Speech Warriors™ : strike three

It's been a rough few days for Canada's Speech Warriors™.

Strike One: A "real court" upheld a CHRC ruling against neo-Nazi Terry Tremaine.

Strike Two: The RCMP completed its investigation of the CHRC for allegedly hacking into a private citizen's wireless internet account, and found no evidence to support the allegation. Ezra Levant exploded into a foaming frenzy upon hearing the news. He prefers to believe the neo-Nazis down at Stormfront, and insists that hacking did so take place, it did, it did, it did so too.

"The only question is whether that hacking reached the level of a crime; the RCMP thinks it didn't."

Uh, no, Ezra, that's not how it works, and as a lawyer you know better than that. Hacking is a crime. There's no magic point at which hacking becomes a crime. The RCMP didn't find evidence to support the allegation of hacking, period. Deal with it.

Strike Three: Dr. Richard Moon, who conducted an internal review of CHRC procedures with respect to the agency's investigation of Internet hate speech, has submitted his report.

The Speech Warriors™ have been eagerly awaiting this moment, having carefully hedged their bets: if it condemned the CHRC's procedures, this would be welcomed with applause, trumpets and banners; if it failed to do so, it would be because Moon was in a conflict of interest, it was an internal review by the CHRC, the mandate was too narrow, etc., etc.

Indeed, Ezra Levant attacked the report before it even appeared [h/t commenter truewest]. Not being blessed with foreknowledge, however, I actually had to wait to read it.

There's something in here for all sides of the debate to like and to dislike, as it turns out. Moon's measured analysis requires careful reading--one shouldn't just just skip to the conclusions. Some extracts:

The goal of ending prejudice in the community cannot be accomplished through censorship. The purpose of hate speech law must be more narrowly defined as the protection of the members of an identifiable group from the risk of violence that results from expression that threatens, advocates or justifies violence. While it is unrealistic to imagine that more familiar forms of discriminatory expression can be censored out of public discourse, the failure to ban the extreme or radical edge of prejudiced speech – that which threatens, justifies or advocates violence – carries too many risks, particularly when it is directed at the members of a racist subculture or occurs in a context in which there is little opportunity for response. This narrower purpose offers a better account of the actual practice of hate speech law in Canada, which focuses on the most extreme and hateful instances of expression. The small number of section 13 cases that have been sent by the CHRC to the Tribunal, and in which the Tribunal has found a breach of the section, have all (or almost all) involved expression that is so extreme and hateful that it may be seen as advocating violence against the members of an identifiable group. (28)

Most religions have something to say about how we should act towards others and the kind of community we should work to create. For these reasons, religious beliefs or values cannot be insulated from debate and criticism, even that which is harsh and uncivil. The criticism of religious belief cannot be restricted without undermining our commitment to freedom of expression. To count as hate speech against a religious group, the communication must target the members of the group, attribute to them certain dangerous or undesirable traits, and call on others to take violent action against them. However, the line between an attack on the group, which may sometimes amount to hate speech, and an attack on their beliefs, which cannot be restricted, may not always be easy to draw. (30-1)

Moon recommends the outright repeal of Section 13--or revision to it. As support for repeal, he argues that the current interpretation of Sn. 13 is already so narrow that it coincides, more or less, with the requirements of the Criminal Code's hate speech provisions. If it is repealed, he favours revising the Criminal Code to prevent the nullification of the law by provincial Attorneys General, who may presently withhold consent to proceed.(33) He makes a number of other proposals as well for increased reliance upon the Criminal Code provisions:

In the fight against hate on the Internet, police and prosecutors should make greater use of section 320.1 of the Criminal Code, which gives a judge power to order an Internet service provider (ISP) to remove “hate propaganda” from its system. Each province should establish a provincial “Hate Crime Team,” composed of both police and Crown law officers with experience in the area, to deal with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes including hate speech under the Criminal Code. (2)

In effect, he is proposing that much of what we would lose on the CHRC roundabout we would gain on the Criminal Code swings.

But most of the report, in fact, is taken up with the suggested revisions of Sn.13, and they make quite a bit of sense. If revision is the preferred alternative, he would restrict the language of the section to refer only to the advocacy of violence; and he would add an explicit intent requirement. Indeed, such a requirement would trump a truth defence, which he therefore does not propose adding (36-7).

Moon ventures into troubled water at one point: "In my view, a truth defence is not required because hate speech is necessarily untrue." (37). This is a little confusing, but his citation of Chief Justice Dickson on the previous page indicates a similar position on Dickson's part. The Chief Justice, in Keegstra, stated: "I find it difficult to accept that circumstances exist where factually accurate statements can be used for no other purpose than to stir up hatred against a racial or religious group." Anyone familiar with the sordid history of the Southern states knows better: using inflammatory rhetoric to emphasize the race of a Black person accused of raping a white woman, whether the charge was true or not, was sufficient to set off the lynch mobs.

But the objection to a truth defence is better stated immediately afterwards. No doubt thinking of Zundel's 1985 trial, Moon writes:

A truth defence will enable a respondent in a section 13 case to repeat her or his odious claims and make them the subject of legal contest. The focus of the case will shift to historical, sociological or psychological claims that are simply window dressing for more basic assertions about the dangerous or dishonest nature of the members of certain groups. While these claims will ultimately be repudiated by the tribunal, during the hearing they will be presented as debatable interpretations of events and actions.

Turning to the current procedures employed by the CHRC in investigating complaints under Sn.13, Moon makes what I believe to be very sensible recommendations, which in fact should be put into effect in provincial and territorial jurisdictions as well.

He makes the point that, as currently constituted, Sn. 13 requires dedicated activists (are you listening, Richard?) to breathe life into the section. In his view (38-9), this is unsatisfactory: the CHRC itself should take on the carriage of a case once a complaint has been submitted. One of the positive results of doing this, he argues, would be a more effective screening mechanism at the outset: complaints that are not simply vexatious or frivolous, but are not likely to meet the bar required for them to be upheld, can be weeded out instead of proceeding to the Tribunal. Bravo!

The Speech Warriors™ will not be happy with his further recommendations. Moon wants ISPs and the print media (oddly, the electronic media are exempted without explanation) to be accountable to the public in regard to hate speech. He proposes a national regulatory body for ISPs (41) and mandatory Press Council membership for newspapers (41-2). He makes an excellent general point in this respect:

The familiar refrain of those who oppose the censorship of hate speech or group defamation is that the answer to bad speech should be “more speech” – hate speech should be answered, not censored. But if we are serious about the “more speech” answer, then we must think about the real opportunities individuals and groups have to participate in public discourse and respond to speech that is unfair and discriminatory...

A newspaper is not simply a private participant in public discourse; it is an important part of the public sphere where discussion about the affairs of the community takes place. As such, it carries a responsibility not to defame or stereotype identifiable groups within the Canadian community. (41-42)

There is much here to chew on. Moon's proposals are clearly a balancing act between free expression on the one hand and social responsibility on the other. His impulse is democratic, and his report is a substantive contribution to the on-going debate.

I hope that revision rather than repeal is the chosen alternative primarily because the Tribunal offers relative ease of access to justice by the general public. The proposed revisions would not only streamline the process, but allow the screening out of ill-founded complaints from the start. In any case, a new round of discussions has now been ignited. One hopes that the Speech Warriors™ will focus on the substance of the report rather than engage in their usual personal attacks, but I'm not holding my breath.

Chuck Strahl's "colour-blind" racism

Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl has declared that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, intended to investigate in depth the experience of First Nations people under the residential schools system, needn't necessarily be chaired by an aboriginal person.

"The steps being taken to appoint a new chairperson to the [Commission] are based solely on finding the best person for this demanding job," he said.

Conservatives, of course, will lap this stuff up. Why should anything but qualifications matter? they will ask. Surely it's racist to hire on the basis of race or ethnicity, right? And then we'll get the inevitable out-of-context quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I listened to that speech live, incidentally, and I am fully familiar with its substance and with the context in which it was delivered. Dr. King was referring, optimistically, to a time in the future when racism would not even be a memory, a time in which all the scars of that vicious imposition had been erased.

That time is not now.

There is a difference between colour-blindness and merely keeping one's eyes shut. One doesn't have to fall into the excesses of identity politics to recognize that the effects of being racialized don't disappear overnight when overt discrimination becomes illegal. Poverty, despair, hopelessness, and major social problems including substance abuse and suicide, are all fallout from generations of ill-treatment by church and state. The playing-field isn't level, and it won't be for generations to come. It's disingenuous at best, racist at worst, to claim that it is.

Some find it convenient to blame the First Nations for the legacy of problems that Europeans left them: it's an obvious way to avoid responsibility for helping to put things right. But, on the other hand, decades of wildly shifting government policies--from assimilation to creating dependency to "benign" neglect--have made matters worse. Clearly First Nations are not the authors of their own misfortune, but they must be the authors of their own future. And this--the creation of just such a future, not the year-after-year maintenance of a Third World present--should be assisted by humane, well-crafted policies and the necessary resources.

In other words, there is some distance to go before "character" alone will determine one's social fate. We do not live in a world of equal opportunity: some of us happened to be born well behind the starting-line, and others halfway down the track. And the degree to which these accidents of birth can be traced to policies, laws and differential treatment in the past and in the present is the degree to which we must all assume our share of social responsibility.

That means, among other things, working together to get rid of systemic barriers--structures that prevent positive change, that perpetuate past inequities and hierarchies. And one of those barriers is a concept of "qualifications" that is abstract, ahistorical and inherently biased.

When I was a union official I once debated Strahl on CFRA on the question of affirmative action in the federal public service. The government of the day had brought in the Employment Equity Act to help address the obvious lack of representation of various groups within the public service and the employee complements of private employers. Strahl's view was that "merit" alone should determine who gets a job. Did that mean, I asked, that the underrepresentation of visible minorities and Aboriginals in the federal public service was entirely due to their lack of merit? I recall that he struggled with that one.

The concepts of "merit" and "qualifications" can prove to be heavily-laden value-judgements, not merely tools to assess measurable skills. "Finding the best person," were the words that Strahl used. What qualifications should be required to fill the job of chairing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission? Technical mastery of administrative detail? Analytical ability? Of course. But what about lived knowledge? Isn't it crucially important for the head of the Commission to be intimately, intuitively aware of his or her subject-matter? Or do Europeans, once again, know best?

None of this, of course, will cut any ice with the minister. Chuck Strahl has never had much time for aboriginal people. Here is a sampling of comments he made before Harper gave him his current portfolio:

• On gravel excavation by the Cheam Indian band: "I do not even think the land they scalped the gravel from is theirs." (The Canadian Index, May 17, 1999, Volume: Vol. 10, No. 14)
  

• On Native people: "In a recent Chilliwack Progress article, Strahl compared Cheam band members to 'children.'" (Canada News-Wire, September 13, 1993)
  

• On concerns that aboriginal programs for substance abuse, anger management and family violence were not being offered at a prison: "Strahl said he has little empathy for [this] position. Strahl said there is [sic] plenty of attempts to be sensitive to aboriginal culture in prison to the point at which other inmates, who are not aboriginal, are bitter about it. "If I got a letter like that, I wouldn't put it on my high-speed to do list." (Chilliwack Times, November 22, 2002)
  

• On aboriginal fishing rights: "The government has an obligation to all of its citizens, not just to select groups," said B.C. Reform MP Chuck Strahl. "It cannot allow the courts to draw racial boundaries through Canada's national resources." (Windsor Star, October 16, 1999)
  

• On the Nisga'a agreement: "Let us look at this Nisga'a treaty one more time. First of all it creates a state within a state, an idea which I think the Bloc Quebecois would find fairly palatable. This is sovereignty association in the heart of British Columbia." (Chuck Strahl, Hansard, May 4, 1999)

Obviously he was just the man, in Stephen Harper's eyes, to be the overseer (if I may use that term) of First Nations peoples in Canada. In office, Strahl quickly distinguished himself by vetoing a school for aboriginal kids in Attawapiskat: perhaps he believes that education is wasted on those savages.

And now the validity of the hard-won Truth and Reconciliation Commission, already in trouble before it's even underway, is under serious threat from this same government minister. The notion that such an investigation could be led by someone who has literally not walked a mile in First Nations moccasins is spurious to the point of fraud. If it's qualifications that are at issue, it is glaringly obvious that being raised as an aboriginal is a sine qua non to carry out a job that will require the utmost in sensitivity and the keenest awareness of cultural cues, nuances and meanings.

Make no mistake: pretending that someone whose only knowledge of aboriginal life is second-hand could be the appropriate leader of this extraordinary initiative is either stupid or racist. And Chuck Strahl is not a stupid man.

Sympathy for the devil

A little-noticed far-right-wing circle-jerk calling itself the Infidel Blogger Awards has completed its mission, and given a "Biggest Pro-Censorship Ass-Hat" prize to...

...none other than Charles Johnson, of Little Green Footballs. I post the link so readers not in the know may familiarize themselves with LGF: in a nutshell, it's a very popular anti-Islamist website.

Not adding up? Well, I've actually tipped a nod of approval Johnson's way in the past for being consistently principled: as obsessed as he may be, he will not make alliances with neo-Nazis and bigots jumping on the anti-Islamist bandwagon, and he's ripped the mask off some of those self-same neo-Nazis and bigots--and their enablers. Here's a little backstory.

Now, it appears that Johnson has about as much patience with trolls, racists and fascists as I do. He flings them off his well-travelled comments section with abandon; bounces them from his blogroll; denounces them in his posts.

This does not make some of the Usual Suspects very happy, of course. And so Charles Johnson, owner of a site whose anti-jihadism certainly appears sincere and extreme, eked out a first-place win over the latest Canadian far-right punching bag, Jennifer Lynch of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Somehow kicking people off one's own blog is now "censorship." Whatever. Wear your award with pride, Charles, and keep making those Nazis dance naked.

Sunday brunch

• "It’s laissez-faire until you get in deep shit." One of the best accounts of the Wall Street meltdown I have read to date.

• Teledildonics.
  
  
• Some BNP members. And their leader.
  
  
• Conservatives: the new liberals?
  
  
• Popular on-line bigot: gay is gross.
  
  
• Inconvenient news. [h/t]
  
  
• Dogs and bears at play:
  

Schadenfreude

Citizens of the UK get to know some of their neighbours a little better. And there are not a few surprises.

More at Harry's Place.

Full BNP list here.

H/t matttbastard

UPDATE: BNP Near Me.

UPPERDATE: "And finally, how ironic is it that the BNP leaders are bleating about their position under the Human Rights Act, something they claim they want to abolish." --UKIP leader Nigel Farage.

UPPESTDATE: Mr. Hilter throws a hissy-fit. [NB: Strong language--viewer discretion is advised]

The banality of evil

Hannah Arendt's phrase aptly describes this exchange of emails. The tone and substance of this dreck reminds me of the testimony of the vacant-eyed teenagers at the trials that followed the beating and drowning death of Reena Virk. Or the fatuous comments, made as part of a plea bargain, of the young savages who microwaved a family's pet cat and listened to it scream in agony for ten minutes:

"I'm really sorry for what I did and I can guarantee you it will never happen again."

"It's even an embarrassment to sports teams that I play on. I'm just sorry."

The thing that appalls is the commonplace, not the nightmare visions. How very ordinary Adolf Eichmann was. Leonard Cohen put it perfectly:

All there is to know about Adolph Eichmann

EYES - Medium
HAIR - Medium
WEIGHT - Medium
HEIGHT - Medium
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES - None
NUMBER OF FINGERS - Ten
NUMBER OF TOES - Ten
INTELLIGENCE - Medium

What did you expect?
Talons?
Oversize incisors?
Green saliva?
Madness?

It would be reassuring indeed if the perpetrators of these outrages had the appearance of monsters, to distinguish them from the rest of us. Wouldn't that make us feel safe, about others--and ourselves?

Keep your friends close...

...and your enemies closer.

I was initially appalled by the current Obamian exercises in "pragmatism," and my expectations of the Obama presidency remain low with respect to any fundamental change, for reasons that I have expressed earlier. But on reflection, there is something truly presidential in this manner of going about things. Not only does it reassure those who worried about the yawning gulf of change and transformation that appeared to be opening beneath them, but it effectively neutralizes some of Obama's most powerful opponents.

My eyes are on the Supreme Court, the only place at the moment that I can see Obama making a real difference. By January 20, inauguration day, five of the nine SCOTUS justices will be 70 years old or older. With a Democratic Congress, the potential for shaping the character of the court is great. If there is any substance to Obama's talk of change we can believe in, we will see it emerge down the road as the inevitable vacancies occur.

In the meantime, we progressives tend to feel betrayed rather too easily. Of course we dislike Joe Lieberman, for good reason, and Hillary Clinton reeks of the old political establishment. But Obama has to govern, and he can't do so from a bunker. He is being astonishingly careful and strategic. Check out some of his predecessor's picks for comparison--Linda Chavez (who didn't make it), John Ashcroft, other assorted pals and cronies, all chosen for loyalty and ideological correctness rather than ability. Obama, on the other hand, is a technocratic liberal who wants to get the job done, and a consummate politician surrounded by smart advisors as well.

Those from both sides of the political spectrum who expected Bill Ayers to be named as Secretary of Homeland Security and Jeremiah Wright as the new Secretary for Education will be bitterly disappointed, of course. But no apocalypse is looming, other than a possible financial one. Obama, with the best will in the world, has no power to transform America in any profound manner. The best he can do is to use his presidency to communicate alternatives, to point the way to a better future: and even to do that, he has to step very carefully indeed--as he is doing at the moment.

Speech Warriors™: some speech more equal than others?

How very odd.

The Usual Suspects have gone to the wall over the last several months (or is it years?) on behalf of various neo-Nazis and homophobes who have fallen afoul of sundry Human Rights Tribunals and Commissions. Free speech for all, it could happen to you, of course we don't agree with the speech in question, liberal fascism, commissars, political correctness, yadda-yadda-yadda.

More words have been uttered by these silenced folk on behalf of other silenced folk than you can shake a ukase at. The din of their silence has been deafening.

But now they've done a complete volte-face. There have been some recent reports that Queen's University has engaged "facilitators" to take on hateful comments when they hear them within the sacred grove of academe. If such speech is heard, these folks would reportedly offer some speech of their own, explaining why such comments are hurtful and offensive.

Turns out this was all a false alarm, but the reaction of the Speech Warriors™ has been telling.

For the Warriors, we now discover, only some speech is acceptable. This sure isn't. Why, speaking out like this is--an assault on free speech. Thought police. Intolerant. Thought-nazis on a rampage. Blockleiter.

"Are there places in Canada less free than her institutions of higher learning?" laments Damian Penny. "Kathy [Shaidle] was dead accurate when she named her book, 'The Tyranny of Nice,'" harrumphs Jay Currie.

In case you've missed the drift here, be sure to read the comments at some of these places, suggesting physical violence against anyone foolish enough to open their mouths in this way.

Any civilized person should speak up, of course, when homophobic slurs and so on are uttered. It shouldn't take hired facilitators to get the job done, even if this were actually happening.

But that's not the real issue here. It seems that hate speech of all kinds is to be defended to the death. The Speech Warriors™ have made it their mission to support the right of every last neo-Nazi, homophobe and Islamophobe in the country to trumpet their hate to the world.

But speaking out against it? Why, this is simply not to be tolerated. Shut it down. Write letters to Queen's University. Boycott the place. Kick the speakers in the nads.

Very revealing.

UPDATE: (September 22) The normally urbane and civilized David Thompson: "Will they dare to be surprised if their presumption meets with emphatic resistance and, one hopes, an occasional fit of violence?"

When capitalists run aground...

They beg for handouts.

They whine for pardon after being convicted of crimes--and expect others to pay the cost of the whine.

They loot the treasury on the way out the door.

Corporate welfare bums, anyone? Entitlement mentality? Socialism for the rich? The heads of righteous conservatives must be exploding just about now.

Funny how you never hear leftists in a jam suddenly calling for free markets, property rights and amassing individual wealth. Oh, whoops. Besides that. :)

Excuse me. My head hurts.

More on the Difference Between Sexism and Misogyny.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Republicans: The Economist just about says it all

This is probably the best summing-up of the tactics, strategy and supporters of the GOP that I have ever read. In a magazine that I've always viewed as conservative!

H/t Noni Mausa via CC

Expediency trumps accountability and compassion.

There was a demonstration outside Saint-Paul University today. Theology, canon law, pastoral studies and other related academic disciplines are taught there. Saint-Paul is part of the University of Ottawa.

Placards carried by the protesters claimed that the respected learning institution had become a sanctioned refuge for a Roman Catholic priest who was charged, and found guilty of sexual assault on an eight year old girl and making inappropriate gestures towards another.

Montreal Simon blogged about this here. This priest, who was awarded a scholarship by the Montreal diocese has become a lightning rod for the unresolved and contentious relationship the Roman Catholic Church has with adult survivors who suffered sexual abuse as children at the hands of priests. The attitude and actions of clergy who hold high positions in the Church does much to trivialize the harm, injury and trauma done to families whose trust in the justice system was often betrayed (and their children re-victimized), and little to advance healing.

With their characteristic arrogance, the Fathers of the Church persevere in believing that they have the power to forgive the criminal transgressions of priests (in the rare cases where they are forced to acknowledge the facts before them) and to chose the form of rehabilitation that they deem suitable. And so they continue to evade responsibility for the systemic sexual violence that the Church tolerates.

These members of the higher clergy - bishops, arch-bishops, cardinals, theological scholars, even the Pope - are wrong. Only the victims - girls and boys then, adults now - have the the moral and spiritual authority to forgive their abusers.

Note: Saint-Paul is affiliated to the University of Ottawa and thus retains some autonomy, such as its Catholic ascendancy.

Kate's Krazy Krew

To be called a "homophobe" by an anti-Aboriginal blogger who makes excuses for neo-Nazis and jokes about the Holocaust is a perverse badge of honour, like being called an "anti-Semite" by David Duke, or a "racist" by Tomasz Winnicki. Kate McMillan seems to have mistaken me for one of her friends.

It appears that I have given offence for stating the obvious: that organized homophobia is far more prevalent on the Right than on the Left. And for asking the question: why would some gay folks (or people of colour, for that matter) find a home in the Conservative Party of Canada?

In case right-wingers need a reminder, and are not simply being disingenuous, the recent campaign in California over Proposition 8 was bankrolled by conservative Mormons, not leftists, and closer to home in 2003 the then-Alliance party, led by some guy named Harper, took a hard line against civil marriage for gay couples. Boycotting the Walt Disney Company for being too gay-friendly has been a right-wing pastime, not a progressive one. Conservatives, not left-wingers, opposed the inclusion of "sexual orientation" in Canadian hate-speech legislation.

Rather stony ground, I would have thought, for a gay person. And making that trite observation, according to an individual who proved to be too rabid even for the conservative Brad Wall administration in Saskatchewan, supposedly makes me a homophobe.

Nope. I think that word applies more accurately to some of her regular commenters, whose sneering hatred proudly adorns her posts. But, after all, expecting honesty from Kate McMillan is a bit like expecting light humour from Stephen Harper. One doesn't exactly hold one's breath.

Gazan civilians threatened with starvation

Once again, Israel engages in collective punishment, a war crime under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Israel conducted a cross-border raid into Gaza at the beginning of this month, and killed six Hamas militants. That wasn't a violation of the current ceasefire, we are asked to believe. But when Hamas retaliated with rockets, once again they were branded the aggressor. And once again, Gazan civilians are facing serious privation. The latest reports indicate that a limited amount of aid has been permitted across the border, in what has been likened to "drip-feeding."

Business as usual in the Middle East. And no criticism of Israel to be found in the Western media--although some has appeared in the Israeli media. Not that any journalists have actually been permitted to enter Gaza.

UPDATE: (November 18) The Dust My Broom crowd, not content with promoting sexual assault to sort out their political opponents, is all over me on this one, joined by another blogger who appears to think that the "babies of terrorists" are fair game.

Bits 'n' bites of real life

Back to the world outside the Winnipeg Convention Centre.

• A burning cross--why, just the thing for Christmas! And you get to put it on your own lawn for a change. (Other commentators are being much too kind, I think, in attributing this to ignorance.) Meanwhile, in another part of the forest...
  

• Bruce Clark takes a harsh look at the restrictive mandate of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This is the body established to probe the treatment of First Nations children in residential schools, which is having some trouble getting to the starting gate.

• The city of Vancouver is once again in good hands: the developer-friendly "Non Partisan Association" has been reduced to a single seat. Makes the prospect of attending the Liberal leadership convention (should I get accredited) just a little sweeter.

• Nice to see the RCMP is setting some standards for new recruits. Polygraph tests are now being administered, and such character flaws as having sex with animals, committing outrageous acts while drunk, and thinking too seriously of suicide will keep you out of the red uniform. (Tasering old guys in hospital beds, killing with impunity, and pepper-spraying Native babies are apparently perks you have to earn on the job.)
  
  As reported in the Globe and Mail, an RCMP spokesman says it's too early to tell whether these tests "are effectively reducing the number of Mounties suspended from duty due to criminal activity." But at least the horses may be breathing a little easier.
  

[H/t Balloon Juice, via CC; Red Tory; Meaghan Champion]

Sore Thumb Chronicles: blue fog journey

Re-entry took a little longer than I'd planned: I spent most of yesterday somewhat the worse for wear, hanging around in airports and reading The Yiddish Policemen's Union.

So what have the last few days been about? T.S. Eliot puts it best:

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow

--

Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow

And Freud nailed it in a different way--the Winnipeg Toryfest was a clash between the pleasure principle and the reality principle. The deformed vision of the base--roll back sixty years or so of labour relations, legitimize hate speech and de-legitimize human rights, launch a stealth pro-life manoeuvre, take a shot or two at immigrants and Aboriginals, privatize healthcare, etc.--engaged in a battle with the world of the pragmatists, the people who actually have to govern and get re-elected.

The question, of course, is whether this pragmatism is fundamental or strategic. Whatever one thinks of the Liberals, they are wedded to pragmatism as a principle--politics is the art of the possible, as a tough old German chancellor, no liberal himself, once put it. Are we seeing, as some of the base have begun to suspect, the rise of a new Liberal party from the ashes of the old?

Not likely. As I noted in an earlier post, Stephen Harper himself, in his keynote address, sent a few signals that he was still in touch with his troops. But he must, of course, perform a difficult balancing act. He can't bring in the Conservative maximum program all at once. He's only managed a second minority, a shaky mandate that needs shoring up. He has to bring a lot of voters on board. Incrementalism is the only way forward. The calculation is, how much of his base will erode as he makes his strategic moves. Since he's the only serious conservative game in town, my bet is that he might annoy the more inflamed reactionaries, but at worst a few of them will stay home on election day.

But vision, it must be said, did win out over pragmatism during the heavily stage-managed policy discussions. The blue sweater of moderation that the backroom folks have been trying so hard to get everyone to wear simply didn't fit. Yet this is classic Overton window stuff, in the cold light of day. The baying from the fringes will continue to make Harper look moderate in comparison. In that sense, it is in the long-term interests of the base for Harper to ignore their frantic cries in the short term.

Nevertheless, it is sobering to see a roomful of Conservative rank and file, under the full glare of the national media, revert to a state of nature as they did. One felt like tossing them a Liberal just to see what would happen. If the brains of the party are in the PMO, the soul of it was revealed on Saturday.

Now I hasten to add that, up close, the delegates were not all clones of each other. There were a few mournful red Tories in the bunch, and some Blogging Tories came over to say hello in a friendly way: Stephen Taylor, Fred Litwin of Gay And Right, Christian Conservative (who gets a hat-tip for helping me with a computer glitch I was having), and Pomo Christian. Most delegates, however, gave the media types the hairy eyeball. I'm looking at currents and tendencies here in any case, not at individuals.

But I may as well confess that it bothers me when I see gays, people of colour and so on attach themselves to a party whose ideological core is so antipathetic to who and what they are. Fred has launched a group called Gay Dominion, which at this point has four members. (Montreal Simon, for one, is less than kind about this initiative, and I suspect, from the other side, that some of Fred's compatriots might fuss about the notion conveyed by the title.) Pigmentation on the convention floor was scant, but it was in evidence nonetheless.

"False consciousness" comes to mind, but for a number of reasons I'm not attached to that concept. I see it simply as profound confusion. Now, the Right always pounces when we make that kind of observation--somehow they see it as imposing leftist ideological correctness upon women and minorities. Not guilty. I don't expect all human beings to be ideologically coherent. There have even been Jews and Blacks who have reportedly joined the KKK, after all. But the contradictions, at least from my perspective, seem excruciating. Comments on this point are welcome.

In any case, as we continue our journey into the blue fog of Conservative governance, we'll see if Harper is able to keep both his balance and his momentum. I suspect that he will, while the leaderless, rudderless Liberals try to rebuild with a mountain of debt. For the latter, pragmatism has always served the ends of power and perks, not ideology. In Harper's hands it is a tool to remould the country. Just watch him.

Sore Thumb Chronicles, Day Three: Cthulhu rising

[T]here is no language for such abysms of shrieking and immemorial lunacy. --H.P. Lovecraft

The morning began quietly enough, with a report by Irving Gerstein, chair of "Conservative Fund Canada," the party's war chest. He presented a disturbing picture of a solvent, well-heeled organization, with sound and prudent financial management.

This was followed by consideration of the ten constitution resolutions that made it to the plenary. There wasn't much debate on most of them: the chair frequently pleaded for people to speak in the negative.

Then, in the afternoon, the policy resolutions came to the floor. And Cthulhu broke free from his foul undersea cave.

The pragmatists won a battle or two. P-106, which would have enshrined health care privatization, went down because, as Stephen Fletcher said at the mic, passing it would "bring fodder to our enemies." Noting that many medical services are already private, he asked delegates to "let the invisible hand of Adam Smith" take care of medicare. Another opposition speaker asked, "Why feed the press this all-day sucker?"

But the creature soon began to stir. P-113, the "three strikes and yer out" resolution, passed with a substantial majority. One intrepid delegate spoke against it, asking "How many more jails are we going to have to build," and urging rehabilitation as an option. He was roundly booed. Repealing the "faint hope clause" (P-114) is now policy: "Let's make a life sentence a real life sentence," said one delegate, to considerable applause. Another described the CPC as "the party of security."

P-202, which seemed to have been re-written to affirm the entire Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was intended simply to affirm the notwithstanding clause. That was made clear during the debate. Some opposed the resolution because it supported the Charter. That document, in fact, is not well-loved in this crowd. Frequent SDA commenter Gord Tulk referred to it as "a deeply flawed document," and another speaker simply said "Support Trudeau's legacy? Wow."

Gutting Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is now CPC policy: it passed nearly unanimously. No surprise there. One speaker, to thunderous applause, claimed that this section penalized people for "expressing an opinion or telling the truth." Edmonton-Centre MP Laurie Hawn said the section had been abused "by activist groups" to punish "legitimate if controversial views."

Readers might want to remind themselves of just who have had complaints against them upheld: a squalid collection of neo-Nazis and vicious homophobes, whose sick slobbers of hatred have now been magically transformed into "truth" and "legitimate...views." The bald-head beer-halls will be drunk dry tonight.

It became pretty obvious that the "protecting pregnant women" resolution (P-207) was all fetuses all the time. "There are two victims," said the opening speaker. "We want the law to recognize that." One brave woman went to the mic to express concern about freedom of choice on abortion, and was roundly booed. Another opponent urged, well, pragmatism: the party caucus was working on some "aggravating factors" legislation, he said, and passing this would give opposition parties ammunition. He may as well have tried to hold Cthulhu's head underwater. The motion passed with ease.

Opposition to women's right to equal pay for work of equal value (P-213) is now CPC policy. There was, however, opposition. One woman delegate didn't like the wording change that replaced "gender equality through all policy and legislative considerations" with more specific language. She thought it narrowed the scope of the original. And a male delegate opposed the resolution--because it mentioned women only!

P-218, which wags a finger at immigrants, also passed overwhelmingly. One delegate, speaking in opposition, thought that the language of the resolution created "static values" and replaced the notion of a Canadian mosaic with that of a melting-pot. I suspect this went over most delegates' heads.

Resolution P-233, to audit the First Nations to death, is in the Conservative policy-book now as well. An Aboriginal woman went to the mic to oppose it, but was only able to express her opposition, leaving without making an argument. She sounded deeply hurt.

Making union participation a voluntary matter is also official Conservative policy as of today. The cant-phrase "right to work" was used by the first speaker. The pragmatists argued, in vain, that this was a "redundant, needlessly provocative" resolution. One speaker who ran in this past election said it would "kneecap us as candidates" in various ridings. But the Conservative Party is now, effectively, committed to repealing the Rand Formula.

I am in need of some serious drinkage tonight. First the Mondragon with some progressive comrades, and then some Indian food nearby--I don't do Vegan. Tomorrow, some closing ruminations.

Sore Thumb Chronicles, Day Three: policy resolutions, quick tally

Just so you all know just what happened here this afternoon. A longer post will follow.

Resolutions can be found here. NB: The content of the resolutions below is as worded in the Convention document. The descriptions do not always accurately convey the actual substance of the resolutions.

P-106 (healthcare) Defeated.
P-110 (at-risk workers) Carried.
P-113 (dangerous offender status) Carried.
P-114 (faint-hope clause) Carried.
P-119 (human trafficking) Carried.
P-202 (affirm Charter) Carried.
P-203 (Human Rights Commission jurisdiction) Carried.
P-207 (protecting pregnant women) Carried.
P-213 (women) Carried.
P-218 (diversity principles) Carried.
P-222 (temporary workers) Carried.
P-223 (program coordination and outcome audits) Carried.
P-301 (new securities regulator) Carried.
P-303 (capital gains) Carried.
P-305 (income splitting) Carried.
P-306 (Tax Code simplification) Carried.
P-308 (striking workers) Carried.
P-321 (agricultural trade agreements) Carried.
P-101 (climate change in the North) Carried.
P-104 (energy from garbage) Carried.
P-105 (offshore oil and gas development) Carried.
P-111 (complementary health) Defeated.
P-122 (veterans principles) Carried.
P-205 (advancing arctic sovereignty) Carried.
P-208 (student loans) Defeated.
P-209 (EI for summer students) Defeated.
P-307 (innovation) Defeated.
P-311 (invest in arctic research) Carried.
P-312 (long-term energy framework) Carried.
P-316 (rural family businesses) Defeated.

Now I need to take a deep breath and count to ten. Back soon.

Sore Thumb Chronicles, Day Three: behind the barricades

I am writing this from my perch in the great hall of delegates, to which and to whom we have been granted access. I'll blog the results of the plenary debates when they come up a little later in the morning.

Thirty policy resolutions and ten constitution resolutions have made it this far. (Original resolutions here.) Ryan Sparrow has been making nice, hanging around the media section and affably answering questions. As for Dmitri Soudas, the target of more than a little bitterness in the media room yesterday, he apparently took a plane out of town this morning: a CPC official joked that his car to the airport "looked very much like a getaway vehicle."

Among the policy resolutions to be discussed are the "Lemire Resolution" (P-203) and the "Ken Epp Memorial Not About Abortion Resolution" (P-207). Stay tuned.

Which way will Harper jump?

Already the lines have been drawn.

George W. Bush:

After presiding over some of the most dramatic market interventions in U.S. history over the past two months, President Bush came to Wall Street on Thursday to urge world leaders not to venture too far down a path of government interference in capitalist economies. Speaking to a conservative audience at historic Federal Hall, Bush sharply criticized proposals for aggressive regulation and control over financial markets while simultaneously defending his administration's broad efforts to support the credit and housing sectors over the past two months.

Nicholas Sarkozy:

European policy makers are hoping to extend financial regulation to more players, from rating agencies to hedge funds. They also want to introduce more transparency into the so-called shadow banking system that has grown up outside the regulatory system, so that balance-sheet black holes at major banks are spotted sooner, rather than later. And they want to give the International Monetary Fund more money and more power as a global financial watchdog, even if might lead to diminishing the clout of Europe and the United States within the IMF to make room for China, India and other big developing nations.

Oh-là. Préparez vos mouchoirs. Will Steve be dumping George?

Sore Thumb Chronicles, Day Two: 10:00am presser

Stephen Harper, obviously not yet departed for the G-20 gathering in Washington, showed up to deliver a brief statement about the world economic crisis. "Canada," he said, "is coming to this meeting from a position of strength."

His focus was the economy--period. Our system of national regulation, our best in the world banking system, and so on. Unregulated world markets are dangerous, he said, and given the reluctance of sovereign states to an international system of regulation, a peer-review system of national financial systems is the way to go. Und so weiter.

He clung to his message like a limpet. Would the new regime in Washington force him to "realign?" No. We have a world economic crisis to solve, and Canada comes to it from a position of strength...

What about the convention, swirling around us, just out of sight like the seaside tropical beaches "close to the hotel?" He just blew all that off. Term limits for Supreme Court of Canada justices? Well, ours is a big, inclusive party, he said, and he'll take a laisser-faire attitude to all this. Hélène Buzzetti of Le Devoir asked about the sealed-off convention workshops, bluntly referring to Moscow and Beijing news management. Harper's response was simply that this was up to the party. He did everything but give a Trudeau-style shrug.

On his "pragmatism v. ideology" comment in his keynote speech last night, his one example was Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty's intervention in our economy, in what he called an "unprecedented" fashion. That's pragmatic, he said: Conservatives don't favour a lot of state intervention. But Flaherty did it, he went on, without costing the taxpayer a dime, and without nationalizing anything.

It was an amazing performance, in a way: this was the real world, while somewhere in the distance the delegates to this policy convention are off amusing themselves. No one will be permitted to be off-message in Harper's shop--and certainly not the party faithful. If they want to do that sort of thing, they will be shielded from the media.

After the presser, CPC press liaison Dmitri Soudas was mobbed by angry media. They picked him up on his inaccurate claim that this was the same policy that was in effect three years ago, and generally took him on, but all they got was the usual.

But the good news is that we can attend the plenary session tomorrow, where the workshop recommendations will be on the floor.

In the meantime, possums, a delegate was kind enough to give me the entire gen-in on the "Social and Democratic Framework" workshop. So here you go:

P-201. Fixed terms for Supreme Court of Canada judges. Defeated.
P-202. Support for Charter including notwithstanding clause (wink, wink). Passed.
P-203. Essentially get rid of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Unsurprisingly, passed overwhelmingly.
P-204. Transparency and accountability. Defeated. Concern was apparently expressed that the resolution would compromise quasi-independent agencies like NAVCAN. Make of that what you will.
P-205. Arctic sovereignty. Passed.
P-206. Elected senators from the Territories. Defeated. This was considered superfluous, because the CPC supports an elected Senate in general.
P-207. The disguised fetal rights resolution. Passed.
P-208. Cutting back on student loans, but letting kids with rich parents have access to what remains. Passed.
P-209. Abolition of student contributions to EI when working summer jobs. [I didn't get the result here.]
P-210. SSM issue. Defeated on a close vote--because delegates are still hoping that Parliament will define marriage as between and man and a woman.
P-211. SSM again. Defeated, for the same reason.
P-212. Abolishing position on childcare. Defeated.
P-213. Abolish notion of equal pay for work of equal value. Passed.
P-214. Homelessness. Defeated.
P-215. Urban issues. Defeated.
P-216. Mass-marketing fraud. Defeated.
P-217. Wireless telephone industry. Defeated.
P-218. Finger-wagging on "Canadian values." Passed.
P-219. Amateur sport. Passed.
P-220. Amateur sport again. Passed
P-221. "Genuine" refugees. Defeated. The notion of "criminal record" was deemed to be too vague.
P-222. Immigration by temporary workers. Passed.
P-223. Aboriginal affairs--program coordination and outcome audits. Passed.

Enough is enough. I'm off for a Winnipeg nip. More anon.

Sore Thumb Chronicles, Day Two: Paranoia

The morning began badly. I was at the Centre by about 7:35. I entered by the side door and tried to go down the breezeway I had used yesterday to get to the front.

> Sorry. Doors are locked.

So I headed to the media pen and tried to go through that iron curtain I mentioned yesterday.

> Closed to the media until 8:00.

> How do I get to Rooms 2 and 3? [Where social policy is being debated]

> Just go to the media room. You'll be told where you go and what you do and so on.

Jim Travers from the Toronto Star came by. Seems we won't be allowed into the debates.

What?

Yup. I flew all the way here for very little, as it turns out. Sorry, readers, no blow-by-blow on fetal rights and the Human Rights Act and fixed terms for SCC judges and "three strikes and yer out" legislation. Maybe they'll let us know what happened. There will be "press availability" at 10:00--in the pen.

Transparency. Openness.

I mentioned the hostility with which the media are being treated here. "Sore winners," Jim said. "Back-to-back elections and they still do this. I have no idea why. There just giving rise to suspicions that may be groundless."

It was past 8:00. I went back to the curtain.

Yeah, you guessed it.

> Closed to the media.

> It was supposed to be open at 8:00.

> You were misinformed.

That's a cop with a sniffer dog during the setting-up for the presser . The latter seemed to take a fancy to me. Two dawgs on a leash.

If more than ten reporters show up, there will be a list. Manage, control, spin.

The frustration in the pen is palpable. "May as well spend the rest of our time in a bar," one journo said. But the bars don't open until 11:00.

Sore Thumb Chronicles, Day One

Fear and loathing in Winnipeg

I got down to the Winnipeg Convention Centre in plenty of time: registration didn't officially begin until noon. It was easy to find, because the immediate area was chock-a-block with police. Inside the Centre, why, more police, and numerous yellow-shirted security folks as well.

My credentials were hard to locate at first, but a kindly official whom everyone seemed to recognize led me past a security checkpoint to a media table. They were waiting for me (the credentials, not the police), and off I went to the media room, after paying a stiff price for wi-fi.

Three more uniforms passed by. I asked the nice woman at the door if this level of security was usual. Oh yes, she said. We have RCMP and city police here. And dogs.

> Why. Are you expecting trouble?

> No, it's just to be secure.

> Have there been problems in the past?

>No.

Around two o'clock or so, I got a mite peckish. The nice woman at the door told me to "go through those curtains." Security stopped me. No access to media. I explained to one of them what a "blogger" was. I was directed down the hall and to an elevator, after being assured that a cafeteria here at the Centre would serve the hunk of meat that I suddenly wanted.

I took the elevator, sharing it with two curly-wire-to-earpiece types in suits, to the ground floor. I walked down long corridors and found myself at the escalators. More security bore down on me.

> Where are you going?

> I'm hungry.

> Sorry, the cafeteria is off-limits to the media.

Meanwhile, delegates wandered around with their little white plastic suitcases, convention kits like I have never seen before--I'm used to those burlap bag thingies. Two of them introduced themselves to me as I drank a beer at the Elephant and Castle across the street.

The holding pen

3:35: The curtain to the second floor across from the media room is still made of iron, it seems.

> We've been told to let no media through.

> What's there?

> To tell you the truth, I don't know.

But the nice woman at the desk tells me that she's sorted things out with the head of security, and tomorrow we can access the cafeteria.

The mood in the media room is sombre. I heard one fellow refer to "Siberian exile."

Jim Flaherty emerged to talk to the media in our little ghetto. Tough economic times, he said, and we haven't bottomed out. The sale of Crown assets came up, and he joked about selling off the CN Tower. What about the CBC? No intention of touching that, he said--the cost to the taxpayer is $1 billion or so, but it's "part of Canada's fiscal framework." What about the AECL? He left without answering. So is there a suggestion behind all of this that public assets are on the table? The media folks near me were speculating in the affirmative.

Around 4:30 or so I heard that the media could move to the third floor by way of the North-West elevator. Up I went. There was the convention hall, nearly deserted. I took a seat near the podium and listened to Stephen "Jap Bastards" Fletcher, our new Minister of State for Democratic Reform, rehearse his speech. He's sprouted a truly magnificent beard. Everyone will be asked to wear red tomorrow to support our troops, he said, even if that hue is associated with the Liberals.

"It's time to take the colour back," he said, " since the Liberals have done nothing for our brave men and women in uniform."

That ought to be a crowd-pleaser, I thought, whatever the heck he meant by it.

Just then Ryan Sparrow caught sight of me, and came over to suggest that I "go get a bite to eat and come back at 6:30." I can take a hint, and returned to the pen.

Let's get this party started

I sat among the delegates, waiting for the opening ceremonies. I watched endless slides on the big screens at the font of the room: Harper hugging a child, Harper pushing a baby carriage, Harper at the piano, Harper plucking a cello, Harper with his family. Only one shot left him out--four attractive girls wearing T-shirts reading "I've got a crush on Harper." Now, that's really pushing it.

I wondered if the delegates were being given a message--kinder and gentler is in. A pretty good tape was playing, too: "Taking Care of Business," "Crabbuckit":

No time to get down cause I'm moving up
No time to get down cause I'm moving up
No time to get down cause I'm moving up
Ahh, haa... check out the crabs in the bucket

The crowd was fairly ordinary, and white for the most part, and dressed in everything from pinstripes to shirtsleeves. I was the only one wearing a Stetson--are you supposed to take it off indoors or something? About half an hour late, the festivities began.

We watched two acrobats climbing giant tassels, and then we listened to an spectacularly awful song by some girls in blue that appeared to be an example of the new Christian music that the fundies love--something about "You will never take away my name," followed by endless Hallelujahs.

The first speaker opined that there is "Nothing finer than a roomful of Conservatives." Personally, I disagree with that statement. I'll avoid coming up with counterexamples, but reader comments are welcome. Then: "four beautiful words--Prime Minister Stephen Harper."

The mayor of Winnipeg welcomed everyone, and some MP on-stage told us that the mayor had booked Pink Floyd, Paul McCartney and the Rolling Stones into Winnipeg back in his entrepreneur days--"just warm-up acts for Stephen Harper," he had the colossal crust to say, and then, "he plays a mean piano." Careful with that axe, Eugene.

Fletcher appeared, and laboured through his speech, and the crowd surely did love the reference to taking back the colour red, and chuckled appreciatively at the dig about the Liberals.

This was followed by "our secret weapon," Laureen Harper, who performed competently, assuring us that Stephen is a really nice guy. Meanwhile people in the audience waved signs reading "Real Plan," and "Un Vrai Plan." I have no idea what they were on about. Someone had a sign that said "Harper Rocks." I thought that was pushing it, too.

Then the Headman arrived, and made his way to the stage while people chanted, "Harper, Harper, Harper...." On the stage, his hair was gray, but on the screens it somehow was made to look brown. He performed well, led the crowd through the ascendency of the party from those dark days in the wilderness, and talked about how inclusive the party, now "Canada's party," had become: a party that had the first Black MP, the first Muslim MP, the first Hindu MP, the first Chinese MP, the first Japanese MP....

Again, that message of moderation to the base, although some dogwhistles were blown: "register sex criminals, not the property of farmers and duck-hunters," he said, to thunderous applause. The Conservative Party supports childcare, he said, "not to replace the family but to support the family." That got one of the loudest cheers of the evening.

And, at the end, he underlined what had been his underlying message all along: we need to be tough and pragmatic, he said, not ideological.

Tomorrow, the debates on policy resolutions. We'll see just how well Harper's message of moderation went down.