2015 Canadian Federal Election Archives

FTB Podcast #13: Canadian Election Results, Bernie Sanders and Sergakis Update

Panelists Quiet Mike, Josh Davidson and Jerry Gabriel discuss our new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the defeat of the NDP and the overall results of the Canadian Election and Bernie Sanders and the US Democratic Debate. Plus a Sergakis Update and Predictions.

Host: Jason C. McLean
Producer: Hannah Besseau

Panelists

Quiet Mike: Editor-in-Chief of and columnist on QuietMike.org

Josh Davidson: FTB food columnist

Jerry Gabriel: FTB contributor

* Please note: This podcast was recorded prior to the events in Paris

FTB Podcast #13: Canadian Election Results, Bernie Sanders and Sergakis Update by Forget The Box on Mixcloud

FTB Podcast also available on iTunes

Microphone image: Ernest Duffoo / Flickr Creative Commons

News Politics

What Went Wrong With the NDP Campaign and How to Fix It

Theories trying to explain just what went wrong with the NDP campaign have been as prevalent on my Facebook newsfeed this past week as posts about how cool Trudeau is and analysis of the new Star Wars trailer (it’s awesome, btw).

There are three main arguments being put forward. Each has its merits:

It’s Because of the Niqab!

Party insiders, defeated (and elected) MPs and now even leader Tom Mulcair himself have laid the blame squarely on the niqab. Specifically, they blame the race-baiting tactics employed by Harper and reinforced by Gilles Duceppe for their defeat.

Since NDP Orange Wave seats came largely at the expense of the Bloc Quebecois, Duceppe was able to mobilize xenophobic members of their former base and make the NDP look weak, or at least weaker than they looked before, in fortress Quebec. When people in other parts of the country saw this happening, the Anyone But Conservative crowd collectively decided that if the NDP couldn’t hold Quebec, voting Liberal was the only way to ensure a Harper defeat.

Awkward Bearded Man in a Suit Trying to Smile

Every politico worth their salt knows and loves The West Wing, so the easiest way to explain this theory of defeat is to reference the show, in particular the episode The Two Bartlets. NDP strategists took a street fighter and a damn good parliamentarian and forced him to run as Uncle Fluffy.

When Tom Mulcair railed against Bill C-51 while being rained on at a demonstration in the streets of Montreal a few months before the campaign started, it was magic. Angry Tom was in his element. The Harper Government ripping apart the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is definitely something to get angry about.

It worked. Too bad NDP strategists opted to take a different road for the campaign. Tom Mulcair in a suit, the same suit each time it looked like, talking in measured tones and cracking a forced smile.

They also chose to make the campaign about him. Focusing on the ensemble of talented MPs and candidates with Tom at the centre leading the charge would have been a much better strategy. You should only make it all about the leader when the leader exudes charisma.

Running a Jack Layton campaign only works with Jack Layton as leader. Focusing on a leader who isn’t all that charismatic and not being used to his full “angry” potential when one of your opponents is Justin Trudeau is just bad strategy.

Sharp Right Turn Alienated the Base

While the NDP started off the campaign strong with a principled stand to the left opposing and promising to repeal Bill C-51, they soon tried move themselves to the mushy middle. On the economy, they overshot their goal and found themselves to the right of the Liberals.

Sure, it may have seemed like the only option at the time. The NDP saying it was going to run deficits would have caused some to say “look at those socialists, can’t manage money.”

True, the Liberals can get away with promising deficits in a way the NDP cannot, but surely some strategists in Mulcair’s inner circle knew that and could have predicted Trudeau would make an economic play to the left. Mulcair’s zero deficit promise helped further alienate a good chunk of the party’s social democratic base.

I say further because Mulcair had already damaged relations with the base a few weeks before by refusing the nomination and candidacy of candidates who had been critical of Israel during the bombardment of Gaza a year earlier.

So What Was It?

Which one of these theories is correct? They all are.

The niqab debate did hurt the NDP much more than it hurt the Liberals. It was the spark that pushed the party to third place in the polls.

However, if the base had been solid instead of pushed to the sidelines, those who had all but given up on the New Democrats wouldn’t have been saying “you see, I told you so!” Instead they would have been devoting every second of their spare time to counter Harper and Duceppe’s poison pill on social media, on the phones calling voters and door-to-door.

Likewise, if Mulcair had been allowed to be Angry Tom, he could have got mad at the race baiting and explained clearly, as he did with C-51, why it was wrong. If the campaign wasn’t just about him, his co-stars, the candidates, could have taken some of the heat off on a much larger level.

It’s possible the NDP would have still finished in third place, but it would have been a much stronger caucus, one that may have eliminated the Bloc, too. It may have even been strong enough to hold Trudeau to a minority.

So What Happens Now?

Along with calls for Mulcair to resign, I have seen total disbelief that he hasn’t done so yet and that the party hasn’t forced him to. It makes more sense, though, if you look at NDP history.

On one hand, this is the most catastrophic defeat the party has ever suffered. On the other, with 44 seats in the House of Commons, this will be the NDP’s second largest caucus since the formation of the party, beating Ed Broadbent’s 1988 total by one seat.

Then again, Mulcair was elected leader, over the misgivings of some of the party faithful, on the promise that he could win. Not just do better than Ed Broadbent, but continue what Jack Layton started and form government. On that promise, he failed to deliver in a spectacular fashion.

I think the best course of action would be for Mulcair to announce his resignation as leader, to take effect when a new leader is elected. I hope he stays on as an MP, as he is a strong presence in the House of Commons. He’s a pitbull, but not a Prime Minister.

The NDP should elect a charismatic, preferably bilingual, social democrat as leader. Alex Boulerice springs to mind, so does Nikki Ashton. Now that vote sharing with the Liberals won’t be an option, maybe even Nathan Cullen, with some French lessons, could work.

If Mulcair does decide to stay on, though, and the party doesn’t force him out, he should admit all the reasons why he failed this past election and make changes accordingly. Otherwise, what happened to him and the NDP last Monday could end up being a preview of worse to come.

News Politics

Justin Trudeau Liberal Majority: Progress or Back to Where We Were?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. That’s something Canadians had better get used to hearing for at least the next four years, maybe longer.

I’ll be the first, and certainly not the last, to admit that it has a much better ring to it than Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Then again so would Prime Minister Elizabeth May or Prime Minister Tom Mulcair, hell, I could even live with Prime Minister Ben Mulroney or Prime Minister that guy who works at the dep near my house and lets me use Interac for under $5 (not the strongest on the economy, but a real man of the people).

After close to a decade of destroying everything it means to be Canadian and a few months of trying to get us to hate our neighbours, Stephen Harper had to go. And now he’s gone as both Prime Minister and apparently (though not officially yet) as leader of the Conservative Party as well.

Canada’s Obama?

If you went on social media at all yesterday, you were most certainly greeted with jubilation in the form of celebratory status updates and memes like this one:

And this wasn’t just from your usual cast of politically-fixated characters, either. It seems everyone was jumping on either the Harper’s Gone bandwagon, they Yay Trudeau bandwagon, or both.

Globally, this is playing as a great victory for progressives. While Democracy Now hosted a cautiously optimistic discussion, most of the international coverage has been celebratory. The UK’s Daily Mirror even asked if Trudeau was the sexiest politician in the world, comparing him to the likes of shirtless Putin and Obama.

Come to think about it, style-wise, Trudeau is Canada’s Obama as much as Stephen Harper was our George W. Bush and our Dick Cheney rolled into one. He’s a young, charismatic politician who talks a very good game. He even used “Real Change” as his campaign slogan and comes across as a real man of the people.

Just look at him shaking hands at Jarry Metro hours after winning:

A lot of what Trudeau said during the campaign sounded great, so did quite a bit of what Obama said back in 2008. But just how much of what he promised or seemed to promise did Obama actually accomplish? And, now more importantly, just how much of what Justin Trudeau said that he would do or implied that he would do will he actually do?

It’s Not About the Leader, It’s About the Party

Unlike American politics, in Canada it isn’t all about the name at the top of the ticket. In fact, only voters in the Papineau riding actually got to vote for the name at the top of the winning ticket this time. Despite Harper’s attempt to turn the Prime Minister’s Office into a sort of Oval Office and muzzle MPs who disagreed with him, that’s really not how it works here.

If you want to know if Justin Trudeau will bring the change he is promising or if he will simply take advantage of all the Omnibus bills Harper passed without being blamed for them (he already ruled out repealing the horrific and completely unneeded C-51) you have to look beyond him and his charm to the party he represents.

After almost a decade of Harper rule, it’s easy to forget that the Liberals are actually regarded as Canada’s natural governing party. One thing they are known for is campaigning to the left and then, once in power, making a sharp right turn.

They are populists who promise what they think most people want to hear. They keep only the promises they want to (or the ones their financial backers want to) and those they can’t avoid. This is in contrast to both the Conservatives and the NDP, who are ideologically-driven parties of principle.

Generally, this means they will get their progressive social policies through. We got marriage equality under Chretien, a Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Pierre Trudeau and we will probably get pot legalization under his son, even though that was bound to happen anyways.

When it comes to economic issues, that’s another story. Sure, Trudeau will probably run deficits as he promised, but I would be really (and pleasantly) surprised if they were actually used to combat austerity.

One of the saddest things to happen in this election is the defeat of several prominent and very progressive NDP MPs, including two former leadership candidates, Jack Layton’s replacement in Tortonto-Danforth and a huge chunk of the Orange Wave. Some were experienced MPs, others had found themselves working their first job in politics. All were committed, in one way or another, to social justice.

Trudeau, on the other hand, is bringing more conventional political types with him to Ottawa. He’s also bringing Bill Blair. Yes, the same Bill Blair that was Toronto Police Chief, Harper’s police chief, during the massive police repression at the G20 summit. He is now a newly elected Liberal MP. Is this guy really what passes for “real change” these days?

Sure, Trudeau is likable, but his MPs, for the most part, pale in comparison to those who are out of work or never got the chance.

Back to Where We Were

Stephen Harper was an aberration in Canadian politics. Canada is a centre-left country. The fact that such a regressive administration could hold power for so long is abhorrent.

Ten years ago we had lived through over a decade of Liberal rule and were ready for the next step in our evolution. A step that would have seen Canada become a real progressive nation, a social democracy with the size and scope that would make us unparalleled in the western world, but instead of moving forward with the NDP we jumped back, way back, with the Conservatives.

A Liberal Majority government is not progress. We have simply returned to where we were before Stephen Harper took power. Progress is ahead of us, I know it, I feel it, but we will have to wait at least four years for it to happen.

All that said, Stephen Harper is gone and we should rejoice. Justin Trudeau is our Prime Minister and we have to accept that. Who knows, maybe he’ll prove me and all the skeptics wrong, I sincerely hope so.

Until then, we should be vigilant and make sure that he sticks to what he promised and push him to do more. It’s all about social movements now. Sure, he’s not as easy a target for progressives as Harper was, but that shouldn’t make a difference.

If Justin Trudeau thinks that people on the political left wouldn’t dare hold his feet to the fire given his newfound popularity and the fact that he isn’t Harper, I have three words for him: just watch us.

News Politics

Forget the Box Readers Endorse the NDP in our #ELXN42 Poll

The votes are in. No, not the votes that determine who will sit in the next Canadian Parliament and who will be our Prime Minister for the next few months or four years, those come later tonight.

I’m talking about the Forget the Box #ELXN42 readers’ poll. We opened the poll a few days before the official election announcement and it closed at midnight.

Since this was an extremely long campaign, it’s possible people who voted early may have changed their mind, but that was not a possibility. The flipside of this is that people couldn’t cheat by changing IP address. One vote per person, or per device and IP.

The Winner: NDP

137 poll respondents chose Thomas Mulcair’s NDP, which translates to 51% of the vote and a clear victory for Team Orange among FTB readers. I’m not in the mind of everyone who voted in this poll, but my vote went the same way as the majority of respondents, so I can speculate as to why the New Democrats won.

After close to 10 years in power, people are sick of Stephen Harper and want to replace him, but they don’t want to do that with a party that has voted with him on some of his more egregious bills.

The NDP has vowed to repeal C-51, the so-called anti-terror law which leaves what constitutes a terrorist open to interpretation by the government du jour but imposes strict punishments for even “promoting terrorism.” They will also do away with C-24, the companion bill that creates second-class Canadian citizens who can be deported if they are labelled terrorists under C-51.

Mulcair has also promised an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women within the first 100 days of an NDP mandate. He also says he won’t honour Harper’s signing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

These issues may have been reasons why FTB readers chose the NDP. Presumably, they also weren’t fond of banning Muslim women from wearing a niqab, or at least not enough to vote with that issue in mind.

Also, voting strategically to defeat Harper makes considerably less sense on the Island of Montreal than it does in the rest of the country. Here the Conservatives realistically have a shot of winning just one riding, Mount-Royal.

Runner Up: The Liberals

Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada finished in second place in our poll, though remain in first in the recent major polls. On the FTB poll, they got 82 votes which translates to 30%. They aren’t that close to the leading NDP, but are much closer to them than they are to any of the parties on the bottom of the pack.

Since I didn’t vote Liberal, I really can’t be sure why a bunch of our readers did, but I can guess. It could be because of Trudeau’s personal popularity or people thinking that they had the best chance of defeating Harper. It could also be for their policies which differ from the NDP. Trudeau’s promise of outright pot legalization comes to mind.

The Rest

Surprisingly, the Conservatives got 11 votes on our poll, giving them the third spot, followed by the Greens with six votes in fourth and the Bloc Quebecois and Pirate Party of Canada tied for fifth with five votes apiece. The other parties and the “there’s an election” and “none of the above” options all got fewer than five votes each.

I would have guessed the Greens would have done better, at least better than the Conservatives. Maybe Green supporters voted for either the NDP or Liberals, though strategic voting on a poll that doesn’t actually count for anything except this endorsement article makes no sense.

Regardless, those are the results of the 2015 Forget the Box election poll. There’s still time to vote in the actual #ELXN42. If you haven’t already done so, you can find out how at electionscanada.ca

* Featured image by Patrick Imbeau via Flickr Creative Commons

News Politics

#ELXN42: What it Would Take for Each of the Parties to Win

It has all come down to this. Tomorrow night we will know the result of #ELXN42, the longest Canadian Federal Election campaign in recent memory.

With millions of votes already cast in advance polls, no more nationally televised debates left, and no real time for new media stories (except for huge ones) to take hold, it’s all about the ground game now. All the parties know it and have been sending their armies of volunteers out to knock on doors and call voters all weekend and will quadruple their efforts tomorrow.

At this point, I think the election is still too close to call. Sure, each party will tell you that they are headed to victory and so will their pundits, but what will it actually take for each of them to win?

Well, here is my analysis, in the order the parties are currently polling nationally:

The Liberal Party of Canada (LPC)

They started at the bottom and now they’re here. On top of the polls. For this to become reality, recent polls need to be right as well as mainstream media predictions.

For Justin Trudeau to become our next Prime Minister, corporate pundits need to be correct and not just thinking wishfully. Or, they have to be powerful enough that their pieces cause their wishes to be fulfilled.

If enough Anyone But Conservative voters, particularly those in Ontario, think the niqab issue damaged NDP chances of retaining Quebec and lined up behind Trudeau, the Libs may pull it off. That is if the last minute scandal surrounding Dan Gagnier, their now former campaign co-chair/Enbridge lobbying tutor doesn’t take hold.

The Conservative Party of Canada (CPC)

Stephen Harper is a master electioneer, but his strategy may have finally caught up with him. Making it a super long campaign and then throwing a curveball covered in a niqab at his top ranked orange opponent late in the game was a brilliant, though morally bankrupt, strategy.

If the campaign had ended two weeks ago, it may just have worked. However, it’s possible things may have gone on just a bit too long for the Conservatives. Even Lynton Crosby, the so-called Australian Karl Rove, has jumped ship.

Crosby’s strategy is still at play, though. If Harper hopes to remain Prime Minister, Canadians not only need to be as xenophobic as he thinks, but their prejudice needs to be the first thing on their mind when they go to the polls.

Endorsements from corporate media at the behest of their owners could also help bring about a CPC victory as well as support from the wealthiest Canadians. Niche campaigning from the likes of the Ford brothers could help, too, but statements critical of Trudeau having smoked weed do more harm than good when they come from Doug Ford, an (alleged) former hash dealer and brother of admitted crack smoking mayor.

Plus they could always cheat.

New Democratic Party (NDP)

Remember when I said that the ground game is the key? Well, that applies to the NDP more than any other party. With poll numbers sinking, the local candidates and their campaigns have the best chance of reassuring voters that a vote for the NDP is the best way to defeat Harper.

It would take a superb ground game this time out for Thomas Mulcair to become Prime Minister, but it is possible. Recent polls being wrong would help, too. Keeping the Quebec seats they won during the Orange Wave and adding a few more is essential, so the Bloc really needs to implode more than they have been.

They would also need a strong First Nations turnout, which may happen. Mulcair spent much of the last two weeks campaigning in First Nations communities promising an almost immediate inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, nation to nation dialogue and more. It may pay off in ways other than bolstering his progressive credentials.

Mulcair has been impressive even since the party’s poll numbers started tanking. He kept his cool in the TVA French debate and in a recent interview on Vice. That could help. The Gagnier scandal growing legs would help, too.

Green Party (Green)

The Green Party’s ultimate goal this election should be to retain the seats they have and win as many new ones as they can. If they succeed, they could end up wielding some power in a minority parliament.

Most of those seats will probably come in the west of the country where the party has been focusing their efforts. If their ground game was solid, they very well may achieve that goal. If not, well, as long as Elizabeth May still has a voice in Parliament, the party will not be in bad shape.

Bloc Quebecois (BQ)

For the Bloc, a victory is the majority of seats in Quebec. That’s just not going to happen.

At this point, the Bloc winning any seats would be impressive. If leader Gilles Duceppe wins his back and overall they top their 2011 seat count of four, it will be a victory for them.

For this to happen, it would take, for lack of a better word, a miracle. Their desperate play to the right on the niqab issue only benefited the Conservatives and indirectly the Liberals.

Bottom line, the Bloc is screwed.

What I Think Will Happen

While this not what I hope will happen, it’s what seems the most logical outcome on Monday evening will be. I predict a Minority Government. Regardless of which party comes out on top, I’m pretty sure none of them will win enough seats to form a majority.

Coalitions are possible and so is a huge role for the Governor General in selecting our next Prime Minister. But I guess only time will tell.

Oh yeah, there’s also still a few hours to vote in FTB’s Election Poll. The winner gets an endorsement post written on behalf of FTB readers published on election day.

Culture Law News

Next Dance with Mary Jane: Canada’s Marijuana Legislation

Weed, Pot, Mary Jane, marijuana – these are all names for cannabis and its derivatives. Marijuana has been helpful to people with chronic pain issues, in calming muscle spasms and in neutralizing the nauseating effects of medications.

According to the Canadian Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH)’s website, 44% of Canadians say they have used marijuana at some point in their lives. A Statistics Canada report on Police-reported drug offenses in 2013 stated that there were approximately 73 000 reported cannabis offenses that year, 80% of which were for possession.

Marijuana has become one of the wedge issues in the current election because of the Liberal Party’s plan to legalise it. The problem, however, is that many voters don’t know what the current state of Canada’s marijuana legislation is.

Cannabis and its variations and derivatives are considered controlled substances under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA). This law works in conjunction with the Criminal Code to control drug offenses. Marijuana offenses can be lumped into two categories: possession-related, and supply-related (production, trafficking, and importing).

If you have marijuana in your actual possession, someone is holding it for you, or you have it stashed somewhere, you are considered in possession. You can’t possess, seek, or try and get it. If you try and get it from a doctor or dentist, you are guilty of an offense unless you disclose to them the particulars relating to its acquisition and every attempt you’ve made to try and get marijuana in the past 30 days.

The penalties for all these offenses vary depending on how many times you’ve been convicted. The maximum prison sentence for possession of is five years less a day OR for a first offense, a prison sentence not exceeding six months or fine of up $1000 or both.

For a second offense the maximum jail term of five years less a day applies, or you could be made to pay a fine of up to $2000 or serve a jail term of up to one year or both. In all cases, conviction will result in a criminal record.

Trafficking marijuana is selling, administering, giving, transporting, transferring, sending, or delivering it. Trafficking is also the selling of an authorization to obtain that people would have gotten from a healthcare professional, or even offering to do any of the aforementioned things.

The sentence depends on aggravating factors like whether the person used or threatened to use violence or a weapon, sold the drugs for a criminal organisation, or did so near a school or to a minor. The maximum sentence is life in prison, the minimum is one year. However, IF the amount of cannabis being trafficked was no more than one gram of resin or 30 grams of marijuana, the maximum sentence is five years less a day.

Importing and exporting of marijuana fall under article six of the CDSA. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment, the minimum is one year. The sentence depends on whether the offense was committed for the purposes of trafficking, if the person abused a position of authority or trust, or whether the person had access to a restricted area and abused that access to commit the crime.

Growing marijuana and doing anything to alter its chemical or physical properties is considered production under the CDSA. The sentences vary according to the amount produced and aggravating factors like whether you’re using someone else’s property, said production put minors at risk, was a public safety hazard located in a residential area, or the person set a booby trap in the production location.

Growing marijuana comes with a maximum sentence of 14 years and minimum sentences of six months if you have less than 201 plants and more than five. If you have more than five plants but less than 201, you’re considered to be producing to traffic, and any of the aggravating factors apply – the sentence is nine months or the 14 year maximum.

Parliament Hill 420 Rally 2013 (photo by Joel Balsam)

If the number of plants is over 201 but less than 500 and any of the aggravating factors apply, the minimum sentence is 18 months. If the offender has more than 500 plants, the minimum sentence is two years unless the aggravating factors apply in which case the sentence jumps to three years. Though the law is silent about what the penalty is for having four plants or less, chances are you’ll get charged with possession, not production, as you were probably keeping those plants for personal use.

The Liberal Party’s plan is to “legalize, regulate, and restrict” access. Legalization would start with a task force of public health experts, substance abuse experts, and enforcement specialists to advise on the creation of marijuana regulations. This includes removing marijuana consumption and possession offenses from the Criminal Code, and enacting stiffer penalties for those who push marijuana at minors, drive high, and sell it without obeying government regulations.

Many critics argue that decriminalisation, and not legalisation, is the answer to society’s marijuana problems. Decriminalisation is the act of making something legal that was once illegal. Legalisation is the legal recognition of an unregulated practice or illegal act that society has already been tolerating.

However, Canadian society hasn’t exactly tolerated marijuana as police continue to arrest even those who keep the drug for personal use. These people often find themselves stuck with criminal records and there is no proof that tough cannabis laws deter use. Those convicted of marijuana offenses often continue to smoke it.

With the Harper Conservatives bellowing about how marijuana is worse than tobacco and most statistics saying otherwise, it is imperative that Canadians know what their rights are with regards to cannabis related offenses.

Regardless of why you have marijuana in your possession, remember that as long as it remains illegal, you can find yourself with a hefty fine or even stuck in jail just because you wanted some to ease your pain or lighten your mood and couldn’t get a prescription.

* Featured image by Joel Balsam

News Politics

Voting with a Mask: The Good, the Ugly and the Silver Lining

In the midst of all the stories of long lines, screw-ups and smiling politicians voting in advanced polls, we have been, I guess you could say, “treated” to a few theatrical political stunts. There was the image of a woman voting with a potato bag over her head and another one of a man voting in a full clown costume with a mask covering his face and more as the days went by.

Now, please, don’t get me wrong. I love a good theatrical stunt as much as the next person, even more so, probably, having taken part in a few myself over the years. I’m usually the first to champion such clever expressions of dissent. This time, though, I’m not so sure.

You’re Allowed to Do It and You Should Be

Make no mistake. Voting with your face covered is perfectly legal in Canada. As long as you show your face to an Elections Canada employee briefly for identification purposes or swear an oath; much in the same way a citizenship oath can be taken with face covered as long as proper visual identification is done prior to the ceremony.

It’s all legal and should be. There is no security issue if proper identification is provided, leaving cultural prejudice as the only reason to object to someone covering their face.

While no one has ever attempted to ban wearing clown masks at polling places, there has been talk, far too much talk, about banning Muslim women from wearing niqabs in various aspects of public life. This is all political hot air and distraction which has somehow, unfortunately, caught hold and changed the focus of this election.

The Good

Jon Keefe did it for the right reasons. The St-John’s businessman put out a call to vote in the Newfoundland Christmas tradition of Mummering. He did so because he wanted to make a statement against the predominant role the issue of face covering has taken in the campaign.

Keefe told CBC News that “it seemed like a great way to work in the point that there are already a lot of cultural customs across Canada that might seem bizarre or unusual to people unfamiliar with them, but we’ve all managed to get along pretty well so far.”

Taking the piss out of Harper’s tactics of division and mocking those who, through xenophobia or ignorance, have an obsession with Muslim women voting or taking a citizenship oath while wearing the niqab is a justifiable reason to do a theatrical stunt.

The Ugly

Unfortunately, most people photographed wearing some sort of facial covering in the past few days were doing it for all the wrong reasons. They weren’t protesting the manufactured obsession with the niqab, instead they were endorsing it.

Toeing the Conservative, or possibly the Bloc, party line, people like Rafik Hanna, who voted were quoted saying “truly sad that I can vote to elect a Canadian prime minister without having to show my face and prove my identity.”

If you read between the lines (and ignore the fact that he did have to prove his identity, albeit briefly), the message is clear. These people have a problem with Muslim women who choose to wear a niqab doing so in a citizenship ceremony, or when voting or taking part in any other aspect of public life.

This is even more clear when it is done by someone who shares the image of him voting on the Facebook page of known racist organization Pegida Canada:

They are effectively campaigning for Harper and his xenophobic tactics of fear and division while at a polling station. Campaigning in a poling station is illegal, by the way. Voting with a mask isn’t.

The Silver Lining

Whenever the bigoted debate over religious face covering at public events rears its ugly head, those vocally opposed always make four arguments:

1. It’s a security risk

2. It’s oppressive

3. There’s nothing in the Qur’an about the niqab.

4. What if I wore a Halloween costume when voting? Would you be okay with that, too?

Arguments two and three are easy to deflate. If the person wearing the niqab is being oppressed, then why oppress her more by denying her citizenship or the right to vote? And if you say there’s nothing in the Qur’an about the niqab, well, I didn’t know you were a scholar. If that is true, though, I’d like to point out there’s nothing in the Bible about wearing a cross around your neck, but you wouldn’t dare make a Christian take off her necklace to vote, would you?

The people wearing masks to the polling station over the past few days have defeated argument four in a way that no bit of intellectual debate ever could. Would we be okay with you wearing a Halloween costume to the polls? Yes, and so is Elections Canada.

Does it look ridiculous? Yes. Does that mean that the concept of voting with a face covering is also ridiculous? No.

A Muslim woman wearing a niqab to vote is not silly. People wearing Halloween costumes to the polls to protest her right to do it look, for the most part, like idiots.

These stunts also have the added bonus of destroying argument one, that a niqab is a security concern. It’s clearly not.

If proper identification is done, it makes absolutely no difference what you wear to the polling place.

When you take away the four main arguments, all that is left for people who think wearing a niqab should be election issue number one is to either admit their ignorance or admit their bigotry. Because if you strip away the rhetoric, they all pretty much sound like this guy:

For those of you who don’t speak French, the man wearing a fake niqab standing outside of a polling place tells the camera that he wants all Muslims out of Quebec before being schooled by a Muslim woman.

Forgive the pun, but the veil is off. The whole niqab debate is a manufactured controversy designed to boost Harper’s polling numbers by playing to people afraid of the Muslim ‘other’ above all else. The intended audience wants everyone to act like “old-stock” Canadians or Quebecois, conveniently forgets that they are themselves the descendants of immigrants and is obsessed with this issue to the point of it blocking out all other electoral concerns.

At least now, thanks to a few people who tried to make a statement while voting, that fact is now crystal clear for all to see.

Audio Podcast

FTB Podcast #12: Lakes of Canada, #ELXN42 and Dumpster Food at the UN

Panelists Léo K. McKenna, Josh Davidson and Jerry Gabriel discuss upcoming Canadian Federal Election and dumpster food served as gourmet meals at the UN and what that means for food waste in Canada. Plus an interview with Jake Smith from Montreal band Lakes of Canada, the Community Calendar and Predictions.

Host: Jason C. McLean
Producer: Hannah Besseau

Panelists

Léo K. McKenna: Political pundit, music student, former political operative

Josh Davidson: FTB food columnist

Jerry Gabriel: FTB contributor

Interview segment by Hannah Besseau. Listen to Hannah’s full interview with Lakes of Canada on FTB.

Win tickets to the album launch and the album Transgressions with FTB and IndieMontreal!

FTB PODCAST #12: Lakes of Canada, Canadian Election and Dumpster Food at the UN by Forget The Box on Mixcloud

FTB Podcast also available on iTunes

Microphone image: Ernest Duffoo / Flickr Creative Commons

Law News Politics

The Fair Elections Act and the Illusion of Fairness

In 2014 the Harper Government passed the Fair Elections Act (FEA). It modified the Canada Elections Act (Act), our existing legislation on how our elections are conducted and run. Before we go into Harper’s modifications, let’s quickly discuss who is allowed to vote and what your voting rights are.

If you are a Canadian citizen and over the age of 18, you are allowed to vote in Canada’s elections.

You need one or two pieces ID, one of which has to be issued by the Canadian Government i.e. Medicare Card or passport, and have your name, photo, and address on it. If you don’t have any ID with your current address on it, you can show two pieces of ID with your name and have someone whose name and address are confirmed at the same polling station take an oath in writing attesting to your current address.

Please note: the voter information card you get in the mail is no longer considered a proof of address and no longer acceptable as one of your two pieces of ID.

For more information, check out Elections Canada’s website.

Those not allowed to vote include the Chief Electoral Officer (the Officer), the head of Elections Canada in charge of making sure elections run smoothly and fairly, and his assistant.

If you are currently imprisoned in a correctional institution for more than two years, you can’t vote either.

All that said, let’s tackle some of the new rules imposed through the Fair Elections Act.

Not Actually Fair

Despite its title, the FEA isn’t actually fair. It doesn’t guarantee or encourage fairness in our elections. It only ups the costs of Elections Canada by creating new positions and committees in order to give Canadians the illusion of fairness.

Take the new Advisory Committee of Political Parties (the Committee) created by article 21.1 of the now modified Act. Its role is to advise the Chief Electoral Officer “on matters relating to elections and political financing.”

The committee consists of the Chief Electoral Officer and two representatives of each registered political party chosen by the party leaders. It has to meet at least once a year and is presided over by the Officer.

At first glance this committee seems like a great idea, after all, it gives registered political parties a say in how elections are run, right?

WRONG!

According to article 21.1 (3), none of the Committee’s recommendations are actually binding on the Chief Electoral Officer. That means that the Committee’s existence is purely symbolic, and the Officer can disregard its advice if he or she chooses.

Then there’s the whole advertising issue. There has been a lot of anger regarding the Fair Elections Act’s modification to the Officer’s advertising rights.

In the past, the Chief Electoral Officer could use ads to encourage people to the polls. Under the new rules, the Officer’s advertising capabilities are limited to ads regarding how to become a candidate, how to be added to the list of electors, how voters can establish their identity and address at the polls, and how elections officials can assist the disabled on election day.

There is also Part 16.1 dealing with calls to voters. Calling campaigns are an effective tool used by candidates and their parties for fundraising, increasing voter awareness, and getting people to the polls. Since phone lines can be costly, it makes perfect sense for political parties to negotiate agreements with telecommunications service providers in order to limit costs.

stop-unair-elections-act — Image: canadians.org

At first glance, the modifications to the Act make sense for according to the new rules under the FEA, these agreements can only be entered into by a registered party or candidate or, if the person is an unregistered third party, they do so under their own name. They also have to inform the service provider that the contract is for calling voters. The problem arises with all subsequent actions required under this part of the Act.

Service providers have to file registration with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for every group for which they have a contract for voter contact calling services, and they have to do it within 48 hours after the first call is to a voter is made.

They also – under article 348.16 of the modified Act – have to get a copy of every phone script used to make live and automated voice calls to voters. The political parties in agreements with these service providers have to not only keep records of their phone scripts, automated and live, they also have to keep records of every single date the scripts were used!

From a logistical standpoint, these requirements are absurd. Anyone who’s volunteered for a political party knows that calling campaigns have to be run as quickly and efficiently as possible and that any reasonable hours prior to polling day are opportunities to get in touch with voters.

One could argue that these rules ensure that the public knows exactly what is being said to voters on the phone during the election. However, laws should always be applied with a degree of reasonability in mind, and having to track every single day a phone script is used seems more like a political tool to limit parties’ abilities to get in touch with voters by adding new, tedious tasks to their overtaxed schedules. This is especially silly when the CRTC already has copies of these scripts and records of the days they were used.

The elections are a ‘coming and with parties using wedge issues to obscure their actual plans for our future government, it is imperative that we all go to the polls. We need to make sure we actually can vote by carrying the correct documents and a will to vote out governments that increase our taxes via unnecessary tedium.

News Politics

Niqabs and Terrorists and Fear, Oh My: How Harper Plans to Win the Election

For ten years, Stephen Harper has used the same electoral strategy:

1. Campaign from the centre, hold a kitten, don’t say much
2. Let opponents destroy each other
3. Govern from the far right
4. Repeat

It was a strategy that served him well and even gave him a majority government. He had no reason to change it, until a few weeks ago.

For the first time in a long time, it looked like the Conservatives were going to lose, badly. Harper’s own efforts to scare his opponents into accepting Bill C-51 had made this possible.

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau took the bait. NDP leader Tom Mulcair didn’t and fought hard against it. This encouraged many progressives to abandon the Liberal brand and get behind the next Orange Wave.

A mostly united left in a country that is predominantly centre-left is a real threat to Harper. He recognized it and decided to send his campaign manager back to Ottawa and bring in Lynton Crosby, known to many as the Australian Karl Rove.

Crosby didn’t waste too much time:

Post-Crosby Conservative mailout (via Twitter)

Canada is now getting a federal George Bush-style campaign of fear.

The Niqab Debate is Back On

A few months ago, before the campaign was even launched officially, people were talking about the Niqab. It all stemmed from the case of one woman who wanted to wear hers while taking the oath of citizenship but was denied because of a rule imposed by Harper’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

When the rule was overturned, the Conservatives wanted to bring it back, the NDP didn’t and the Bloc Quebecois, under the leadership of Mario Beaulieu, tried to make it their wedge issue against the NDP.

It stayed in the public eye for about a week and then most people forgot about it. The Bloc changed leaders and started attacking the NDP from the left on pipelines.

Fast forward to the week leading up to the first French language debate. The Bloc, reeling in the polls, brought the non-issue back up and in the debate, Harper pounced on it.

Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair in a heated exchange during the French language debate (Radio-Canada/YouTube)

In a heated debate, Mulcair got off a great one-liner: “Stephen Harper is trying to hide his failed economic policy behind a Niqab.” Elizabeth May echoed that statement. Bottom line, this is a distraction pure and simple.

Mulcair is right. Very few women actually wear the Niqab in Canada. I have seen maybe three people wearing Niqabs in my life and I live in Montreal. Only one woman fought for the right to wear one during a citizenship ceremony. Also, during the French debate, “What is a Niqab?” was the top Goolge search in Canada.

But yet, this non-issue is somehow THE issue for the moment.

You’re Either With Us or You’re With the Guy Who’s Already Serving a Life Sentence

When the Conservatives brought in Bill C-24, making it possible to strip citizenship from anyone convicted of “terrorism” or “treason” who could be considered the citizen of another country as well, most people, to put it mildly, weren’t impressed. Harper had just created second-class citizens and seeing as C-51 made it possible to define anyone the government didn’t like as a terrorist or terrorist promoter, it was now possible to have political opponents deported.

C-24 fell to the backburner quickly, but now that Crosby’s in charge of the campaign, the government decided to apply the law. They picked Zakaria Amara, one of two leaders of the so-called Toronto 18, a group of home-grown terrorists who planned to detonate several bombs in Toronto.

A dual citizen of Canada and Jordan, Amara was stripped of his Canadian citizenship on Friday. He was informed of this via a letter sent to the prison in Quebec where he is currently serving a life sentence. That’s right; our government boldly declared that someone serving life is no longer a citizen, though he will be staying here as long as his sentence lasts.

For him, that punishment means, wait for it, absolutely nothing. He’s still behind bars and will be for a while. Sure, if he gets paroled while he is still alive, he could be deported to Jordan, or, theoretically, Jordan could ask for his extradition before his sentence is up. After all, we are now holding a Jordanian citizen in one of our prisons. It was so much simpler when he was just a Canadian arrested and convicted under Canadian law.

It was a purely symbolic move. One designed to bring support to C-24 and the Harper government. Forget “sure it restricts freedoms, but it gets the bad guys,” this is more like “sure it restricts freedoms, but it allows us to turn the bad guys we’ve already caught into a political prop.”

Will It Work?

So, the big question is: will a right-wing wedge issue and fear-based campaign actually work federally in Canada? I don’t think so and seriously hope not.

I hope that the predominance of the Niqab debate is just spin from a mainstream media desperate for divisive issues. While I trust the Bloc’s statistic that 90% of Quebecers they surveyed are against permitting the Niqab at citizenship ceremonies (for now), I wonder how many of those people care enough about the issue to make it a primary voting concern.

If voters consider all the facts including the amount of women who actually wear the niqab in Canada, the fact that there are procedures in place at citizenship ceremonies to ensure proper identification and the fact that denying someone citizenship does nothing to protect them against coercion (in fact, it has the opposite effect), then the only way they can vote for a niqab ban is if their own cultural prejudices trump everything else. I seriously hope that’s not the case with my fellow Canadians.

I also hope that we can all see through the charade of picking someone who is already doing life and making him the poster child for an ill-conceived law that does not affect the guilty and harms honest Canadians who only want their voices heard.

I don’t think my countrymen and women are that fucking dumb. I don’t think Canadians will fall for a Karl Rove strategy. But I guess we’ll all find out on October 19th.

* Fetured image: feelguide.com

News Politics

#DebatDesChefs: French Language Debate was the Most Fiery and Interesting of #ELXN42 So Far

I guess you could chalk it up to a victory for traditional debate media. The French language leaders’ debate or #debatdeschefs was hosted by Radio Canada, making it the first debate of this campaign hosted by media that usually host debates.

It was, by far, the fieriest and most interesting debate we’ve had this campaign. This could be because it was the first to feature five major party leaders, Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair, Justin Trudeau, Elizabeth May and Gilles Duceppe. It could also be because the moderators knew how to ask the right questions. Regardless of the reason, it was a good one.

But how did the leaders do? Well…in no particular order, here’s what I thought (with a little help from the live tweets I made during the debate):

Gilles Duceppe

With the Bloc Quebecois tanking in the polls and Gilles Duceppe projected to lose badly in his own riding, this was the newly re-minted leader’s shot. He needed to pull off a knockout victory if he wanted to have a chance of taking back what the Bloc lost in 2011. He failed.

He did have some memorable moments, most notably when he turned the pipeline debate into an issue of separation of powers and was backed up by May. Before that moment, the energy section was just a re-hash of the previous two debates.

Duceppe also started strong with his opposition to women wearing the Niqab at citizenship ceremonies, something the Bloc has really been pushing in the past week. But then it turned into a debate between Mulcair and Harper. By that point Duceppe had faded into the background.

He also got left out of the fray when it came to rules for Quebec sovereignty. That turned into a debate between two federalists, Mulcair and Trudeau.

He was also responsible for one of the more confusing moments of the night when things turned to the Senate and the NDP’s plans to open the constitution in order to abolish it:

Did Duceppe just argue in favour of keeping the constitution the way it is? Wonder what Rene Levesque would think? #elxn42 #debatdeschefs

— Jason C. McLean (@jasoncmclean) September 25, 2015

Duceppe has one more shot, the TVA debate on October 2nd, to save his party from obscurity.

Stephen Harper

Our sitting PM Stephen Harper seemed like he would rather have been actually sitting during most of this debate. He started off alert when the Niqab discussion was happening, claiming that he would never force his daughter to cover her face. Mulcair argued that the Conservative leader’s approach to helping oppressed women was wrong-headed. I had this to say:

Harper will never force his daughter to cover her face. Great. But what if she wants to? Will he stop her? #elxn42 #debatdeschefs — Jason C. McLean (@jasoncmclean) September 25, 2015

After that, Harper seemed to doze off. Maybe he was trying to play the father figure unimpressed with the kids arguing or maybe he really just didn’t care. Regardless, he seemed to perk up near the end when discussion shifted to one of his favourite subjects:

I think Harper just woke up now that they’re talking about bombing people #elxn42 #debatdeschefs

— Jason C. McLean (@jasoncmclean) September 25, 2015

Thomas Mulcair

NDP leader Thomas Mulcair was king of the one-liner at this debate. From his comment on other parties incurring debt which ended with “for everything else, there’s MasterCard” to his line about Harper hiding his failed economic policy behind a niqab to this gem:

“Trudeau voted for C-51 because he is scared of Mr. Harper” Mulcair’s really on with the one-liners tonight #elxn42 #debatdeschefs — Jason C. McLean (@jasoncmclean) September 25, 2015

Leading the polls in Quebec, everyone thought Mulcair would be under fire from all sides in this debate and he was. He handled it by not really handling it. He didn’t go all Angry Tom, he stuck to his message instead. He offered the same delivery he did in English, that of someone carefully choosing his words.

He seemed rehearsed and holding back, but that worked in his favour this time. It said loud and clear that he isn’t really fazed by the nature of the debate. He was going to stick to script no matter what. Also, that he was the same debater in English and in French, countering some recent criticism.

No, he didn’t have a Layton moment, like the one that turned Quebec voter intentions into a wave that wiped out the Bloc in 2011, but one wasn’t needed and going after Duceppe would have been counter-productive. Better to treat him as an after-thought and focus on Harper instead.

The counter-argument is that by playing it mellow he wasn’t doing much to inspire Quebec voters, just reassure them that they had made the right choice. His best course of action would be to prepare things he is going to say, but go off script in the next two debates, once in English and once in French.

Justin Trudeau

By contrast, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau came across as natural. He looked good on camera and really tried to play to the crowd:

Trudeau name drops like a pro wrestler: theDearfoot when in Calgary and now Rona and Pharmaprix when in Quebec #elxn42 #combatdeschefs

— Jason C. McLean (@jasoncmclean) September 25, 2015

He looked like the perfect candidate to play the Prime Minister in a movie, and not just a CBC movie of the week, I’m talking about a major Hollywood production. The problem is he wasn’t working with a script that could really connect with voters. His best moment in the debate cast him in a supporting role, reminding Mulcair and Harper, who were arguing about niqabs and how best to protect women that the only woman in the room, May, had yet to speak on the subject. Kudos to him for calling out their man-splaining. It made him more likeable, for sure. Electable? Well…

Elizabeth May

It’s unfortunate that Green Party leader Elizabeth May’s French wasn’t better. If it had been, she probably would have interjected more and may have very well won the debate. She made some of the best observations of the evening. When everyone was talking Quebec independence, she was the only one to mention that natives had their own right to self-determination:

And the winner of the sovereignty debate: Elizabeth May #elxn42 #debatdeschefs — Jason C. McLean (@jasoncmclean) September 25, 2015

When the topic was the niqab she said loud and clear that it was a distraction, which then encouraged Trudeau and Mulcair to do the same.

Also, when Duceppe made the pipeline discussion about provincial jurisdiction, she agreed. She added, though, that the people of British Columbia were in solidarity with those in Quebec who did not want Ottawa imposing pipelines on their communities.

This debate helped breathe new life into a very long campaign that seemed to be dragging on for a while. Could the real winner of the debate possibly be the debate itself?

News Politics

#ELXN42: Five WTF Moments

We just passed the mid-point in one of the longest Canadian Federal Election campaigns in a while. The stress of such a long campaign is starting to show, sometimes in quite hilarious ways.

Over the past few weeks, politicians and staffers alike have given us some moments that really make you do a double-take. Some are quite offensive, others are hilarious in how tone-deaf they are. All will make you wonder how supposedly seasoned political operatives could have let them slip by.

Enjoy:

Harper’s 24 Hour Surveillance

When it comes to making your opponents’ greatest fears about you come alive visually yourself, no one beats Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Afraid the CPC will take away your rights? Here’s a campaign sign advertising 24 hour surveillance with the image of a surveillance camera to really drive the point home.

Now, to be fair, there were some people vandalising election signs in Harper’s home riding of Calgary Heritage and it is illegal to vandalise political signage during an election. So, adding stickers to let would-be vandals know that they are being filmed and could be prosecuted does make sense.

That is, of course, until you remember that the potential audience for those stickers is all Canadian politicos on the internet. To dissuade a few people in Calgary with spray cans, the party behind Bill C-51 effectively advertised to the country that re-electing Harper meant 24 hour surveillance.

Gilles Duceppe Taking the Fight to Isis

Isis beware! Gilles Duceppe has you in his sights. The Bloc leader announced that a sovereign Quebec would fight the Islamic State.

This came as part of an announcement that the Bloc supports the Harper Government’s military mission in Syria. While that stance is a pretty desperate last-minute move to the right in and of itself, bringing Quebec sovereignty into the equation makes it a point of ridicule.

I don’t have to read the internet comments on this one to know what the general theme will be: just how Quebec is supposed to take on ISIS without a military of its own? Send the SQ to Syria?

If voters’ primary concern is engaging in foreign wars, they’re going to go with the guy who has already gotten us into them and plans to keep us there. And that’s not Gilles Duceppe.

Trudeau’s On a Plane!

This is a case of screwing up an announcement that should be run-of-the-mill. Due to the length of the campaign, the major parties with smaller war chests (all but The Conservatives) were only able to charter private jets to fly their leaders, staff and press around the country at the midway point. Until then, Mulcair and Trudeau had been flying commercial.

When they finally got their private, branded planes, the NDP and the Liberals announced it. While Mulcair was smart and made it part of a broader policy announcement of new aerospace jobs, Trudeau went the full-on the Andy Sandberg “I’m on a Boat!” route.

If you can think of a better way to prove your opponents’ criticism that you are out-of-touch and elite than bragging about your new private jet, please let me know. Otherwise watch this video and try not to have that Lonely Island song in your head:

The Bloc Going for the Xenophobic Environmentalist Vote

The Bloc makes a second appearance in this short list. Not surprising considering their whole campaign has pretty much been one big WTF moment from the time Gilles Duceppe became leader again without even a vote.

Have a look at their latest ad:

No, you’re not imagining things. In just 21 seconds, they went from slamming the NDP for their refusal to come out against pipelines to slamming them for their opposition to Harper’s attempts to ban the Niqab at swearing-in ceremonies for new immigrants.

Wedge issues are an effective way to mobilize a specific voter base. They work fine solo or in tandem with other issues that appeal to the same voter base like how opposition to marriage equality and a woman’s right to choose fit well together. The Bloc didn’t bring in Bush-Era Karl Rove, they brought in Rove drunk and passed off that the last cheque bounced.

I can only imagine the brainstorming session that went into this:

“So our attempt to get the xenophobe vote didn’t work and our play to the left to get pipeline opponents on board isn’t working either. I know, let’s try and appeal to both groups at the same time!”

“Hey, oil is black, and so are Niquabs. I’ll call the graphics department.”

This, of course, was followed by tears and reminiscing on how they once were the official opposition and came so close to being part of a coalition government.

Harper’s Old Stock Canadians

Thursday’s Globe and Mail Leaders’ Debate was, to be completely honest, kinda boring. Sure, there were some snarky comments exchanged, probably more than in the last debate, but overall just a lot of arguing over numbers. And then our current Prime Minister said this:

“So,” the internet wondered, “just what do you mean by old stock Canadians, Mr Harper?” Well, in Europe, “old stock” generally refers to the original inhabitants of the land, or longtime inhabitants. Like old English stock or old French stock.

So does that mean he was referring to the First Nations, whom his government has routinely screwed over? Nope. He clarified the following day that he was referring to Canadians who were “the descendants of immigrants for one or more generations.” And while he didn’t specify Western European descent, we all know he was talking about white people.

The racism and ignorance inherent in referring to people living on occupied land as old stock proves that Harper is a right-wing reactionary and a bigot with one small off-the-cuff remark. While it does qualify as a WTF moment, it also may help him solidify his base. Remember, his base is this guy:

I would have liked to include some WTF moments from the NDP and the Green Party but the Greens have been doing everything right this time around and the only NDP screw-ups are of the direction and policy variety and make sense if you know Mulcair and the party. No double-takes possible. But the campaign’s still going, so they may make the cut next time.

Got any of your own #elxn42 WTF moments? Please share them in the comments.

News Politics

Where is the Canadian Bernie Sanders?

This post originally appeared on QuietMike.org and is republished here with permission from the author

Politics in the Great White North has often been referred to by Americans as boring, dull and uninteresting. This widely held opinion also extends to Canada’s national elections; they are too short and too civil. Canadians even take pride in these facts. “At least we aren’t as crazy as those damn Yankees,” we would say.

Canadian politics, the elections in particular, are indeed mind-numbing and tedious. More so when you take into account we are midway through the longest election campaign in modern Canadian history. A month in and I’m ready for bed already. Speaking as seasoned follower and analyst of politics in general, I feel election forty-two is missing a great deal of fire so far.

What makes this campaign season so epically dismal isn’t the lack of money being spent on campaigns or the amount of attack ads on TV, it isn’t even the issues themselves (although they aren’t helping), it is the uninspiring party leaders who are at fault.

Not an Inspiring Bunch

There are four real parties running candidates throughout Canada this fall, three of whom, who as of now, have a shot at winning. The main three, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats are in a virtual three way tie. Elizabeth May‘s Greens are still a distant fourth.

First off you have Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party. Harper had a terrible first month on the campaign trail. Harper had to endure the fallout from the Mike Duffy trial as well the struggling economy which is now in official recession. His handling of the death of a 3-year-old Syrian refugee didn’t help.

On the Campaign trail Harper has gone into hiding. He has employed his “chickenshit strategy” where candidates have reportedly been urged to skip debates and avoid the media. Harper himself has already promised to skip the English broadcasters’ debate. Even though the Conservatives are running their campaign as a party on the way out, they can still win.

Next we have Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party. The young Mr. Trudeau reminds me of an inexperienced Hillary Clinton. For the last decade, the Liberal party has gone after the centrist vote, driving down the middle of the road on social issues (except marijuana legalization) and on the right on economic issues.

Under Trudeau, it appears Liberal strategy has not changed and again, it’s not really working. Being the centrist party also means you take the brunt of attacks from conservatives and NDP, all three of whom are sucking up to voters who don’t really follow politics.

Last we have Tom Mulcair’s New Democratic Party (NDP). Tom is an ex Quebec Liberal and it shows. The NDP used to be known for its socialist leanings, but not anymore. Now it seems they are just another Liberal Party without the experience. A socialist party in favor of the TPP agreement? Really?

Playing it Safe and Boring

The three political parties at the top, while different, are all playing it safe catering to the same middle of the road voters and as a consequence boring the crap out of everyone. The problem is, the political ideology of Canadians does not lie at the center.

Last week, before the refugee story started to emerge, the media was fixated for days on which party leader wanted to balance the budget. Trudeau would run a short term deficit to turn the economy around while Mulcair and Harper would balance the budget at all costs. And you wonder why Canadian politics is boring?

Balancing the budget, while important, is not the most pressing economic issue of our time and it would be nice to stop pretending it is. Like the United States, and following a decade of Harpernomics, income inequality should be front and center, but no… Canada’s Middle Class is strong, but inequality is skyrocketing.

Canadians don’t care about the trial of a corrupt senator they can’t relate to, it’s certainly not going to change which way they vote. They don’t care about deficits if they can’t find work. Nor do they care which party leader is more ready to lead. They’re all ready or they wouldn’t be running. Uh, yawn.

Canada’s party leaders could learn a lesson from the man shaking up his party and scorching the campaign trail south of the border. Someone who is lighting a fire under the asses of the electorate and bringing important issues to the forefront of people’s minds.

Searching for Sanders

No, it isn’t Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. There is a big difference between bringing excitement and bringing in TV ratings. American Senator Bernie Sanders, the proud socialist from Vermont, has been packing them in by the thousands for months now. And he’s done so by campaigning on the economic issues that common people can relate to. He is bringing a sense of hope and passion to U.S. politics that Canadians can only dream of.

Granted, aside from wealth inequality, Canadians don’t have the same problems Americans have, but that is no reason not to be passionate about the policies you care about and the future of your country.

Canadians saw that passion once, in another proud socialist. Four years before Americans were feeling the Bern, the late Jack Layton of the NDP was giving us the Orange Crush. Layton’s New Democrats gave the Liberal Party their greatest defeat in Canadian history. He did it by galvanizing the population by campaigning on the left.

If you want votes, you need to get people talking. No one did it better than Layton who took the NDP from virtual obscurity to official opposition. If he were still alive today, there is no doubt in my mind the NDP would be miles ahead of the pack.

Alas, we can only dream. Those days seem dead and gone. What we are left with is lesser men fighting it out over lesser policy and they wonder why only 60% of the country votes. I’m still going to vote, but it looks like it won’t be for any of these Prince Valiums.

I’ll be waiting for the Canadian Bernie Sanders to finally whisk me off my feet. They’ll be passionate about wealth inequality, the environment, health care and aboriginal rights. They’ll speak out about bogus trade deals, and shameful foreign policy. Lastly, they’ll be able to communicate their message so well that the corporate media will have no choice but to listen and talk about them. I’m looking at you Elizabeth.

News Politics

Don’t Take Harper’s Bait: Why the NDP Shouldn’t Block Candidates for Criticising Israel

I really thought I wouldn’t have to write this. No, scratch that, I really hoped I wouldn’t have to write this. Things were going so well since the New Year, the start of the election year in Canada.

Thomas Mulcair’s NDP, it seemed, turned over a new, very progressive leaf and it has really started looking like they could ride it all the way to 24 Sussex Drive. Unfortunately now it looks like they may have folded back that leaf’s left corner just enough to cause a problem. And they did it by taking the bait laid out for them by the Conservatives.

Two Steps Forward

Last summer, when Mulcair made a statement on Israel’s attack on Gaza that sounded as one-sided as the ones Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau released, the party faithful wouldn’t stand for it. Members of the NDP base began speaking out, some even occupying MP offices.

Such a strong statement eventually led to a mea culpa from the leader which came in the form of a Toronto Star op-ed. While it wasn’t everything the NDP base had been hoping for, it was a much more balanced approach to the situation and one that didn’t leave Israel blame-free.

Protesters occupying MP Don Davies' office in 2014. Photo: Mothers and Families for Gaza — Protesters occupying MP Don Davies’ office in 2014. Photo: Mothers and Families for Gaza

It was good enough to shift the party’s focus away from the Middle East and onto more domestic matters. It’s on these issues that the NDP has, for the most part, excelled in offering an alternate view to the sometimes indistinguishable Conservative and Liberal discourse.

This year, we have seen the NDP, among other things, take a very important stance against Bill C-51, Harper’s so-called anti-terror legislation. Not only did they oppose some of the more egregious elements of the now-law, but voted against it and promised to repeal it if they form government.

Four Steps Back: Manly, Wheeldon, Natanine and Hyder Ali

Unfortunately, that progressive streak hit a roadbump back in July when the federal NDP denied Paul Manly, son of former MP Jim Manly, a chance to run for the party’s nomination in the BC riding of Nanaimo-Ladysmith. Manly, now running for the Green Party in the same riding, took to social media almost immediately, letting everyone know his nomination was refused because of his father being on the boat to Gaza.

Last week, it became apparent that what happened to Manly wasn’t an isolated incident. After CPC trolls unearthed some rather ordinary statements critical of Israel, the party forced Clyde River mayor Jerry Natanine who was running in Nunavut and Kings–Hants, Nova Scotia candidate Morgan Wheeldon off the ballot and barred hopeful Syed Hyder Ali from running for the nomination in Edmonton Wetaskiwin.

Unprincipled Approach to Principle

So what did they say online that warranted such a censure? Nothing groundbreaking, really. In fact, it’s the same thing the United Nations had to say: that in 2014 Israel was guilty of war crimes for its assault on Gaza.

To block someone from running under the orange banner just because they have voiced principled views on a subject many in the party, the country and the international community share is just plain unethical, paranoid and wrong.

It also indicates a tone-deaf top-down approach instead of the grassroots one the NDP seems to have adopted over the past year. Now we’re back where we started last summer with the leader enforcing his own agenda on a party and its supporters that, for the most part, have a very different point of view.

Not Even Good Politics

To be completely honest, a good chunk of the political centre in Canada, the so-called middle class which all politicians pander to, doesn’t really care all that much about Palestine and Israel. Domestic issues are much more important.

Supporting Palestinian human rights gets votes on the left and may lose some on the right. Coming out as a hardcore supporter of Israel no matter what the country is doing has the reverse effect. A politician doesn’t risk losing the centre with either approach, but Mulcair is risking losing votes on the left in hopes of getting some on the right, which he will not. It makes no sense.

I checked out the site MeetTheNDP.ca. The Conservatives put it together as an attack site, pulling gotcha quotes from MPs and candidates, but the attack really only helps to mobilize their own base. I read through the quotes and came to the conclusion that this site just makes me want to vote for the NDP.

Screenshot of Conservative "attack site" meetthendp.ca — Screenshot of Conservative “attack site” meetthendp.ca

Canada is, at its core, a centre-left country. Harper is an aberration of electoral math, his right-wing and sometimes ultra-right-wing views and policies are not shared or supported by the majority of Canadians. However, he tries to use the fact that he has a majority government to bait his opponents into mirroring his agenda.

Trudeau took the bait on Bill C-51 and has been relegated to near irrelevance because of it. Mulcair has avoided it and offered a progressive view of Canada to voters. But now, possibly spurred by his own beliefs, he has fallen for it and barred valid candidates from running under the NDP banner simply for saying things which quite a few Canadians already think.

What Happens Now

As I said, I never wanted to have to write this. This leaves progressive Canadians in a very precarious position.

I had actually been excited to vote this time, despite all the hoops Harper’s “fair elections act” is making me jump through. It was a clear choice, vote NDP or live with Bill C-51, a real no-brainer.

Sure, I wasn’t thrilled with Mulcair’s stance, or lack thereof, on Energy East, but at least he has chosen to remain on the fence until after he forms government and conducts a study on whether he gets more votes from Quebec or Alberta. Crass politics through and through, but I can live with it.

When it comes to Palestine, he’s not on the fence. He is forcing the NDP into a position that is no different than Harper’s or Trudeau’s and he is doing it with the party in full campaign mode, so it’s really hard to challenge him.

I can’t change my vote on FTB’s election poll, but I can do so in the actual election. I don’t think I will, though. There are plenty of good people running for.and working with the NDP who share what I believe in. I also want to get rid of Bill C-51 at all costs and while the Greens would do that and also offer a more principled position on Palestine, they are not in a position to form government and do anything while the NDP is.

While I’m reluctant to vote NDP under these conditions, I will do it. Unfortunately, I think there are those who will not, strictly out of principle. These are people who may have supported, volunteered for and voted for the party but just can’t because Mulcair seems to have taken a stand on Palestine that is on the wrong side of history.

I can only hope that the NDP fixes this problem quickly and acknowledges that criticism of Israeli war crimes is not something to sweep under the rug, but something to be proud of, as it is one more thing that distinguishes New Democrats from the Lib/Con slate.