Categories for Feature

Since I was a kid – since this day in 1972, in fact, when I started writing a daily journal – I have always taken note of April 4, and said to myself:  “April 4.  Dr. King.”

Today, more than half a Century ago, Martin Luther King was murdered by a racist in Memphis.  Dr. King was a giant of a man, the one whose message continues to resonate across the decades, because racial hatred continues unabated.

He was the one who first said that “anti-Zionism” was, in fact, just plain old anti-Semitism.  Worth remembering in these dark post-October 7 days.

I was a kid, and my family was living in Dallas when he was assassinated. I remember it; I remember how scared we were when he was murdered, how it seemed like the end of decency, and the start of something terrible. It was, too.

So. It’s April 4, so many years later, and here is some of his most remarkable speech.  Surveying the racists who still crowd the public stage in the U.S., I don’t think we will see the likes of him again.

Comments (12)

Before the tariffs hit, before Donald Trump kicked off his three-ring circus in the White House lawn, my genial colleague Brian Lilley suggested I come with him to see the Conservative leader speak to the elite of Bay Street.

So I did. I watched at the back.

His tone was right. Pierre Poilievre looked and sounded like you would expect a Prime Minister to look and sound. His economic plan, and his plan for dealing with the tariffs, seemingly made sense.

But as I stood there at the back observing the guy, it was obvious that he could not bring himself to clearly and unambiguously condemn Donald Trump.

Canadians want him to do that. I’m now convinced he will never do that. Is that bad? Well, it could be fatal.

I had never seen Pierre Poilievre give a speech in person before. He seemed a bit shorter than I expected – although this writer is 6’4″ in my Doc Martens.

He was impeccably suited, there was not a hair out of place, and he seemed a bit younger than he does on TV. Certainly less severe.

At one point he made a joke about snow in mid-April, and I was the loudest laugh in the room. It was funny.

I thought to myself: he should do that more often. He should smile more. He should laugh more.

But in politics, as in life: once you reach 40 or so, how you are is how you are. No big changes are possible.

[To read more, subscribe here]

Comments (17)

“Demographics.”

Back in the Fall, former NDP leader Thomas Mulcair told a story about a revealing exchange with Melanie Joly, then as now the inexplicable choice for Global Affairs Minister for both Justin Trudeau and Mark Carney.

Joly’s position on the Jewish state is easy to ascertain. In October 2023, Joly blamed Israel for bombing a hospital in Gaza and killing hundreds. Even after the facts came out – that Israel did not fire the missile, Palestinian Islamic Jihad did; that hundreds were not killed, at all; and that hospital was still standing – Joly did not recant.

Hamas is a listed terrorist entity in Canada. Despite that, Joly has called for the murderous cult to be given a spot at the negotiating table with Israel. She favours funding UNWRA, even after the aid agency admitted its members participated in the atrocities of October 7 in Israel. And she has refused to condemn South Africa’s dishonest campaign to prosecute Israel at the International Court of Justice for genocide.

Her opposition to the Jewish state was well-known even before she told Mulcair that the “demographics of her riding” – where voters of Arab or Muslim lineage ostensibly dominate – dictate her decision-making.

She’s not alone, apparently.

Liberal leader Carney has been been largely AWOL on the issue, as he is on most issues that are contentious. So, just a few days ago, Anita Anand – Carney’s Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology – appeared at a Liberal campaign officer to holler: “We will make sure, that we do not allow the forced displacement of people, from their land, including in Gaza.”

Left unsaid: that Israel didn’t want anyone “displaced,” and was living in peace with Gazans – until they slaughtered hundreds of Jews on October 7, 2023.

Another example: “Vote Palestine” describes itself as “a grassroots campaign aimed at putting Palestine on the ballot.” They lobby to get MPs, candidates and political parties to endorse their platform – which, among other things, demands recognition of the Hamas-led “state of Palestine,” continued funding for the terrorist-infiltrated UNWRA, and prosecution of the Jewish state for “war crimes.”

Multiple Liberal MPs or candidates have endorsed all that. Patrick Weiner, the MP for West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast; Fares Abu al-Soud in Mississauga Center; MP Iqra Khalid in Missisauga-Erin Mills; MP Tim Louis in Kitchener-Conestoga; MP Jenna Sudds in Kanata; MP Adam Koeverden in Burlington North-Milton West; and, of course, Salma Zahid in Scarborough Centre. Zahid has even attended a “solidarity event” where a Holocaust denier was present, and has called on the prosecution of Israel for “genocide.”

And so on and so on. There’s a lot of this anti-Israel, anti-Jewish hate if you’ve got the stomach for it. But a question remains.

[To read more, subscribe here]

Comments (6)

Comments (32)

Mark Carney looks grave.

“The old relationship we had with the United States based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation is over,” the Prime Minister of Canada says, and his words hang in the air like static. He pauses.

“It’s clear the US is no longer a reliable partner. It is possible that with comprehensive negotiations, we could reestablish an element of confidence but there will be no going backwards.”

And with that, a unique relationship that has endured for 158 years – a relationship that has survived war and pandemics and terror attacks – came to an ignoble end. With a whimper, not a bang, at a hurriedly-convened press conference in Ottawa. Called to answer to Donald Trump’s destructive and reckless tariffs on the auto industry.

Carney’s words went around the world. “Canada PM Mark Carney says old relationship with US ‘is over’,” BBC headlined their report. “Old US-Canada relationship is ‘over,’ warns Canadian prime minister,” said CNN’s bulletin. “Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney says ‘old relationship’ with US ‘is over’ amid tension over Trump tariffs,” said Fox News.

Partisan Liberals gleefully celebrated Carney’s statement, posting online that he looked and sounded Prime Ministerial. And that much was true: Carney did look and sound like Prime Minister, for the first time in the very short time he has been in the job.

But it wasn’t anything to celebrate. It was deeply, profoundly sad. And, importantly, Carney’s declaration will be difficult – verging on impossible – to walk back. For him or a successor.

[To read more, subscribe here]

Comments (10)

Traitor.

The Cambridge dictionary folks define it thusly: “A person who is not loyal or stops being loyal to their own country.”

Anyone who commits high treason is considered a traitor – and it’s a serious charge. It’s still there in section 46 of our Criminal Code, in fact: anyone who kills or tries to kill the King, anyone who “levies war against Canada,” anyone who assists an enemy at war with Canada? That’s treason.

The penalty for high treason is life in prison. Up until 1998, high treason could be punishable by death. Louis Riel, the leader of the Metis people, was wrongly executed for treason in 1885. Thomas Scott, a white opponent of Riel, was executed by firing squad in 1870. So was a Canadian citizen, Kanao Inouye, who was born in Kamloops, B.C., and hanged for treason in 1947, in Hong Kong while in British custody. His last words were: “Banzai!”

No one has gone fully “banzai” on their opponent in Election 2025, yet, but you can tell they’re getting close. The winged monkeys who support Pierre Poilievre and Mark Carney have been firing “treason” broadsides at each other for weeks. You know: Carney is a traitor because he worked abroad and allegedly sent Canadian jobs to the United States – while Poilievre is a traitor because he won’t get his security clearance and India (alleged the Globe on Tuesday) meddled to help him win his party’s leadership.

[To read more, subscribe here]

Comments (21)

Comments (44)

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats.

SWOT, it’s called, in corporate strategy sessions. What are our internal strengths and weaknesses? What are the external opportunities and threats?

In the federal general election campaign that gets underway today, you can be certain that the three main Canadian political parties have already done a SWOT, or something approximating it. It’s the kind of analysis that determines ad buy, debate strategy, messages, you name it. It’s important.

Here, then, is the SWOT for the 2025 election campaign. Clip and save.

STRENGTHS: The Mark Carney Liberals are winning. Their main internal strength, to the surprise of many, is Mark Carney. He may have the pedigree of a bland, boring banker, but the newly-selected Liberal leader has turned all that into a strength: at a time when the despised-by-Canadians Donald Trump is causing instability and uncertainty everywhere, Carney projects calm and predictability. Female voters, in particular, like him.

Carney has also been willing to take political risks. Going for a skate with the Edmonton Oilers could have been a disaster, if Carney had slipped and fallen on his keister – à la Tory leader Robert Stanfield and the infamous football fumble. Carney didn’t, and he won an approving quote from team captain Conor “Jesus” McDavid.

Pierre Poilievre, meanwhile, has strengths of his own. He’s got more candidates, more money, and more organizational muscle. He’s a highly disciplined politician, and has been getting himself ready for this moment for his entire life. With the exception of the Mango Mussolini and climate change, his priorities match those of most Canadians.

Jagmeet Singh? He, um, is good at TikTok.

[To read more, subscribe here]

Comments (29)

This is unexpected. Wish my folks were still here to see it.

Comments (9)

What are they really like?

When you are a political staffer – like this writer was, back in the Palaeolithic Era – you get that question a lot. People find out that you work for a notable politician, and they want to know the real deal: what is he/she like when the microphones and cameras are tucked away?

Mark Carney first.

On Monday, the newly-minted Liberal leader was asked totally legitimate questions about his “blind trust” by the CBC’s Rosemary Barton and the Globe’s Stephanie Levitz. Barton and Levitz essentially wanted to know why Carney didn’t disclose his financial holdings when he could have.

Levitz went first, querying Carney about the whereabouts of his millions. Carney’s response: “What possible conflict would you have, Stephanie?…Point final.”

Get that? “Point final.” That’s kind of the English equivalent of saying, in French, “This discussion is over, child.”

Barton wasn’t deterred by that. She said it “was very difficult to believe” Carney could have no possible conflicts of interest. At that point, Carney’s patrician mask fully slipped. “Look inside yourself, Rosemary,” he actually said. You are “trying to invent new rules,” he snapped at her. You are acting with “ill will,” he barked at the CBC veteran broadcaster.

Well, no. She was just doing her job. But in those few seconds, Carney revealed himself to be arrogant, pompous, evasive and condescending. He looked terrible; all that was missing was him gnawing at an apple.

[To read more, subscribe here]

Comments (55)