What Our Media Doesn't Understand About Feminism Makes Rona Ambrose Look Enlightened

During last weekend's Conservative Party convention, interim leader Rona Ambrose suggested that Justin Trudeau was not our first "female" Prime Minister, but that that distinction went to Kim Campbell.

It was met with a round of applause, resonating with the conservative crowd, but not so much with the Canadian public, who saw it as just another opposition cheap shot, born of envy.

She would later deny she said it, or claim that her comment was misinterpreted, but we've seen the video.  There's no backing out now.

However, her closing remark is even more telling.  "So who's the feminist now!?"  Certainly not Rona Ambrose, because you don't have to be a female to be a feminist, any more than you have to be a feminist to be female.  Today, it's about a state of mind.

In fact, for the new generation of millennials, it's more about sexism in general, not just women's rights, which they already enjoy.  Income inequality is still an issue, but they will find the solution, and they will do it because it just makes sense.

Looking at the U.S. Primaries, when the country seems poised to elect their first woman president, it should not be such a shock to anyone that the majority of young women plan to vote for Bernie Sanders, rather than Hillary Clinton. They don't care about gender, but that Sanders has a better understanding of the problems that impact their lives, while Clinton represents "the establishment.”

In Ambrose's speech, she lauded previous women Conservative trail blazers (none of whom belonged to her party which was formed in 2003).  However, to millennials, these names or their accomplishments would mean little.  They don't have to look to female leaders of the past.  They see female leaders everyday, and that's a good thing.  It means that women of my generation have done our jobs.

What they heard from Ambrose would sound like words from the parents in the Peanuts cartoon: "mwa-mwa-mwa"

This is what the opposition and indeed the Canadian media, don't understand about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.  He is the epitome of the modern feminist.  You don't have to be macho to be masculine, but you can be.  You don't have to be a female to be a feminist, but you can be.  It's all about equality and doing what's best for you.

In the United States millennials now outnumber baby boomers, and in Canada, they now represent the majority in the workplace.

The media and politicians, must adapt to this new reality or step aside.  Of course Trudeau won the "elbowgate" debate.  He was having "a dad moment".  Young parents could relate.  But modern feminists could not relate to the aftermath.

Pierre Elliot Trudeau came along at the right time, as we baby boomers were coming of age.  We were also anti-establishment and viewed his antics through a different lens than the media and his political opponents.  The same is happening today with his son.

At the Conservative convention they have now embraced the baby boomer generation, even quoting PET's famous remarks about staying out of the bedrooms, but it's half a century too late.  We've moved on.  

Our children and grandchildren did not grow up with the aproned women chained to the kitchen.  They grew up with us.  

Now it's time for the media and members of the opposition parties to just grow up.

The NDP Must Stop Victimizing Women if They Hope to be Taken Seriously Again

In early December 2012, the Toronto Star reported:  Near-brawl erupts in Commons between Tory Peter Van Loan and NDP’s Nathan Cullen 

Apparently Van Loan was upset with the NDP's delaying tactics on getting the Conservative budget measures passed, and crossed the floor to the NDP caucus, pointing his finger and shouting obscenities.

In typical fashion, Thomas Mulcair began shouting obscenities back, and things could have gotten out of control, had not members of both parties stepped in to defuse the situation.  Then Speaker, Andrew Scheer, did nothing.

According to Van Loan, members of his party only left their seats, fearing for his safety; and according to Nathan Cullen, his only concern was for the women folk. 

Had a bench clearing brawl erupted, we can assume that only those wanting to engage would jump the boards and everyone else would scatter.  He should not have dragged gender into this.  What Van Loan and Mulcair did was wrong.  They created an unsafe and uncomfortable working environment for everyone.

Last week we witnessed a similar situation in what has been dubbed Elbowgate.

This time the obstructionism was more evident as several NDP members tried to delay the vote on Assisted Dying legislation, by preventing Conservative Whip Gord Brown from making his way to the Speaker.  Given that the clock was running out, the Prime Minister left his seat to move things along.

He was angry.  He cursed.  He was wrong.

During this brief encounter, NDP MP Ruth Ellen Brousseau, who had moved up behind him, got bumped.  She stepped back to her bench, laughing and then made a gesture like she had been injured.  

However, the issue here is not whether she was indeed hurt, or to what degree.  It's not even about whether or not she took a dive, as many believe she did.

It is about what we know did NOT happen.

She was NOT sexually assaulted.  She was NOT molested.  And she was NOT the victim of intentional violence.  She pushed against Prime Minister Trudeau.  He did not seek her out.

But that didn't stop the Opposition members from turning this into a three ring circus, making it all about violence against women and putting the lives of female MPs in grave danger.  Women must feel safe when they go to work, they insisted.

When did women become so fragile that we needed this kind of protection? When things like this occur in the workplace, they are disconcerting to everyone.  Believe it or not, we've heard the "f" word before and many of us like contact sports, including boxing.

Our female Members of Parliament come from varied backgrounds.  They are doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, business people et al.  Many rose to the tops of their professions and no doubt took an elbow or two in the course of their careers.  Singling them out as frail individuals is misogynistic.  Feminism run amok.

As feminist blogger Rachel Edwards says:

"While feminists say that feminism is about equality, actions speak louder than words. These actions suggest an uncomfortable truth. Feminism is not the assumption that we are equal, but the assumption that women are weak... "

Had the NDP stuck to the narrative that Justin Trudeau should not have lost his temper and should not have left his seat to physically move Brown through the NDP wall, they would have come out on top.  But by making it about violence against women, they lost all credibility and the public turned on them.

Not just Liberal supporters, but all women who know what sexual assault and violence against them really is.  Also many men who are tired of always being painted as "perverts, bullies and misogynists"

Unfortunately, most of the anger was directed at Brousseau, while it should have gone to those who victimized her for political gain.

I know I also found myself upset with the MP, especially after viewing the video, but have since realized that she only played a small role in this farce. What I also noticed from the video, was how easy it would have been for Brown to go around, instead of continuing to try to go through.  Sure looked liked a set up.

I also discovered from following social media, that many of the people decrying the bullying of Brousseau, are the same ones who bullied Sophie Gregoire Trudeau, just a week ago; so clearly this was not about protecting women.

NDP MP and self proclaimed feminist Niki Ashton, epitomizes what is wrong with feminism today.  She led the charge against Sophie Trudeau when she asked for help in performing her duties, by suggesting that no one asked her to do anything.

Something women have heard for decades,  if not centuries.  "No one asked you to have those children".  "No one asked you to join a male dominated profession".  "You brought this on yourself".  

In November, Ashton had criticized the prime minister's wife for taking her son Hadrian along on an official visit, despite the fact that he was still breast feeding.

Feminists need to step back and ask themselves what they are hoping to accomplish and pseudo-feminists need to stop assuming that they know. Only then will we be taken seriously.

What Was This Really About?

I was quite taken aback by several well known Canadian journalists and pundits, who shared stories on Twitter from international news outlets about the incident.  They appeared giddy over the fact that this might tarnish Justin Trudeau's reputation on the international stage.  How is this a good thing?

Do they detest him that much that they fail to see that it would also be our country's image that would suffer?

I doubt it will have much of an impact, but it does shed a light on the true nature of all the uproar.

So instead of #PrayForSophie #Nannygate or #elbowgate let's just use one to cover everything.

#TrudeausJustTooDamnPopularGate

About Race, Misogyny, Music and Fathers. Where Do I Start?

Recently, during an Up the Debate leaders forum on women's issues, Justin Trudeau was asked  about what causes misogyny in young men.  He answered

“I don’t know where exactly to point my finger.  I think there’s probably an awful lot of factors that come together to shape societal behaviour — whether it’s certain types of music? There’s a lot of misogyny in, you know, certain types of music. There’s issues around pornography and its prevalence now and its accessibility, which is something I’m really wrapping my head around as a father of kids who are approaching their teen years. And there’s also just the shifting parental roles as well. There’s a lot of communities in which fathers are less present than they have been or they might be in the past, and there’s more need to have engaged positive role models.”

In the videotape, the original question concerning misogyny and young men, was edited out, and replaced with a question about the causes of violence against women.

Paula Simons, in her piece for the National Post, focused on racial stereotyping,  using journalist Desmond Cole's accusations that Trudeau was talking about black people, when he referenced music.  Simons also claims that one "could equally well hear those words as a reference to domestic violence in the aboriginal community."

It is risky to stir up racial hatred, when many communities are working so hard to fight violence against women.  Both the Liberals and NDP have promised such help, and for all the narrow mindedness of the Harper government, they have delivered, though not nearly enough.

The Cree Women of Eeyou Istchee Association, is just one group fighting gender inequality and tackling the sensitive subject of male aggression.  And they are doing it by involving men, so that the healing process can begin.

If we are not allowed to talk about this in an intelligent manner, how can we justify funding for something that we don't want to believe exists?  Community leaders are the best to gauge what they need, not race activists or journalists.

Desmond Cole took to Twitter, even setting up a separate thread to discuss Justin Trudeau.  Why did we allow this man to hijack such an important issue?  This was supposed to be about women and gender inequality, not him and his own causes.  Racism is an important topic, but this was not about race.  Our concerns have now been lost. I'm hoping this was not the intent, though I think it was more about partisanship.

Music and Rape Culture

In a piece The Lines Are Never Blurred, on the feminist site I am a Woman, I am Not a Man, But I am Equal to No One, the topic was rape culture and music.

One of the most dangerous results of a patriarchal society is the presence of a rape culture. This term refers to “practices which excuse, normalize, or even promote rape or sexual violence,” especially against women Rape culture includes both “institutional sexism” in the government and misogyny in pop culture

...Pop culture is another area where rape culture is clear and evident. Popular music, especially that written by men, often refers to women as “hoes,” “bitches,” and “sluts.” Performers such as Eminem, Flo Rida, and Robin Thicke rap and sing about how they would like to sleep with the females in their songs, yet they objectify and insult the objects of their lust. The song “Blurred Lines,” by Robin Thicke, is full of references to non-consensual sex and other characteristics of rape culture, and is a prime example of how popular the objectification of women and the trivialization of rape has become. The lyrics of “Blurred Lines,” as well as the lyrics of other songs by equally popular artists, encourage a misogynistic attitude by promoting messages straight from the mouths of rapists and those who make excuses for them.

Those are the words of a feminist, and for the record, Eminem and Robin Thicke, are both white. She does not see this as a race issue but blames it on "the male-dominated rap music industry".

Of course it's not just rap music, but many genres that objectify women. The Artiface, in a piece about pop culture and violence against women, singles out Maroon Five, and their song Animal.

In a 2010 piece for the Toronto Star, Antonia Zerbisias, discusses the influence of television, advertising and music, that promote a rape culture.

"There are rape jokes. Rape songs. Music videos that covey a sense of sexual entitlement to men while portraying women as insatiable, available."

She is certainly not being racist, even if somehow we are supposed to conclude that she means black rappers.

We have to remember that Justin Trudeau is not just a politician, but is also a father. However, he did not get his talking points from Bigots R Us, but from the writings of feminists, who have been sounding the alarm for years. He may have also learned a lot from his wife Sophie Gregoire, who won recognition from the  UN Women National Committee  Canada, for her "volunteer and activist work on mental health, eating disorders as well as for women- and children-related issues."

To suggest that Justin Trudeau is racist, or has minimized issues facing women, is ridiculous.  Any media ignoring the intent of the debate, and making it all about unfounded racism, is as Zerbiasis suggests, just feeding into the culture.  I hope she gives them hell.

And About That Fatherhood Thing

In Chicago, in February of 2013; President Obama gave a speech that raised a few eyebrows. In it he said: “there are entire neighborhoods where young people, they don’t see an example of somebody succeeding. And for a lot of young boys and young men, in particular, they don’t see an example of Fathers or grandfathers, uncles, who are in a position to support families and be held up and respected.”

Both liberals and conservatives alike, attacked what they saw as a patriarchal attitude. However, it launched a movement This Is Fatherhood ” that includes some very high profile, and dare I say African American, public figures. They are not saying that women can't raise children on their own, only that fathers need to be more accountable, and that male role models need to step up and show by example, how women and girls should be treated.

The prime minister, is not our parent and their government not our keepers.  We need individual communities, regardless of race or creed, to lobby for designated funds to promote gender equality, and speak out against rape culture and violence.  Only they know what is needed and how best to deal with it.

That is not to say, that violence does not occur in homes across the country, which is why we need to address things like income equality, poverty, alcoholism, drug addiction, etc.   If a woman is financially dependent on her mate,  she may feel trapped and more willing to take abuse.

None of these things can be handled in one debate, especially when the concerns raised during that debate, have been lost.  But at least it brings these things to the forefront during this election campaign.  Or at least it would have, if it hadn't been hi-jacked by someone with their own agenda, and a media preferring sensationalism to honest reporting.

And we wonder why they don't take us seriously.

The NDP's Obsession With Justin Trudeau Could be Their Undoing

“I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.”  - Franklin D Roosevelt

Just hours before the Globe and Mail debates on the economy, a story surfaced suggesting that Justin Trudeau was in trouble in Papineau.  It started out as "may be" but then quickly changed to "is"' as the results of a poll were released.

This sampling suggested that Trudeau's NDP opponent, Anne Legace Dowson (shown above), was 11 points ahead, worrisome if it were true, but it wasn't.  Turns out that it was the NDP who commissioned the poll of 375 people, and that 86% of those they contacted, were NDP supporters.

We can certainly understand the party's deception, but why would the media go along?

Canada's polling industry is now worried that this fraudulent survey, that garnered such sensational headlines, will further damage their reputation.  It was clearly used to throw Justin Trudeau off his game.  His anger did show through, and at times he appeared frantic, that evening, but was still able to get his points across, and the Globe and Mail gave him the win for the best economic vision.

What was supposed to drive voters away from the Liberal Party, and to the NDP, backfired, and they may have lost support from both pollsters and the press, who are less than thrilled that they were dragged down with them.

So Who is This "Star" Candidate?

In 2008, Anne Legace Dowson was introduced to the voting public, by way of a spread published in a Quebec newspaper.  In it she compared herself to Barack Obama, and according to the paper, everyone thought of her as “the Oprah of Quebec”.

However, one letter to the editor, questioned this, given that they had never even heard of her "until the media pumped her up".

I was born and bred in Montreal and consider myself pretty well up to date on who’s who in this city…. but I’ve never heard of this Anne Lagace Dowson until yesterday. That was the day the Montreal Gazette wrote a huge half page story about her nomination.  

Today’s supper time local news on ALL the networks had wide coverage of her……it seems like they are trying to make her into the winner before the by-election date has even been set.  

She has a radio show on the local CBC station. I think that explains why I’ve never heard of her.  CBC english radio usually pulls in between 4 and 8 percent of the english speaking audience….in other words between 92 and 96% of anglo Montrealers NEVER listen to it..!!!!

Legace Dowson was running against Marc Garneau in Westmount, and with the media hype, the prediction was a tight Liberal/NDP race.  However, although outspending Garneau, the results were much different than anticipated.

She didn't compete in 2011, instead focusing on local politics.  In 2014 she ran for the seat of commissioner for the English school board.  It was an important election, since the very existence of school boards was on the line.  The minister of education made it clear, that if there wasn't more voter interest, he would pull the plug on them.

Legace Dowson led a team of ten, against her opponent's ten, representing the wards in the school board district.  She only managed success in two of the ten, one after a recount, by a handful of votes.  She claimed that there was election tampering, though her arguments were weak.

In fact, one of her people actually misrepresented themselves, to obtain voter information, and the police had to be called.  It was crazy.  The unnecessary drama and feeble campaigning, that garnered just 20% support, hardly makes her a star.  At least not in any galaxy I know of.

Given this desperate attempt to make her look better than she is, and more popular than she is; we can only conclude that the NDP are aware of this.  If she can't even come close in a school board election .....

On the bright side. Quebecor knows who she is.  That's something I guess.

Justin Trudeau Forges Tight Alliances

While both the Conservatives and NDP have been relentlessly attacking Trudeau, a strange phenomenon has occurred.  Instead of Thomas Mulcair presenting himself as an alternative to Harper, he now appears to be an ally.

Both are committed to balanced budgets, as unrealistic as that is, and both are now committed to the F-35s, simply because Trudeau has promised to scrap them.  This puts him with progressives, who also want the procurement stopped, as do many members of the Canadian military, including General Leslie.

Yes, the NDP will argue that Mulcair only wants a better bidding process, but the headlines of Mulcair and Harper opposing Trudeau's stance, make the two appear as comrades in arms.  Not what either of them want, though it will not harm Harper as much as Mulcair.

In trying so hard to discredit the Liberal leader, the NDP have failed to give the voting public a reason to support them.  Their platform is weak and financial plan seriously flawed.  They produced a nice glossy folder with nothing in it, but gobblygook.

They had hoped to ride the  C-51 bus to Election Day, but the wheels fell off.  Hope they at least turned off the engine.

Trudeau's strategy, once thought dangerous, has proven to be brilliant.  He has set himself apart from Harper and Mulcair, by claiming that deficits are Ok, F-35s aren't and high income earners should pay more taxes, so that everyone else can pay less.

He is being judged by the enemies he has made, as Roosevelt opined, and those enemies are looking more like a united front, than competition against each other for the prime minister's job.

So who's "not ready" now?

Were the Liberals and NDP Set Up by Lynton Crosby?

There has been much talk recently about the Conservatives hiring of the Australian strategist, Lynton Crosby. Known for his dirty and divisive campaigns, the news sent, if not shock waves, at least ripples; throughout the rival teams and their supporters.

However, we have since learned that Crosby has been working on Stephen Harper's campaign since March, and in fact has been guiding him since 2006.

Why are we just hearing of this now?

Lynton's reputation for creating wedge issues, or what he calls "wedge strategy", is well known, as is his use of simplistic political idioms that become ingrained in the minds of the electorate.  Things like "not a leader", "just visiting", "proven leadership"  and "not ready", certainly come to mind.

However, his real skill is in dividing the opposition by deliberately focusing on a debate, destined to become a hot button issue.

Normally, with something as important as Harper's omnibus anti-terror legislation, opposition parties would unite, as they did against the abuse of prorogation, the Afghan detainee issue, and the closing of the prison farms.  But by introducing the bill just before an election, this presented a problem.  The opposition would have to find a way to work this bill, C-51, into their election strategies.

The Liberals decided to support the Bill, to avoid being labelled "soft on terror"', but were going to use their proposed amendments, as part of their platform.  They had already succeeded in changing the wording so that the bill did not prevent protests, despite what the law's detractors would like you to believe.

The NDP hedged a bit, not sure what to do.  Thomas Mulcair publicly stated that if elected, he would not scrap the bill, but simply amend it.  That made sense, since it does contain some important measures.  We also had to respect the two soldiers who were killed, and not let their deaths be forgotten.

However, NDP supporters were outraged.  Michael Laxer, Roy Romanow and Ed Broadbent all weighed in, essentially calling Mulcair a coward if he didn't step up.  So he did.  I don't need to tell you what happened next, but with the help of the media, Justin Trudeau became the fall guy for Stephen Harper's bill.

Lyton Crosby couldn't have done better if he'd scripted the entire thing himself.  Of course, he probably did, or at least wrote some of the lines.

Where the NDP Went Wrong

After David Cameron's surprising victory in the UK, Lynton Crosby explained to the International Business News, how that was accomplished.  Cameron was as unpopular as Harper is now, and like Harper, he gave the opposition a lot of things to oppose.  Said Crosby:

"One of the reasons why Labour did not succeed in the UK in the last election was that they never did the work as an opposition to prepare themselves again for government, and they were very opportunistic in all of what they did in the five years that they were in opposition. So they jumped on various issues, but they never had a story to tell." 

Mulcair painted himself as the great debater and great opposer, but never really told the NDP story.  In fact, at times he contradicted his party's positions, and even his own.  You can't just be against things, but have to be for something. 

Their platform was all over the place, promising the moon, while aligning the stars.  CTV has learned recently from some leaked documentation, that they have not even costed out their spending proposals.  They have no idea how they're going to pay for all this stuff, only that they will magically balance the books.  Like anyone cares.

They went too far with C-51, and have created a void.  The last poll conducted on the issue was at the end of May, and showed that 72% of Canadians support the measures, despite the perceived loss of privacy. Besides, the common belief is that if you are not engaged in terrorist activities, you have nothing to worry about.

But since Crosby's main goal is to cause vitriolic debate within the opposing parties, he certainly accomplished that.  If any good came of it, I was pushed to research Mulcair, to counter some of the attacks on Justin Trudeau.

After learning what I did, I then said "hell no".   We've got another Stephen Harper waiting in the wings, and felt compelled to do what I could to prevent that from happening.

However, for all those who think that Thomas Mulcair and the NDP will repeal C-51, think again.  Even if they could, which they can't without the Senate, they will not want to.  It's a very easy thing to say during an election campaign, but something all together different when you're in government.

Pressure from the right wing media, who loved Mulcair's stance on Palestine and Margaret Thatcher, would kick in, and the security forces, who pushed for more power, would advise him that they need those laws.

Mulcair, like Trudeau, is smart enough to know that being "soft on terror" is not a label he would like to wear, especially if we lose any more soldiers at home.  After the actual French terrorist attacks, they adopted strict anti-terrorist laws and their leader's ratings soared.

When George Bush brought in the Patriot Act, the same thing happened.  Fear is a strong motivator and we often look for a parent to protect us, whether it is our family's leader or our country's.  It's simple human nature.  Harper has won this debate, and he can sit back, hold steady, and allow the NDP to do his dirty work for him.

Lynton Crosby is smart and tough, and not afraid to get his hands dirty, but he is not infallible.  We need to take comfort in the fact that he has been working with Stephen Harper since 2006, and Canadians still don't like him.

All political parties need to campaign their hearts outs, and now that they know who Crosby is, and what he represents, refuse to get caught up in the nonsense.  Debate policies and platforms and put in the work necessary to win.  That's how Stephen Harper will be defeated.

So Who's the Dictator Now?

Recenty, former NDP MP, Bruce Hyer, has come out to the press about his former boss's dictatorial style and problems he had with honesty; evident in the way that he is constantly contradicting himself.

When asked during his interview with Peter Mansbridge about this, Mulcair only said that Hyer did not want to vote with his colleagues.

In an email to HuffPost, however, Hyer called Mulcair's statements "a total fabrication."  "I always supported 95 per cent of the NDP party platform. I still support much of it! But I feel very strongly that my primary role is as the representative of my constituents," Hyer wrote.  

"On some issues, an MP's responsibility is to put … constituents ahead of the party line. It is interesting that Mulcair immediately contradicted himself and said that I was 'someone who walked away from the party on a single issue.' Again and again, I see and hear a man who in his pursuit of power will contradict himself."

In fact as early as 2013, the Globe and Mail had already noticed the trend.

Much attention has been given to Conservative backbenchers who push socially conservative issues and are later overruled by cabinet. What is not well known is that Conservative MPs are far more likely to support motions from other parties – all of which are to the political left of the governing party. In contrast, the voting record of the official opposition under NDP leader Thomas Mulcair shows ironclad discipline. Not a single vote has been cast that is out of step.

This certainly lends credence to Hyer's comments. One of Mulcair's nicknames when he was in the Quebec legislature was objet immobile or immovable object.  He was very obstinate.  Recent analysis of voting patterns have shown that the NDP vote with their leader 100% of the time, while the Conservatives only 76%. So who's the dictator now?

During the 2004 election campaign, many Canadians were concerned with Stephen Harper's views on the Constitution, and fears that his platform would result in many court challenges.  It has.  But how is that any different from Mulcair's platform?  He is also threatening the Constitution with his promise to abolish the Senate.

Harper was also antagonistic toward the Supreme Court, suggesting that they had too much power.  As a populist, he believed that all the power should rest in the hands of elected MPs.  Is this not exactly what Thomas Mulcair is suggesting today?

He claims that if elected the Senate will have to answer to him.  I find that rather frightening.  Yes, the Senate is wounded but it is not broken, and is a vital part of our democracy.  They are supposed to the sober second thought, that would protect us from leaders like Mulcair and Harper, who believe in an autocratic style of government.

Sadly, they have become little more than a partisan cesspool, but that is where we need change.  Senators should not belong to any party.  If they are caught campaigning for, or against, any political party, they can no longer be a senator.  We need them to represent us.  We are the ones paying the bills.

Both Harper and Mulcair want the Constitution reopened to push their own agendas.  It won't happen because both Quebec and Ontario, have already said that they are not prepared to do that.

I have been accused recently of not being progressive because of my opposition to Thomas Mulcair. However, it is as a progressive, that I am sounding the alarm.

In November of 2009, Linda McQuaig wrote in the Toronto Star

If, as polls suggest, Stephen Harper is poised to win a majority, it's largely due to the media notion that his past reputation for extremism no longer holds. In fact, apart from his reluctant embrace of economic stimulus, Harper has shown little of the "moderation" that supposedly now puts his government comfortably within the Canadian mainstream.

I feel as McQuaig did then.  The media is once again being blissfully ignorant, or intentionally misleading, by ignoring Mulcair's past.  He was not an "extremist",  but he was virulently right-wing.  Most progressive journalists warned of Harper's devotion to the principles of Margaret Thatcher, yet most, including McQuaig, are now eerily silent on Mulcair's.

We can't make the same mistake twice.  If Mulcair is re-elected it will be as a Member of Parliament. Depending on the outcome of the election, he could be prime minister, opposition leader, or leader of the third party.

But under no circumstances will he be elected supreme being.  He will not dictate to the Senate.  He will not unilaterally change our constitution and he will not simply repeal anything, without the support of both Houses.

We've had a decade of this kind of government, and Canadians are weary of it.

Including this progressive.

Conservative Deflection, the NDP Truth Team and the Erosion of Trust

As many of you know I took some time off from my blog, mainly for personal reasons, though I did keep up with current events. I blogged a bit during the 2014 Ontario provincial election, and then saved my strength for this coming federal contest.

Fully prepared to continue in a relatively, non-partisan way, I was immediately broadsided by the NDP's attack on the Liberals and Justin Trudeau, with the whole C-51 debacle. I expected things to die down, once common sense kicked in, and the media reminded Canadians that this was about two Canadian soldiers, killed on Canadian soil; but it didn't.

Neither common sense, nor common decency prevailed. Those two young men were forgotten, lost in the maze of sensational headlines, with C-51, the Godzilla, that was about to trample us to death.

There is much talk of the bias, propaganda and "dumbing down" of political discourse, as Canadians continue to tune out. It's not surprising that at the end of May, after the protests and media blitz on Harper's anti-terror legislation; that most of the public was unaware of the egregious measures contained within.

The Globe and Mail reported that  72% of Canadians supported the new legislation, without knowing its content, and that's helping Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

Also telling is that "55 per cent of those following the debate closely are against the bill. Among those who have just scanned headlines, only 14 per cent are opposed."

The media's tendency to over amplify political conflict and negativity, has caused them to fail in their duty to inform the public, preferring to engage in the attack on the NDP's political opponent.

This problem is not confined to Canada. In a piece in the Princeton Press, Why is Everyone so Mad at the Media, they remind us that newsman Walter Cronkite was once seen as the most trusted man in America. But trust in the media is waning.

By 2004, only 10% of Americans "had a great deal of confidence in the national media", just one point higher than their trust in lawyers.

We have seen a growing number of clearly partisan news agencies, like Fox and Canada's defunct Sun Television, but the problem does not lie with them. Most of their audience tunes in because they already share those views.

Corporate Media and King Makers

There is also a lot of discussion about the top 1% of the population, holding as much wealth as everyone else combined, but there is something else to remember, that is just as important as income inequality.

That top 1% own 99% of our media, and with that enormous power, they control the political debate and set the agenda.

For years Conrad Black promoted neoconservative politicians, giving us Stephen Harper and his brand of American style politics.  Black has since denounced Harper, recognizing, I guess, that he had created a monster.  But if NDP supporter, Murray Dobbin, is correct, the NDP may be giving us another monster.

More worrisome is the possibility that many thousands of NDP members had indeed heard the negative aspects of Mulcair's politics and voted for him anyway. That's a very different problem. It reflects what I have observed about the NDP for decades now: its decreasing emphasis on policy and philosophy and the increased -- political machine driven -- preoccupation with winning seats in elections, often out of context of the political moment and oblivious to unintended consequences. One prominent NDPer I spoke to responded to my shock that he was supporting Mulcair with a sort of football game enthusiasm. "I think he can take on the bastard [Harper]." 

Facing a ruthless tough guy? Get your own ruthless tough guy. And possibly create a monster you can't control. It is as if policy, philosophy, and vision for the country have simply been devalued to the point where they are an afterthought or some vaguely interesting historical relic. There seems to have been a kind of "We'll worry about policies later, let's pick someone who can win first."

Another NDP supporter, who actually worked on Thomas Mulcair's 2007 campaign, that brought him into federal politics, is also raising the alarm, not only about Mulcair's politics but the media's complicity in putting a neoliberal in charge of a once social democratic party.  Jooneed Khan believed that knowing Mulcair was being backed by the Power Corp. and other corporate media giants, would mean the end of his chances at taking over the NDP.  They always spoke out against what they deemed to be right-wing spin.  But according to Khan:

Quebec Inc. has grown exponentially since the PQ came to power in 1976. It operates more and more in partnership with multinational corporations in extracting wealth from poor nations and spreading poverty, war and corruption ...  

Voters here have shown they are prepared to take a chance with the NDP to push back neo-liberalism ... and to re-prioritize social justice.... Thomas Mulcair's NDP leadership bid is looking more and more like a counter-attack by the 1 per cent to take over the NDP and steer it towards the so-called "extreme centre...

The editor of Rabble was also concerned with the control that Bay Street might have over the party, knowing that they actually financed Mulcair's leadership bid.

Can we now trust anyone in the media?

Despite the fact that most polls show a three way tie, and a surge by Justin Trudeau and the liberals, you'd be hard pressed to find any story that doesn't include the words "with the NDP leading in the polls", or something like it.  They know that if the people of Quebec don't believe the NDP can win, they will go to the party that can.

But how long can they keep this up?  And how long will we allow them to?  We should decide who governs us, not the corporate media.

I have noticed that the political landscape has changed dramatically since the 2011 election.  If you track journalists on Twitter you'll see that more and more of them, are now extremely partisan, and most, if not all, run a continued attack on Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party.

That attack also extends to Pierre Trudeau.  I asked Norman Spector, when he was on a rant,  if he knew that PET wasn't running and told him I was so glad that he kept up with current events.  It's gone crazy

Everyone interested in politics, has been by and large partisan.  But at least there was a sense of decorum. Stephen Harper brought in the ugly, the first to run attack ads outside of an election campaign. What surprised me, however, is that the NDP are engaging in the same nonsense.

Accusing the Liberals of being against helping women who were the victims of violence, was so a Conservative tactic.  That it's coming from a party once respected for their adherence to social justice, this is incredibly sad.  No one on Parliament Hill is for violence against women.  A vile ploy for political points, by re-victimizing the women caught in those situations.

They now also have a gaggle of minions in a group called the  NDP Truth Team.  Truth, of course, in the Orwellian tradition.

One of the assignments given to these warriors, is to scan the media and any time they see Justin Trudeau's name before Thomas Mulcair's, to contact them and give them sh*t.

A more recent mission is to hash-tag #NDPTruthTeam  @JustinTrudeau and ask him what he plans to cut in his 4th year of governing.  Brad Lavigne is implying that Mr. Trudeau has said that he will cut public services after the third year of stimulus.  However, I can't find that quote anywhere, so it must be just a bit more fact twisting.

It is so hard to engage anyone in the party, in legitimate policy debates.  All I get is the same nonsense I used to get from the Conservative supporters.  In fact, I often now get more sensible arguments from Cons than I do Dippers.

I would like to set partisanship aside, as the election draws nearer, and start discussing the issues that should be important to Canadians. But in the words of Michael Corleone  "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in."

Playing Football With Domestic Violence Gives No One a Victory Dance

Yesterday we heard that the NDP were accusing the Liberals of opposing their plan to end violence against women.  I have to admit that I was shocked.  This is so reminiscent of Conservative attacks over the years, that paint opponents as being soft on terror, soft on child pornography and not Pro-Israel enough.

They were always vile and disgusting.  But did we ever really think that the NDP would stoop to this level?

I admit that the Liberals should never have made this about money, but to suggest that this means that they oppose ending the violence against women, is beyond the pale.

I would not support the NDP plan, first off, because it is a pittance to throw at such an enormous problem. And second, that this should not be isolated as an election issue, but part of a much broader platform.   Building shelters is critical.  Even Conservatives have done that, but it is a paternal solution to a feminine issue.

We need to empower women.

We do that by building affordable housing.  Mothers should not have to raise their children on the streets or in slums.

We do that by creating a viable daycare plan that does not force minimum wage earners to pay the same as high income earners.  Many women simply can't afford to work, making them more likely to stay in abusive relationships, out of need.

And we do that by not treating abused women like children, or use them in a game of political football.  We need to raise their self esteem, so that they are no longer victims; not victimize them further, by making them fodder for right-wingers, who might view this as a tax grab.

My aunt was murdered by her husband after years of abuse.  He was a prominent businessman in the community, at a time when women had few rights, so she stayed with him out of necessity.  He never spent a day in jail for her murder.

Something like that stays with you, as it has such a profound affect on a family.  As the only boy with six sisters, my father felt like somehow he had failed, despite the fact that many times he tried to get her to leave. It also had an affect on the way he raised his five daughters. Overprotective, or at least that's what we thought.

Instead of a paternal approach, we need a legitimate woman's ministry, with the necessary budget, to deal with all issues facing women today. Wage inequality, sexual harassment, reproductive rights and the threat of losing them, to name just a few.  Our bodies do not belong to the state and our concerns are best addressed by those who understand that we are not a political entity, to be manipulated with cheap promises.

Instead of boasting about how many women candidates you have, tell us those women's views. Conservative Cheryl Gallant is a woman.  Does she stand up for women's rights?  Niki Ashton is a woman and yet she made light of violence against women, when she agreed to play the game.

If the NDP really wanted to convince us that they cared, Thomas Mulcair should have agreed to take part in the debate on women's issues.  Instead he played politics with Stephen Harper. "if he's not going, I'm not going ... whah".

However, since he refuses to legitimately address these issues, maybe his views can be wrapped up in a single word.

C--t.

That was what he called a political opponent.  To use that word to suggest that the man was somehow unworthy and even criminal, says a lot.  We are deemed by him to be low.  The ultimate misogynist insult.

You be the judge.

NDP Plan Rally to Dishonour Two Fallen Canadian Soldiers

Stagnating in public support, the NDP are trying desperately to get back to the days when the passion over Bill C-51; the omnibus bill that is now law, and changes many laws; gave them a bump in the polls.  To do that they are planning rallies against the Liberals over Harper's C-51.

The media will still have to wear their complicity, in the nonsense that blamed Justin Trudeau, and let Stephen Harper off the hook, in their attempt to become kingmakers.  However, they have forgotten an important fact.

Two Canadian soldiers were killed on Canadian soil.

The sister of one, welcomed tougher security laws, so hoping that her brother had not died in vain.  No one can argue that the Harper government took it too far, but the anti-terrorism portion of the law can be amended.  We cannot bring back these two young men, but every sign carried is being used to kill them over and over again.

For heaven sakes let them rest in peace.

Olivia Chow is going to lead the charge.  I don't know when she became heartless, but maybe someone needs to send her a picture of those soldiers, with the names of their grieving family members.

If she can still protest after that, then she has no business wanting to be a member of our government.

This has never been the Canadian way.  We don't spit on soldiers graves.

How Bernie Sanders and Justin Trudeau Have Changed the Election Narrative

Recently, one of my favourite journalists, Rick Salutin, weighed in on Justin Trudeau's comment, that the Liberals wanted to grow the economy "from the heart outwards", meaning from the centre or middle class.

The media and opposition parties went crazy, calling him a Care Bear, not comprehending the meaning of his words.  Everyone is looking for that sound bite, to make them look clever, when in fact, it ended up making them look foolish.

Salutin, on the other hand, did know what Justin was talking about, but preferred that it be the misinterpretation.  

Why not economics from the heart instead of from the head?  We've been led to believe that balanced budgets are the Holy Grail, and that the  "Economy" is  a beast we must feed or risk extinction.

Canada has become the Fisher King;  the legendary figure from the days of King Arthur. Wounded in battle, he could no longer perform his duty to protect the coveted chalice, nor could he produce an heir to continue the obligation.  As a result his kingdom was reduced to a barren wasteland, while the king amused himself fishing, and waiting for rescue.

The mythical Holy Grail has become a symbol for things most cherished and desired, but unfortunately, we no longer know what those things are.  Salutin discusses the economic crash of 2008, that should have taught us that the current system wasn't working.   Yet things continued as before, with misguided tax cuts and mean spirited austerity measures.  This election is probably the most important of a generation.  We can vote for the status quo, or not vote at all, ensuring the status quo.  Neither is an option.

Bernie Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination, in the run up to the presidential election, in 2016. He has become a phenomenon, primarily because he is not campaigning on lowering taxes or fighting deficits, but on the things that should matter to most Americans.  And they are listening.

A liveable minimum wage, better working conditions, an end to war; to name a few.  These things have not been mentioned in election campaigns for a very long time.  This has forced the other candidates, vying for the job, to address the same issues, or at least promote progressive ideas.

He has changed the narrative, which has changed the issues.

Our media and politicos are too focused on Justin Trudeau's hair, and his famous father, to listen to what he is saying. Like Sanders, he is discussing better working conditions, better wages, and benefits for veterans, seniors and children.  A sensible environmental plan, and an improved relationship with provinces, so that everyone has shared goals, and can better reach them.

Stephen Harper is focused on his dubious leadership skills, while scaring us into submission, over the threat of a terrorist attack.  The NDP is hoping the fact that they voted against C-51 and the Liberals didn't, despite neither vote having an impact; will carry them through for the next two months.  It won't.

Most of their policies are the same old tired promises.  More fluff than substance.  A $15.00 an hour minimum wage, to create a group of "federal employees" who can be unionised;  only gave false hope; and a daycare plan that won't be implemented in this cycle or the next.

In fact, many children needing daycare today, won't; when the first phase of their plan is rolled out, so it is not an election issue, only some vague notion, made during what Salutin calls "an intellectually threadbare era"..

We need to slay the bastard named "Economy" and create our own goals. As the thoughtful journalist says:

This kind of paradigm shift in economics — I’m calling it, after Trudeau, the economics of the heart — is probably more crucial now than it was in the heyday of what was called socialism. Then the stakes were merely misery for the masses. Now the survival of the species is at risk due to climate change and the current model doesn’t — and can’t — even take that into account. When the environment kacks out, it’s an “externality.” You carry on modelling, oblivious. It really doesn’t matter what you call it but “heart economics” sounds good to me.

Investing in Canadians is the best way to grow financially.  We can't just sit around waiting to be rescued, while our country is being reduced to a barren wasteland, and our people to a life of nothing but debt and meagre opportunities.

Sanders and Trudeau have something lacking in politicians today.  Genuine compassion and the ability to inspire.  

It's risky in today's political climate and with the state of our media, to have dreams of a better country, but Sanders and Trudeau have them anyway.

“There is only one thing that makes a dream impossible to achieve: the fear of failure.” ―  Paulo Coelho