Categories for Feature

Column: when the Internet becomes a mob

In the social media era – in our mad rush to judgment – people get ground up and spat out. Happens all the time.

Happens too often.

Ask ‎Aziz Ansari, the Muslim comedian and author whose career now lies in rubble, because some nameless, feckless young woman decided to punish him for what, in a saner world, would be properly characterized as a bad date.

Ask ‎the young mother whose newborn was found “abandoned” at a mall near Toronto’s Keele and Lawrence neighbourhood – and we all know who lives there, don’t we? – and who immediately was depicted by some police and some media as a heartless monster. Except the child hadn’t been abandoned, at all. And both were simply in need of medical care.

Ask the Muslims who are now being targeted with hate and invective – simply because they are co-religionists with the eleven-year-old girl who falsely claimed to have been attacked by a scissors-wielding man. A Toronto school board and the police and several politicians promoted the girl’s made-up story, sure – but it is Canadian Muslims who are now being excoriated. Because they are Muslims, too. Naturally.

And ask the young indigenous mother who was attacked and vilified, simply because she dressed the way she chose to dress. As a proud, beautiful indigenous woman.

That last tale is less known than the others. So it should be told.

It starts with a boy. The boy is just a boy, twelve years of age, with a handsome face and a smile as big as a Summer day. His name is Neebin. In October 2015, the Ottawa Citizen did a story about Neebin and his friends.

The story told how the kids, from Pierre Elliott Trudeau Elementary in Gatineau, put together a video to promote tolerance. In it, they played instruments and sang, in English and French and Cree and Algonquin. They called their song Important To Us.

‎Neebin spoke to the Citizen reporter. He said he had been bullied in another school because of his long braid. But he said it was easier in his new school.

A couple years and a bit later, and just two days before Christmas, Neebin took his own life. “He left us for the Spirit world, much too soon,” someone wrote on the page set up to help his family with funeral costs. The funds would go to that, and “towards a children’s suicide prevention program.”

For most people, for most parents, there can be no greater pain than losing a child. But there was more pain to come.

A few days ago, someone noticed that the federal government had been running an ad. The ad, authorized and paid for the department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, urged indigenous people to apply for their new status card.

The accompanying photo showed a smiling child, and a happy old man, all holding status cards. And, between them, a beautiful indigenous woman, also smiling. Holding a card, wearing traditional dress.

‎The Internet and the media – the CBC, in particular – promptly attacked. One woman said the image was “horrific” because it recalled the Disney film Pocahontas, which promoted a “racist stereotype of an outdated portrayal of an indigenous woman.” Others chimed in, like the historian of indigenous issues, who said the ad presented “static images of indigenous peoples that don’t reflect our lives anymore.”

Carolyn Bennett’s department swiftly deleted the ad from its web site, and pulled it off of the walls at government offices. The ad, which had been around for years, “will not be used in the future,” one of her departmental underlings promised.

Happens a lot, in the new era. Happens all the time. ‎A story gets told, people instantly react, someone gets vilified. Sometimes they get destroyed.

Except, this time‎, the mob went after a mother who didn’t deserve it.

Neebin’s mother.

She came out of mourning her little boy to respond to the hate sent her way. This is part of what she posted on Facebook. She gave my wife – who knows her, and worked briefly with her on an indigenous file – permission to use it.

“I was the model in this photo. The wardrobe and the clothing were completely of my own choice,” she wrote, adding that no one told her to dress that way. “I dressed this way because I was very proud of the way I looked. I believe I did a good job of representing our people.”

‎She went on: “Real and true journalism seeks facts, and all sides of the story, and this [CBC] story was unfortunately not balanced. Stop blaming [others]…we are all responsible for ourselves, our families, our communities. That is how we will achieve real change.”

‎Would it have inconvenienced the CBC to contact Neebin’s mother, before unleashing on her? Would it have been all that difficult to ask her if she had chosen her outfit – when, you know, she had? Would it have been wrong for someone in Bennett’s department to ascertain the true facts, before giving in to the Internet mob?

And would it have been so very hard to ask Neebin’s mother how she was doing? Would that have been a problem?

Some days, I hate Ottawa and the media and the Internet age.

This is one of those days.


The book I will write one day

I fantasize about writing a novel in which the main character knocks cell phones out of the hands of distracted people who are walking towards her.

She would be regarded as more of a terrorist than Osama bin Laden.

Postscript: This post was written entirely on a call phone.


Maximum Rock’n’Roll: new SFH album is “solid punk rock”!

Holy crap! Maximum Rock’n’Roll is the bible of punk and hardcore – and they like the new SFH record, Kinda Suck!

…straightforward punk rock…melodic and catchy, just like the Canadians like it…if you’re a fan of the band or just a fan of solid punk rock, you’ll enjoy this one.

Woot! You can get the record right here.

Download it now! MRR says you won’t regret it!


Laura Miller wins!

We’re way down here in Florida, but we have friends in courtroom 125 in frosty Toronto. And the result is in: Judge Timothy Lipson has ruled that Laura is not guilty on both counts.

Thank God. And here’s what I wrote about why a couple years ago.

Remember that old Sixties line? You know, the one from the hippie subculture that became a movie, and even a lyric in a Monkees tune? To wit: “suppose they had a war, and nobody came?” It was a nice thought, then and now.

Well, with some minor tweaking, it’s a line that can be applied to a “scandal” now raging, er, in one-block radius in downtown Toronto. Here goes:

“Suppose they had a scandal, and it really wasn’t one?”

Now, admittedly, at Queen’s Park, some media and some Opposition politicians are in a spit-flecked fury about the alleged deletion of government emails about the decision to move some gas plants in the 2011 Ontario election. You may have read about it in the papers, even in far-flung places like Whitehorse or Witless Bay. (I doubt it, but you never know.)

So, before we get started, three things. One, we use so-called flying quotes around the word “scandal,” up above, to notify you that the “scandal” really isn’t one. At all. Two, we use the word “alleged” about deletion of emails because, well, emails weren’t actually deleted. At all. Three, full disclosure, I proudly helped out former Premier Dalton McGuinty, and I remain friends with all of his former senior staff. And I hope that disclosure gives McGuinty-haters heart arrhythmia.

Scandals, real or imagined, have a way of taking on a life of their own. Even though the voting public aren’t nearly as preoccupied with scandal as the media and politicians are – Exhibit A, the Clinton/Lewinsky “scandal” – selfsame media and politicians are undeterred. They love scandal-mongering more than, you know, talking about boring stuff like “policy.” (There’s those flying quotes again!)

As no less than the most-famous-ever Canadian, Rob Ford, will tell you: voters hear about scandals too much. They’re skeptical. And, until they see a perp being frog-marched to the Longbar Hotel in an orange pantsuit and handcuffs, they don’t care much, either.

But that’s psychology. The reality of this “deleted email scandal” (Flying quotes! Drink!) is this: none were. Don’t believe me? Take your smartphone, and pop it right now in the toilet, where you already keep your old Blackberry. Now, flush.

There! According to the Ontario Provincial Police, you’ve now deleted emails and, er, committed a serious offence, Your Honour!

Well, not quite. As we all know, if you lose your smartphone – or if your PC or Mac blow up, or if (as in the Queen’s Park case) someone wipes a few hard drives to make way for a new employee – your emails aren’t gone, at all. They all still exist on a server in Cupertino, Calif., or Guelph, or somewhere else. They haven’t been deleted. At all, at all.

That’s why the whole Mother of All Scandals now gripping, um, a few dozen folks at Queen’s Park is so bloody ridiculous. The thing the Keystone Kops (a.k.a., the OPP) are investigating isn’t a crime, or even a violation of a ticketing offence. They’re investigating missing emails which aren’t, you know, missing.

Check your toilet, if you don’t believe me. Your device may be long gone, and so too your Miley Cyrus MP3s and some cherished pix of your kitten. But your emails aren’t.

Now, I know that this stunning revelation – to wit, emails exist on servers, not individual computers – is a shock for the geniuses in the OPP and at Queen’s Park. But for the rest of us living in the new millennium, it’s kind of not-news.

So too this “deleted email scandal.” It isn’t news, either. In fact, it is the biggest pile of crap to plop on the Canadian political stage since “Justice” (Drink!) John Gomery turned the sponsorship inquiry into a taxpayer-funded ego circus. And that’s saying something.

Thus, our new song: Suppose they had a “scandal,” and it really wasn’t one?

Drink!

Tweet


Do all Jewish people look alike?

Quebec’s bigoted securities regulator certainly thinks so.

Check out this shocking Graeme Hamilton report in the Post:

MONTREAL — Rabbi Momi Pinto has a beard and wears a yarmulke, just like the man from whom he bought his Montreal home in 2012.

According to court documents, that is where the similarity between the two men ends — and yet it was allegedly enough for Quebec’s securities regulator to conduct an “abusive” search of Pinto’s home last September.

In a lawsuit filed this month at the Montreal courthouse, Pinto and his family are seeking $230,000 in damages from the Autorité des marchés financiers and two of its investigators. They allege that in its hunt for evidence related to online gambling company Amaya Inc., the AMF relied on outdated registry information and a “grossly negligent” investigation to search their house.

Pinto’s lawyer, Julius Grey, said the “humiliating and invasive” search is a symptom of a larger problem. “It is the high-handedness of many government institutions today. They think they have a right to do whatever they want to do,” Grey said.

I was actually born on that street in Montreal. My parents told me our Jewish neighbours were thoughtful, courteous and wonderful people to live among. They loved it there.

And you know what, AMF jerks?

We could tell them all apart.


Column: ink-stained enablers

Who’s to blame?

When the United States of America regains its sanity – when the equivalent of political Nuremberg war crimes trial is convened – who will bear the blame for Donald Trump?  Who is responsible?

There will be plenty of blame to go around.  Russia, of course, for interfering in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, so as to give Trump an extra 79,646 votes and an illegitimate Electoral College “victory.”  The Republican Party, for embracing a “man” who admits to groping women – and who says dark-skinned people live in “huts” and “shitholes” and should not be allowed to set foot in the United States.  Several million Americans, who are apparently just as racist and misogynistic as their man.

But we in the media will be in the metaphorical prisoner’s dock, too.  We deserve to be.

We in the media share in the guilt for the chaos and division unleashed by Trump.  We mocked his candidacy before he won the Republican nomination.  And then, when he won, we swore that he’d never become president.  And when he topped the Electoral College – criminally aided and abetted by the aforementioned Russia – we said he’d be swiftly impeached.

But a year later, Donald Trump is still President of the United States.  And some of us bear responsibility for that.

This writer has a book coming out from Dundurn Press next year, loosely about the Trump era.  It is called New Dark Ages.  In a couple passages, I try to explain how those of us who ostensibly predict political events have gotten rather bad at it.

“The press called [him] a bigot and a white supremacist, and everything in between.  But, to Republicans, it didn’t matter.  The media didn’t understand that the Republican faithful weren’t gravitating towards to his campaign despite his racism – they were supporting him because of it.

“…the mainly-rural, high-school-educated, angry old white guys loved [Trump], wasn’t just because of what he said. They worshiped him because of how he said it – the way he said it. They loved him because he talked like they did, when they were in the privacy of a dark room in a trailer park somewhere. They loved that he didn’t use twenty-dollar words when two-dollar words would suffice. They loved that he said outrageous, offensive things, and that the queers on TV couldn’t resist reporting on what he said, and then analyzing it over and over and over. He stirred up the elites and the intellectuals.

And when they did that, they were letting [Trump] control the agenda. They were letting him dominate the dialogue. And, in some cases, [Trump] was therefore literally getting as much as a thousand times the coverage his more-experienced rivals were getting.”

Many of us in the media privately (and not-so-privately) despise Trump, but we can’t stop talking about him.  We chase every shiny silver ball he rolls past us.

Since he has become President, the media’s inability to understand Trumpism has only grown worse.  Facebook, for instance, last week announced that it would start minimizing real news stories on its platform – and, apparently, encouraging photos of kittens and birthday parties instead.  Twitter has announced its cracking down on racists who post hateful comments – but has continued to let the Hater-in-Chief, Donald Trump, to thumb out whatever foul thing that pops into his miniscule cranium.

Platforms like Huffington Post – which, full disclosure, I parted ways with last week, because of their willingness to shield Trump-like sexual predators from scrutiny – don’t even pay a cent to those who contribute to their web sites, and then wonder why journalism is dying.  And then Trump imposes a punitive duty of Canadian newsprint, clearly – as CFRA radio host Brian Lilley pointed out – to punish his critics at places like the Washington Post and the New York Times.

What we in the media are doing in respect of Trump’s new dark ages, we are doing wrong.  We diagnosed the disease wrongly – and, now that the pandemic is fully underway, we are merely advising a couple of aspirin and some bed rest.

We can do more, and we should do more.  We need to re-evaluate the way we cover Trump, and we need to change our ways.

Because whatever we are doing is working only for him.  And it’s not working for the people we serve – our readers and listeners and viewers.


New Dark Ages? What?

Spotted late last night on Apple iBooks. I didn’t expect to see it.

And, it immediately had the effect of panicking me about where I am on book three in the X Gang series (it’s a trilogy, for those who care).

The third book doesn’t have a title yet. But, like the first two, it’ll likely be another Bad Religion song title.

Pre-order now!


Ten reasons why Oprah would be a great candidate

Besides the weather, it’s all anyone is talking about: her speech at that awards thing was a blockbuster.

Personally, I think it’s a cool idea. Here’s ten reasons why.

1. If a corrupt, evil, mentally unfit TV billionaire could win, then a principled, decent, smart TV billionaire could certainly beat him.

2.  She would be a candidate at the precise moment when women are dominating the public and political agenda, and are looking for a candidate who will speak for them.

3.  She uses her celebrity in positive ways – to oppose bullying thugs (cf. Trump) and to promote great leaders (cf. Obama, the anti-Trump).

4.  The most motivated Democratic constituency – as we saw in Alabama – is African-American women.  An Oprah candidacy would keep them motivated and involved.

5.  She actually has a legislative record – cf. The Protect Our Children Act, an anti-predatory bill that became known as the Oprah Act.  She gets stuff done, even as a private citizen.

6.  She’s likeable and relatable, to say the least.  She didn’t get millions upon millions of viewers, and build a communications empire, by being a repellant reality TV circus act – she did it by being a person average folks want to bring into their living rooms, every single day.  As they did.

7. Does she have many years of political involvement?  No, she doesn’t, and so what.  In an era when many voters, on all points on the ideological spectrum (see: Trump and Sanders) are looking for atypical/outsider candidates, Oprah’s distance from Capitol Hill is a help, not a hindrance.

8.  She may be a billionaire, but she comes from humble roots – the child of an unwed mother in Mississippi, a survivor of sexual abuse, she was an honours student who could recite Bible verses off the top of her head.  She pulled herself up by her bootstraps.  And, she’s Oprah, for Chrissakes.

9.  She is unique, in that she is one of the few Weinstein-era celebrities who has retained her moral authority.  At a time when America is turning its lonely/anxious eyes to a Joe DiMaggio, Oprah is Joe DiMaggio.  She’s Poprah.

10.  She can win.  She can win.  Whether Trump is there or not – felled by Mueller or resigning to head off a post-midterm impeachment – she can beat him, just as she can beat the unholy cabal of Pence, Ryan et al.  She can win.

So, to those nay-sayers, objecting to my ten points here or on Facebook or Twitter, I say this:

If not Oprah, then who?  Who is the Democratic alternative?