention a success. The Democrats executed a near-flawless convention. Offering a convincing critique of the Romney-Ryan vision for America, the convention’s speakers provided addresses that balanced their personal stories with their support for the Obama-Biden ticket. If there was a weaker speaker, it was surprisingly President Obama. Obama offered a cerebral speech that didn’t venture into the soaring oratory that consistently characterizes his speeches. It was a sobering speech for a sobering time; a call to action to Americans to finish what they started. It harkened back to the 2008 campaign theme that brought Americans together, that made them each accountable for pushing America forward together – change that we can believe in. Obama reiterated that his landmark achievements – the Affordable Care Act, Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, the drawdown of forces in Iraq – were because of them and their fervent support for change.  In empowering voters to finish what they started, he shifted the focus of the election away from a referendum on the current state of the economy to a choice between two completely divergent visions for America. The speech though probably wouldn’t even crack the top 10 of the President’s best speeches.

More »

Republican convention round-up

31. August 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: 2012 election, American politics · Tags: , , , , , , , ,

With the Republicans having wrapped up their convention in Tampa yesterday, here are some initial thoughts on the highs and lows of the week.

Condoleezza Rice comes out a star; outshines Ryan

The best speech from the Republican convention – a speech that should have been designated as the keynote address and one that, at times, rivaled Obama’s 2004 keynote address – was Condoleezza Rice’s speech on Wednesday night. She portrayed an immensely endearing American story of a girl who grew up in segregated Birmingham, born to parents who believed that even though she could not go to a movie with white people, she had the opportunity to seek any public office that she wanted. She has already shattered barriers as Secretary of State but I don’t think her public career is done yet – I don’t think she is ready to be a faculty member at Stanford University indefinitely. Her speech uncharacteristically drifted into domestic policy, away from her safe-spot of foreign affairs, where she delivered passionate criticism of the current economy and a vision for the American education system – calling it the civil rights issue of our generation. While many key aspects of her speech were based on a pillar of unreality, seemingly unaware of the damage that the Bush administration caused to America’s foreign and domestic policy, it was the classiest speech of the convention – critiquing the Obama administration without bashing it, complimenting her negative moments with platitudes of presidential-like purpose. Her speech outshined Paul Ryan’s, put Chris Christie’s jumbled rant to shame, and was even a hair stronger than Marco Rubio’s passionate address. If she wants it – and it is not at all clear that she does – she is well positioned for a future run for office and will likely be on the receiving end of a myriad of calls to seek a Senate seat or the Governor’s chair in California.

More »

When political movements meet political reality

21. May 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: American politics, Marriage equality · Tags: , , , , , ,

There is an inevitable tension that exists between social movements and governmental actors. Activists are most often single-issue agitators; governments deal with the impossible balancing act of passing legislation while keeping a viable voting coalition in tact. For the leaders and participants of social movements – and strong sympathizers of social movements– there is perennial disillusionment with government until it acts on the issue they care about.

But, it’s at the intersection of these groups – when political movements finally meet political reality – that true progress is made. That majorly important moment has occurred in the marriage equality movement in the United States when President Barack Obama endorsed same-sex marriage.

The criticism of the decision has flowed from both ends of the political spectrum – one side upset that he had “evolved” away from the place they themselves were comfortable with; the other shrugging their shoulders at a President they viewed as taking a reluctant, inevitable stance that should have come years ago. Yet, none of these criticisms have any bearing of the historical importance of Obama’s decision.

Political movements play an incredibly important role in the political process; their importance cannot be overstated – social pressure is at the heart of any political decision, and the stronger the pressure, the quicker government actually takes action. The marriage equality movement is responsible – along with natural evolution demographically and philosophically – for the rapid shift of public support toward marriage equality. It is responsible for state-by-state successes, and it is responsible for the social pressure that resulted in the overturn of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) and the Obama administration’s unprecedented decision to stop defending the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA). It is responsible for creating a climate palatable enough for the general public to accept Court decisions on marriage equality, especially Schwarzenegger v. Perry et. al. – the Prop 8 case – in California.

More »

Charter exists to protect us in emergencies

26. May 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: Canadian politics, Post-secondary education · Tags: , , , , , ,

The right to protest and to freely associate is one of the hallmarks of a free and democratic society. It is one of the most fundamental rights of the people to be able to express dissatisfaction with the ruling class, to push the conversation forward, and to cause disturbance in agitating for one’s cause.

In light of the recent student protests in Quebec, the right of peaceful assembly is under fire in the province. Anyone who cares about the just execution of the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be concerned about the so-called “Emergency Law,” Bill 78 – An act to enable students to receive instruction from the postsecondary institutions they attend – passed by the National Assembly of Quebec on May 17, 2012.

There are essentially two broad issues with this bill: the constitutional infringements and the political miscalculations.

First, constitutionally speaking, the Quebec government has acted in direct contravention of several Charter provisions, and they should each generate serious concern:

  • Section 9 gives Quebec’s Minister of Education, Recreation and Sports the power to prescribe “any other necessary modification to this Act and to any other Act and its regulatory investments.” These are major, sweeping powers that directly contradict the system of Parliamentary government. A Minister must not have this much power to amend a law or any other law for that matter. Amendments to the law are the responsibility of Cabinet and the legislature.
  • Section 12 contravenes the right to freely associate. It dictates that university employees must not participate in any “concerted action” that would disable them from reporting to work. If undergoing the correct procedure to strike, no unionized workforce should be told that they cannot take collective action. This is flagrantly unconstitutional.
  • Section 16 usurps the right of peaceful assembly by dictating that any protest in the province of Quebec – regardless of whether it relates to tuition increases or not – must notify the police force eight hours in advance, and must detail the venue, the protest route, and any other additional info as demanded by police.
  • Section 26 further infringes upon the right of peaceful assembly by detailing the fines which a protest organizer is liable to should they disobey any number of provisions, of which Section 16 is a part. An organizer can face a fine between $25,000 and $125,000 for failing to notify police.

Flanagan wrong about Opitz case

30. May 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: Canadian politics, Judicial politics · Tags: , , , , , ,

In a rare ruling on May 18, an Ontario Superior Court judge overturned the election of Ted Opitz to the Canadian House of Commons because of voting irregularities that could potentially have swayed the results of the election. Opitz was elected as the Conservative Member of Parliament for the riding of Etobicoke Centre in May 2011, beating out Liberal candidate Borys Wrzesnewskyj by only 26 votes.

Tom Flanagan, professor of political science at the University of Calgary and conservative strategist, wrote an op-ed for the Globe and Mail on May 29 entitled “The possible shouldn’t be confused with the probable in elections.” Flanagan argues that Justice Lederer was remiss in throwing out the results of the election because he asserts that probability of the election turning on the casting of 79 improper votes is 0.0007 per cent. Flanagan has missed the mark in his assessment, turning a blind eye to the common law precedents that played such a major role in this decision, and too easily dismissing the existing legal standard used by Justice Lederer: the balance of probabilities.

In civil litigation, the burden of proof is determined by the balance of probabilities (or preponderance of the evidence). It means that neither side must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt – as the prosecution must do in a criminal case. Instead, the judge (or jury) must decide which side has more evidence on its side – even by the smallest of degrees.

More »

Hate speech isn’t free speech

10. June 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: Canadian politics, Hate crimes, Judicial politics · Tags: , , , ,

In a constitutional democracy, there is a constant battle to balance the rights of one against the rights of another. Inevitably, the liberation and expansion of one right is at the expense of contracting another right. How then do we balance all rights and freedoms to ensure every citizen is living with the most freedom possible?

One recent and fundamental iteration of this difficult balancing act is the battle between hate speech and free speech. How far should we should go in protecting the victims of hate speech; when does the limitation of free speech become overly burdensome and restrictive?

At some point, we’ve come under the fallacious assumption that somehow hate speech laws are one step too far away from a free democracy. We’ve lost sight of the existing laws that restrict our free speech on a daily basis. I am not free in this blog post nor is any other journalist or commentator permitted to write something fallacious or cite an erroneous fact that undermines the character of someone else – I would be charged with libel and a claim of free speech would be laughed out of court. A radio host cannot engage in character assassination – they would likewise be charged with slander. I cannot lie as a witness, refuse to answer questions on the stand, or likewise misrepresent the truth – free speech does not apply there either. One cannot concoct a story about an impending terrorist attack that doesn’t exist or make up a fallacious bomb threat at a school, without paying for the consequences.

But, somehow, the claim that hate speech is an infringement of free speech is one which sits right with so many individuals who would likewise accept these aforementioned circumstances as reasonable limits.

More »

In support of Gloria Taylor and assisted suicide

19. June 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: Canadian politics, Judicial politics · Tags: , ,

Over the past few weeks, I’ve developed a deep and sincere respect for Gloria Taylor, a terminally ill woman diagnosed with ALS. Since December, she’s been the focal point of an assisted suicide case in British Columbia, arguing that the current laws prohibiting physician-assisted suicide are unconstitutional. In an emotional and vulnerable affidavit, she said that “I am dying. I do not want to, but I am going to die; this is a fact. I can accept death because I recognize it as a part of life. What I fear is a death that negates, as opposed to concludes, my life.” This week, the British Columbia Supreme Court sided with her and agreed that failing to allow people to end their lives with dignity was very much an infringement of our rights and freedoms.

Talking about death is a difficult conversation for any of us to have. The finality of this part of our existence, regardless of one’s certainty about what follows life, is a depressing and, frankly, scary prospect to consider. It’s a topic that I wasn’t sure I was going to venture into in this blog. Though I’ve never shied away from writing about serious topics or controversial issues, there’s a certain morbidity to this whole discussion that I thought precluded the possibility of discerning a hopeful conclusion from Taylor’s case.

 

But, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is much more to be ashamed of in shying away from these conversations, and that there is nothing but hope in the idea that we should all live fighting for our principles with the fervor and urgency that life demands – a belief that Taylor so perfectly embodies.

More »

Obamacare and an activist Court

02. July 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: American politics, Judicial politics · Tags: , , , , , , ,

 

Supreme Court justices listen to the Solicitor General as he argues the Government's case in March / Associated Press

Following the oral arguments regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA and colloquially known as Obamacare) in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius in late March, the prevailing wisdom among both legal and political scholars was that Obama’s health care law was in serious trouble. The conservative wing of the Court consisting of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Scalia continually lobbed skepticism at the government’s case, and the always unpredictable swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, also harshly criticized Obamacare. The stage seemed set for a 5-4 decision to strike down ACA and eliminate President Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement.

But, as Justice Ginsburg so aptly put it, “Those who know don’t talk. And those who talk don’t know.” In last week’s ruling, Obamacare survived. And surprising everyone, it was not Kennedy who joined the liberal wing of the Court, but George Bush-appointee, Chief Justice Roberts.

There are essentially three elements to the ACA: an expansion of the Medicaid program, the guaranteed-issue and community rating requirements which prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage or charging higher premiums to Americans with pre-existing conditions, and the individual mandate which “requires” virtually every single American to purchase health insurance.

The main contention of the plaintiffs in this case was that the individual mandate was unconstitutional – it is beyond Congress’ power to compel someone to purchase insurance if they don’t want to, so went the gist of the argument. At the same time, though, the individual mandate is the underpinning that holds the rest of the act together. The only way you can compel insurance companies to base premiums on guaranteed issue and community ratings is to ensure that everyone – including healthy, young Americans – are paying for insurance as well. To cover the cost of reduced premiums on those with pre-existing conditions, everyone has to be paying into the pool.

So, if the mandate had fallen, so too would the entire premise of the Obama health care reform bill, and any hope of improvement for the American health care system.

It’s what makes Chief Justice Roberts’ decision so interesting. The vast majority of the frenzied predictions before the decision was announced last Thursday thought that Kennedy would be the one who decided the outcome – whether he voted to strike or uphold, he would decide the fate of Obamacare. And reports suggest that this was how it was originally panning out. But, Roberts apparently had a last-minute change of heart and abandoned Kennedy and the rest of the conservatives: Obamacare was worth saving and he was going to be the one to define the outcome, Kennedy be dammed.

More »

The Curious Case of Bev Oda and the $16 Glass of Orange Juice

11. July 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: Canadian politics, Foreign aid, International affairs · Tags: , , , , ,

Bev Oda / Courtesy of Creative Commons

So, we’re dropping the “latte loving leftist” attack now, right? I mean, after a Conservative cabinet minister supposedly married to the idea of fiscal restraint and good-old, main street Canadian values spends $16 on a glass of orange juice, we’ve pretty much incinerated the idea that only latte-loving, tree-hugging, bleeding heart liberals are elitists. (In case you have not been following this most expensive purchase of orange juice ever, we’re talking about International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda.)

More »

Moving beyond gun control

21. July 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: American politics, Canadian politics · Tags: , , , , ,

Courtesy of Miserlou, Creative Commons

It’s difficult to string together the words that describe the tragedy of gun violence – lives so inexplicably taken, lives full of hope, promise, dreams, and plans for the future. In recent weeks, too often we have had to absorb the news of one shooting rampage upon another. The Eaton Centre shooting in Toronto claimed the lives of two and occurred amongst the ordinary hustle of Saturday shopping. Last week, two people were killed and 23 were injured in another Toronto shooting which the police called “one of the worst incidents of gun violence in the city’s history.” And yesterday, 12 people were killed in Aurora, Colorado in a tragic rampage at a screening of the new Batman movie.

In the aftermath, politicians and activists have been quick to express condolences and so they should. Many have also started discussions about our policy responses to violent crime. Some have been chastised for politicizing tragedy.

More »

An open casting call for Romney’s No. 2

31. July 2012 · Write a comment · Categories: American politics, International affairs · Tags: , , , , , , ,

If Romney’s trip abroad was his audition for the world stage, the gong has been sounded, Sharon Osbourne just lit up the red x, and the theatergoers have fled the premises, cackling and jeering on their way out. A foreign trip is a risk for any presidential candidate – any minute not spent talking about domestic issues is a loss for the campaign. Even President Obama’s carefully executed and relatively successful foreign trip in the summer before the 2008 election put a bit of a dent in his poll numbers.

But, for Romney, this is more than a blip in the polls; this was a diplomatic failure – a failure so dramatic that it caused a British newspaper to shower their front page with the headline: “Mitt the Twit.” Questioning London’s preparedness to handle the Olympics and Great Britain’s spirit surrounding the event, speaking publicly about Britain’s hush-hush Secret Intelligence Service, forgetting the opposition leader’s name, and on and on. When the British Prime Minister and London mayor are both admonishing you in public – both conservative by the way – and a Palestinian leader is calling you racist, you know your diplomatic trip doesn’t exactly have your potential counterparts hailing to the chief.

So, conventional wisdom goes … Romney’s strength does not lie in foreign policy or anywhere remotely close to it. As a result, if America is going to be left with any diplomatic relations at the end of a potential Romney presidency, the Republican nominee is going to need to seek out some serious foreign policy experience in his vice-presidential pick.

Looking at the rumored shortlisted candidates, though, what do these potential no. 2s really bring to the table?

Condoleezza Rice

World Affairs Council

Earlier this month, Condi was the talk of the town. Drudge reported that she was Romney’s preferred candidate. 30% of Republicans chose her as their first pick in a public opinion poll. Wait. George W. Bush’s Secretary of State and National Security Advisor? That Condoleezza Rice??

She supported the war in Iraq, argued that a pre-emptive strike on a country completely uninvolved in 9/11 was wholly and completely justified, and condoned the Bush administration’s use of torture including waterboarding. And yet, Rice still has a mystifying popularity across the political spectrum.

C’mon … this was the woman that George W. Bush personally selected to be his foreign policy coach. Does anyone think that went over well? Do we really want Condi to be the one in Romney’s ear? Well, if she knows the name of Britain’s opposition leader, it actually might not be such a bad idea.

Rob Portman

Light Rider Photography

Republican insiders seem to think that this Ohio Senator and former Director of the Office of Management and Budget and US Trade Representative in the Bush administration is just the uncontroversial pick Romney is looking for. On the surface, he seems to fit the foreign policy bill – experience with trade agreements is exactly the kind of diplomatic experience Romney lacks. Digging a little deeper, though, Portman’s record on foreign affairs is questionable.

During his reign as US Trade Representative, America’s trade deficit with China increased by $228 billion. As Portman’s Senate opponent pointed out during the 2010 race, that accounts for 100,000 jobs lost offshore. Portman also advocated significant decreases in aid to developing countries, voted for the Iraq war when he was a US representative, and voted against reducing third world debt. Not exactly the stellar record one would hope for to give Romney some foreign policy gravitas.

Tim Pawlenty

Are Flaten

The best thing Tim Pawlenty has going for him is that he couldn’t muster the courage to attack Mitt Romney when he was his opponent during the primaries. Romney is grateful that Pawlenty’s trademarked phrase – Obamneycare – didn’t go viral. There’s also the suggestion that he would lend some foreign policy heft to the ticket.

While Pawlenty had a few encounters with foreign policy during his tenure as Minnesota Governor (including several high-profile trips abroad), Pawlenty’s “greenness” in world affairs is still starkly apparent. In a major foreign policy address when he began his failed 2012 presidential campaign, Pawlenty sounded a hawkish tone that scared even some Republicans. During a question and answer period, Pawlenty sought to assuage some concerns but remarking “we won’t invade every Middle Eastern country.” (Oh, good, my nerves feel better already.) He also said Obama was yearning to get close to Iran (It all makes sense… must be why Obama invited Ahmadinejad over for coffee). Oh, and he mixed up Iraq and Iran … didn’t we have enough of that with Sarah Palin?

In summary, let’s supplement Romney’s zero foreign policy instinct with a guy who wants to use the nuclear codes like they were index cards in his recipe box. Sounds fool-proof.

With Obama, the Democrats have finally broken away from Republican attacks on the party’s ability to handle foreign policy. A significant part of that is the invaluable sounding board that Vice President Biden (former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) has been. The administration’s success in that area is one where Obama consistently outshines Romney in public opinion polls. Romney needs to close the foreign policy gap. Judging by his options, though, there’s no Biden in the mix to steady Romney’s foreign policy course. If the London trip is any indication, that’s something that should definitely worry Americans.

‘President Paul Ryan’: The Apt Freudian Slip

11. August 2012 · 1 comment · Categories: 2012 election, American politics · Tags: , , , , , , ,

Governor Mitt Romney and vice-presidential pick Paul Ryan / Courtesy of: Mark Kauzlarich

Ever since Mitt Romney secured the Republican presidential nomination in late May, he has left voters guessing about what he hopes to achieve should he defeat President Obama in November. He’s taken every opportunity to criticize Obama’s stewardship of the economy and every element of his legislative record, most pointedly the Affordable Care Act.

But, rarely has he offered specifics about what he would do with the office and has largely disowned his own record of accomplishment as Governor of Massachusetts including Romneycare – viewed by many as the forerunner to Obama’s national healthcare plan – and has recently backed away from his private sector experience at Bain Capital following the relentless (and generally successful) attacks from the Obama camp.

Going into today’s announcement of Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate, Romney had generally framed this election as a referendum on President Barack Obama, the calculation being that the economy was enough for Romney to run on. Romney just hoped to be the beneficiary of anti-Obama sentiment without offering much of an alternative. With the selection of Ryan, Romney has reframed the election into a very clear choice between the progressive policies of the Obama administration and the “fiscal restraint by any means necessary” policies of the Romney/Ryan ticket.

More »

McGuinty, it’s time to stand with teachers again

19. August 2012 · 26 comments · Categories: Canadian politics, Education, Ontario politics, Post-secondary education · Tags: , , , , , ,

Education is among our most important collective pursuits.  Education improves human potential, can lift the impoverished out of poverty, and inspire a whole new generation of leaders to pursue their dreams and fulfill their potential. It is our most important investment in the future strength and sustainment of our economy.

Over the past eight years, the Ontario Liberal government has wholeheartedly supported this idea; they have recognized the importance of education in securing our futures. They have invested in early childhood education, creating 50,000 spaces for full-day Kindergarten and projecting up to 250,000 spaces in 2014. They have reduced class sizes in the primary grades, recognizing the importance of differentiated instruction and personalized learning. And, they have committed to post-secondary education, creating hundreds of thousands of new spaces, and recently offered post-secondary students a reduction in tuition costs. The Liberal commitment to education has been one of the main reasons I have supported the party during its tenure at Queen’s Park.

I haven’t been alone. The Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario (ETFO) has openly supported the Liberal government in the last three elections. The Liberal government deserves credit for the gains made in education.

But, actions taken by Premier McGuinty and Education Minister Laurel Broten toward teachers’ unions in recent days and weeks have been seriously disconcerting. At times, their comments have been heavy-handed and out of line.

More »

« Older articles