About that Petition Against Sun TV…
September 3, 2010 | 1 Comment
Well, if you weren’t following the Canadian twitterverse today, you missed a bunch of stuff. Apparently, someone signed the names of numerous journalists to that slightly paranoid petition Avaaz.org set up to fight Sun TV (aka ‘Fox News North’). Even Tory Keneycke (the man behind Sun TV) had his name affixed to the petition.
Well, CBC’s Kady O’Malley did some digging (and way too much twittering for her sanity, though just enough for the enjoyment of the rest of us) and found out a few things:
Right about the same time that the above showed up on my screen, my phone rang, and it was none other than my twitter correspondent himself [Kory Teneycke]. He confirmed that his source was, in fact, the person who had added those names to the petition, apparently to prove “what a joke” it was, what with the complete absence of any sort of verification process that would prevent someone with mischief in mind from doing — well, pretty much exactly what his correspondent did.
…
This afternoon, I spoke with Avaaz executive director Ricken Patel — who had just wrapped up a pretape of a debate with Teneycke that will run on tonight’s edition of Power and Politics. He told me that, although they still hadn’t identified the source, they have “tracked all of the suspect names to a single IP address,” and that it appears that “a good number of the journalists who were fraudulently added were from the same source that added the Snuffluphagus” — which would, of course, be the very same correspondent who tipped off Tenecyke to the fake names in time for him to include them in his column today.
…
Just I was writing up the above chronology, I got another call from Teneycke, who told me that he’d asked his correspondent whether he had added the journalists’ names as well as the joke submissions, and he denied it. Which means that unless and until Avaaz provides the IP logs from last night — which could present privacy concerns if done publicly — it’s Patel’s word vs. that of Teneycke’s unnamed and confessed-fake-signature-submitting source.
In the end, does much of this really matter (aside from prominent journalists wanting to clear their names – that I understand). We’ve got a silly ill-formed online petition “maliciously attacked” as it lobbies for the CRTC to block a new news channel. Sure, I see no reason to get excited about Sun TV, but I’m no more excited about CBC Newsworld. I’m down with altering the CRTC so that it treats the two stations equally… even if it requires some – gasp – political manoeuvering. When will someone start an online petition for that?
Wait, forget I asked that…
Tags: Avaaz > CRTC > Fox News North > Kady O'Malley > Kory Teneycke > Sun TV > Twitterverse
An Interview with Dr. Alex Himelfarb
September 3, 2010 | 2 Comments
Anyone who has paid any attention to the Census debacle has probably heard or read the name Dr. Alex Himelfarb. Dr. Himelfarb has been a stalwart opponent of eliminating the long form nature of the Census or making it voluntary and a defence of former Chief Statistician Munir Sheikh’s actions with regards to the Census that was written by Himelfarb was quoted by Sheikh when he spoke to a Parliamentary committee on the matter.
But aside from the Census brouhaha, Dr. Himelfarb is an academic, former public servant, and commendable Canadian with a long and exemplary background.
Dr. Himelfarb was a Professor of Sociology at the University of New Brunswick from 1972 to 1981. During this period, he undertook an Executive Interchange with the Department of Justice as Head of the Unified Family Court Project from 1979 to 1981.
In 1981, he joined the Public Service with the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada. He has held a number of positions of increasing responsibility since that time, including Director General, Planning and Systems Group, Planning and Management Branch with the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada; Executive Director of the National Parole Board; Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Social Policy Development with the Privy Council Office; and Associate Secretary of the Treasury Board. While serving as Associate Secretary of the Treasury Board, he also headed the federal Task Force on the Social Union. In June 1999, Dr. Himelfarb became Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage.
He then served as Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet from May 2002 until March 2006 when he was nominated as Ambassador of Canada to the Italian Republic with concurrent accreditation to the Republic of Albania and the Republic of San Marino, and as High Commissioner for Canada to the Republic of Malt.
Currently Dr. Himelfarb serves as Director of the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs, at York University. Dr. Himelfarb also leads the Centre for Global Challenges which, stressing the interplay of domestic and global issues, brings together decision makers, researchers, practitioners, and students to explore challenges confronting Canada in a changing world.
Last week Dr. Himselfarb wrote a piece for The Mark entitled, Why We Vote Against Our Interests, in which he discussed the need for democratic renewal in Canada. Excited by his analysis, I contacted Dr. Himelfarb to see whether he would be wiling to engage the ideas he expressed in the piece in greater detail. Dr. Himelfarb was kind enough to accept the invitation and the ensuing exchange appears below the fold.
If you are interested in reading more from Dr. Himelfarb — and I can’t recommend doing so enough — you can read his blog at http://afhimelfarb.wordpress.com/
Tags: civic engagement > civil society > democratic renewal > electoral reform. Dr. Alex Himelfarb > NGOs > voluntary organizations > voter turn out
On Protests Against “Fox News North”
September 3, 2010 | 3 Comments
This quote has always stuck with me and comes to mind any time these types of debates arise:
“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” – Noam Chomsky
Opportunities Lost
September 3, 2010 | No Comments
Some Liberal bloggers are cautiously celebrating the recent EKOS Politics poll that shows the Liberals and the Conservatives as once again locked in a statistical tie vis-a-vis voter intentions. The part of the EKOS write up on the results that most grabbed my attention was the following,
Although the Liberals are doing better than they were at the outset of the summer, this may be more of a story of Conservative losses. A re-examination of leader approval ratings reinforces this conclusion. Michael Ignatieff may be getting better press coverage, and his party has at least temporarily drawn even with the Conservatives, but he still suffers from the lowest approval rating of any of the party leaders (22%). This figure has changed little over the last few months, but this new found party parity, as well as the Liberal Party’s strength with the highly educated ( a group rich in opinion leaders), may yield future benefits.
I can’t shake the feeling that Liberals have missed out on a massive opportunity, here. The drubbing that the Party experienced in both the 2006 and the 2008 elections had a lot of Liberal analysts scrambling to try to figure out how not to sound a long term death knell for Liberals federally. That the Liberals have managed to remain as viable as they have and come back to be such a thorn in the Conservatives’ side as quickly as they have is no doubt to the credit of its organizers and strategists.
But this temporary tying of the Conservatives seems to be about as far as those efforts are destined to take the Liberals. Read more
Tags: Liberal Party of Canada. Stephane Dion > Michael Ignatieff > party renewal > Pierre Elliot Trudeau
I Bet Lady Justice Isn’t Wearing Underwear
September 3, 2010 | No Comments
I really haven’t much time for “scandals”. There’s often little that’s scandalous, and even less that’s newsworthy. However, responses to “scandals” can get pretty irritating. Case in point: Alice Woolley from National Post. Apparently, she’s really interested in the sex lives of judges:
Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas, of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench has temporarily stopped hearing cases pending the resolution of a complaint made against her to the National Judicial Council. As is now well known, the complaint against Douglas arises from the posting of sexually explicit photographs of her in an advertisement on an interracial website. The ad sought a “smooth black male or Mexican” to meet with Douglas and her husband “to seduce her with the intent of getting her enmeshed in the submissive, multi-partner, interracial sex scene.”
At the time the ad was posted, Douglas and her husband, Jack King, were lawyers at the Thompson, Dorfman and Sweatman firm. Douglas was, her husband says, entirely unaware that the pictures had been posted on the Internet. She only learned that the pictures had been posted on the site after one of King’s clients, Alexander Chapman, complained that King was harassing him to have sex with Douglas. In 2003 Chapman and King reached a settlement of Chapman’s complaint. And, two years later, Douglas was appointed to the bench.
All right. This is, perhaps, embarrassing, and is certainly unusual, but I’m still waiting to hear what disqualifies her from being a judge. Prof. Woolley continues:
The problem with the Douglas appointment is not that King took pornographic pictures of her. Nor is it just that those pictures were posted on the Internet. The problem is that her knowledge of those pictures prior to her appointment undermines the already fragile legitimacy of our appointments process. Applicants for judgeships are asked, “is there anything in your past or present which could reflect negatively on yourself or the judiciary, and which should be disclosed?” The question asks applicants to provide the committee with the information necessary to make a fair and appropriate assessment of the applicant’s qualifications to be a judge.
In this instance Douglas had to answer “yes” to that question. The question does not ask “would you in fact be a good judge?” It does not ask “is it fair that these things will make you or the judiciary look bad?” It does not even ask whether it is certain that facts will reflect negatively on the applicant or the judiciary. It asks simply whether there are facts about you that might call the judiciary into disrepute. The fact that pornographic pictures of Lori Douglas were used to solicit black men for kinky sex meets this standard because it calls into question how her judgment and fairness will be perceived by people who appear before her. If Douglas did not answer yes to that question then the process has been undermined by her misleading and incomplete disclosure.
No, Ms. Douglas could have correctly answered, “no, there is nothing in my past or present which could reflect negatively on myself or the judiciary.” Here’s this situation (according to Prof. Woolley’s account), her a–hole husband posted “personal” photos of her online. That’s it. That’s a black mark against her husband, not her. Being sexually confident and having a jerk of a husband do not disqualify you from being able to be a judge.
This puritanical drive to enforce a specific notion of decency on every aspect of anyone even close to being a public figure is quite distasteful. Decency would be better served if we all could just acknowledge that humans are sexual creatures, and stop blaming people for the misdeeds of others.
I think I’d much rather have Chief Justice Douglas judging me than Prof. Woolley.
Tags: Alice Woolley > Chief Justice > Judiciary > Lori Douglas > Manitoba > Sexuality
The CRTC Makes the Rules
September 3, 2010 | 3 Comments
In a recent post, I noted two posts by Adrian McNair; one of which I disagreed with; one of which I agreed with. To mix things up, I thought I’d make a note of one of his posts that I both agree and disagree with (and, in case Mr. McNair finds this post, I had planned on writing about this topic anyway, then stumbled across your post and decided to include it, hope ya don’t mind).
Here’s how he starts:
Apparently literary legend Margaret Atwood has signed a petition attempting to keep “Fox News North” off the air. Ms.Atwood says it isn’t the channel per se, but the idea that the Prime Minister could exert undue influence on the network and its message:
“Of course Fox & Co. can set up a channel or whatever they want to do, if it’s legal etc.,” she told The Globe and Mail in an email. “But it shouldn’t happen this way. It’s like the head-of-census affair – gov’t direct meddling in affairs that are supposed to be arm’s length – so do what they say or they fire you.
“It’s part of the ‘I make the rules around here,’ Harper-is-a-king thing,” she wrote.
But this is precisely the problem, isn’t it? I mean, the whole “I make the rules” quote is an out-of-context media contrivance that has been repeated ad nauseum for the past few days to the delight of many who remember George W Bush’s “I’m the decider” remark. Taking quotes out of context, portraying the Conservatives as interfering in independent government agencies, and repeating the scandal-stirring sound bytes is the modus operandi of the mainstream media news at present.
Injecting something new into the the media stream can only be a good thing. And a writer like Ms.Atwood should know better than that.
I’m sorry, but I just can’t get behind this. First off, “I make the rules” reminds me a lot more of “Just watch me” than it does “I’m the decider”, but that’s a minor quibble. More importantly, how has anyone taken the “I make the rules” out of context? Sure, it’s been blown out of proportion, but it really was a healthy bit of Prime Ministerial hubris.
Nonetheless, when it comes to the meat of his post, Mr. McNair is bang on:
As for the online petition that Ms.Atwood signed, it reads:
“Prime Minister Harper is trying to push American-style hate media onto our airwaves, and make us all pay for it. His plan is to create a ‘Fox News North’ to mimic the kind of hate-filled propaganda with which Fox News has poisoned U.S. politics. The channel will be run by Harper’s former top aide and will be funded with money from our cable TV fees!”
Actually, no. The channel wouldn’t be bought by anybody who doesn’t want it. The CRTC made sure of that. It’s the CBC that we’re all forced to pay for, whether we think its drivel or not, running David Suzuki documentaries and providing reasoned debate and balance with the left and the farther left.
It is only accurate to suggest that the Conservative government will “make us all pay for” this new channel in the sense that the CRTC rules with an iron fist, forcing channels onto cable providers, whose services the rest of us then choose to purchase.
Still, I’ll support the Avaaz petition if we tweak it so that it addresses the actual culprit. Let’s just ditch the CRTC.
Tags: Adrian McNair > Avaaz > CRTC > Fox News North > Just Watch Me > Pierre Trudeau > Stephen Harper > Sun TV
Putting the Whip to Partisanship
September 2, 2010 | No Comments
If you don’t know, there’s quite the discussion going on in response to Nick’s recent post, Why not dismantle party discipline? Readers Stageleft and Max Fawcett are doing much of the discussing, but ChrisinKW and R. Mowat have played their parts also… in fact, the whole gang took it over to twitter for a bit (by the way, we’re @thecommonsblog, and you can find the rest of the crew by checking out the people we’re following).
Anyway, Stageleft decided to take up arms at his eponymous haunt; here’s a taste:
The discussion that developed is whether or not party leaders should have the power to compel, on threat of punishment, caucus MPs to vote on a given issue the way they are so ordered by the party leader; regardless of what their constituency may think of the matter.
My position on this is known and can be summed up with the following question, “are MPs sent to the House of Commons to represent their constituents, or are they sent there to represent the will of their party leader?“
So, pop over to Stageleft, or comment on Nick’s post, or just take up the fight here.
Personally, I’ve just been enjoying the back and forth too much to stick my nose in… I’m sure that won’t last long.
(By the way, there was no attempt to rhyme with the title of this post. Sometimes these things just happen.)
Spreading Baseless Accusations About Tamil Refugees
September 2, 2010 | 2 Comments
This time, it’s not The Sun, it’s Adrian McNair at Libertas Post, and this idea about a secret government survey proving beyond mathematical certainty that the vast majority of Tamil refugees are scam artists keeps on rollin’.
This Toronto Sun article about Tamils doesn’t really surprise me a whole lot. The article cites a government survey which reveals that most successful Tamil refugee claimants return to Sri Lanka after receiving their papers.
Okay, again, no, the government “survey” reveals nothing much at all about the claims of Tamil refugees. It’s rumour, not evidence. However, I agree with Mr. McNair; I was none too surprised. The Sun, like many – if not most – media outlets, has a tenuous-bordering-on-imaginary grasp of anything at all relating to maths. Spreading more innumeracy is hardly shocking.
I will give Mr. McNair credit, though. He at least backs up baseless rumour with an anecdote:
Shortly after receiving his papers, my Colombian climbing partner returned to his homeland for a two-month visit and climbing trip. For him Canada was a safer place to live but it was by no means his salvation. There’s no question that his life was not in immediate peril in Colombia. He was no more likely to be kidnapped or murdered by FARC than any other resident of Colombia.
Not long after my friend won his bid to stay in Canada but after he had returned from his Colombian vacation, he moved to British Columbia where he would find new opportunities for rock climbing. This, he told me in 2002 before his claim was accepted, had been his ultimate goal. While being free from a vague threat of violence was a bonus, he was really in Canada for the rock climbing.
All right, so now we know that some unknown number of Tamil refugees may have traveled back to Sri Lanka and one Colombian refugee traveled to his home country between rock climbing expeditions in B.C. So, yeah fine, maybe we need to re-examine our refugee process (though Andrew Coyne’s bottom-of-a-boat screening process is pretty appealing), but that doesn’t mean we should spread untruths about people who have just landed from a country torn apart by civil war.
(On an unrelated note, this isn’t the first time I’ve written in opposition to something Mr. McNair has written, so in the interest of fairness, here’s a post I heartily endorse.)
Global Cities Index 2010 released…
September 2, 2010 | No Comments
As an update to the piece I posted a few weeks ago about Toronto’s global city status, Foreign Policy have released their global cities index for 2010. The over arching trend is a movement from West to East however the old school power houses still remain at the top of the list. New York, London, Tokyo and Paris are still the big four. Toronto is weighed in at 14th and many cities that appeared on the index last year have vanished. For a look at the index and other information visit Foreign Policy. According to Foreign Policy:
‘We are at a global inflection point. Half the world’s population is now urban — and half the world’s most global cities are Asian. The 2010 Global Cities Index, a collaboration between Foreign Policy, management consulting firm A.T. Kearney, and The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, reveals a snapshot of this pivotal moment. In 2010, five of the world’s 10 most global cities are in Asia and the Pacific: Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, Sydney, and Seoul. Three — New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles — are American cities. Only two, London and Paris, are European. And there’s no question which way the momentum is headed: Just as more people will continue to migrate from farms to cities, more global clout will move from West to East’.
Toronto, ON. Ranked 14th.
F-35 Stealth Jet Fighters and Canadian Interventionist Skepticisim
September 2, 2010 | 4 Comments
Impolitical does yeoman’s work in debunking the bind myth around what promises to be Canada’s most significant military expenditure ever,
Portraying us as having no choice, we’re in too deep, it’s too costly to get out. Except, not so much.
There is no deal right now, to purchase these F-35s, contrary to the CTV headline on its story. The PM’s presumptive spin doesn’t make it so. They’ve announced an intention to purchase, that’s all. No deal is to be signed until 2013. This is why there could indeed be a competition among manufacturers so that a process is competitive and we wouldn’t have to live in fear of any one contractor and supposed ramifications (“…by having a competition, Canadian firms potentially stand to reap more industrial benefits as aerospace firms jockey to win such a significant contract.“).
Further, it has to be pointed out that contrary to the major spin yesterday, any arrangements we’re presently entwined with Lockheed Martin for are structured with an exit and minimal penalty:
In 2006, the Conservative government signed an agreement that would commit Canada to contributing $551 million U.S. between now and 2051. That would cover Canada’s portion of equipment and development needed for its share of the JSF planes that it wants to purchase.
That memorandum allows for a country to pull out of the agreement, with aerospace industry officials noting the penalties at this point would be small as Canada has yet to order aircraft.
It’s not as clearly negative as the reporting yesterday would have you believe. And as for those allied nations we might anger, many of them are having doubts about their F-35 purchases too in an era of tightening military budgets and questions being raised there too about the need for combat fighter jets (Denmark, the Netherlands, Britain). It’s another red herring of fear for you.
I’m willing to bet that you can count the number of days before proponents of the F-35 expenditure start trotting out the, “Why do you hate the troops?” argument against opponents on one hand. Haranguing the Liberals for offering opposition to what has been a characteristically secretive process, Harper pointed out, “[i]t was the Liberal government that in 2002 committed Canada to the development of this aircraft.”
The program itself, and Canada’s involvement, stretches back to 1996.
What is worth noting, whether you choose to focus on 2002 or 1996 as your point of reference, is that there has been a real sea change in terms of public opinion about the effectiveness of military force in geo-political affairs and foreign policy. If 9-11 was a game changer as far as terrorism is concerned, then the 2003 US decision to invade Iraq and the protracted and largely ineffective war in which both Canada and the US have been engaged in Afghanistan have been game changers vis-a-vis the use of military might. Read more
Tags: Afghanistan > Canada > F-35 stealth jet fighters > interventionist skepticism > Iraq > public opinion > US