Daisy Group

“Warren Kinsella's book, ‘Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse,’ is of vital importance for American conservatives and other right-leaning individuals to read, learn and understand.”

- The Washington Times

“One of the best books of the year.”

- The Hill Times

“Justin Trudeau’s speech followed Mr. Kinsella’s playbook on beating conservatives chapter and verse...[He followed] the central theme of the Kinsella narrative: “Take back values. That’s what progressives need to do.”

- National Post

“[Kinsella] is a master when it comes to spinning and political planning...”

- George Stroumboulopoulos, CBC TV

“Kinsella pulls no punches in Fight The Right...Fight the Right accomplishes what it sets out to do – provide readers with a glimpse into the kinds of strategies that have made Conservatives successful and lay out a credible roadmap for progressive forces to regain power.”

- Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics

“[Kinsella] deserves credit for writing this book, period... he is absolutely on the money...[Fight The Right] is well worth picking up.”

- Huffington Post

“Run, don't walk, to get this amazing book.”

- Mike Duncan, Classical 96 radio

“Fight the Right is very interesting and - for conservatives - very provocative.”

- Former Ontario Conservative leader John Tory

“His new book is great! All of his books are great!”

- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD

“I absolutely recommend this book.”

- Paul Wells, Maclean’s

“Kinsella puts the Left on the right track with new book!”

- Calgary Herald

Earlier today, www.warrenkinsella.com underwent a big change – and none of you noticed!

Look up – look way, way up, as someone used to say.

After fifteen years, the name of this web site has changed. The design will be changing shortly, too, to a much more mobile-friendly version, among other things.

In the meantime, forgive me for moping about how my always-attentive readers missed this!

Screen Shot 2016-05-13 at 1.28.00 PM

The way we were.

I’m a loser, too. The guy beside me goes on to be mayor of Toronto. Me? Nobody-ville. Sigh. 

This came out four years ago. Today, I am in meetings about two new books – one done, one not. A bestseller that enables me to retire remains elusive.

This has been a raging controversy, apparently, bigger even than Fort Mac and ISIS.  I know this because it was the subject-matter of two radio shows I did yesterday – the Adler-Kinsella Show on Sirius XM Canada Talks, and Evan Solomon’s show on CFRA in Ottawa.  (I’ll try and post links to those later.)

Afterwards, I figured we should do a poll on this subject, because it is so obviously gripping the nation like no other issue.  So, vote now, vote often.  This poll is accurate 21 times out of 19, etc.

A snippet from my column about the Ben Rhodes controversy, and the lessons that some might be able to draw from up here in the Great White North:

But the Rhodes profile in the Times is a cautionary tale for political staffers everywhere, even in far-away Ottawa, Ontario. Because, in it, Rhodes gave writer David Samuels extraordinary access – and he was extraordinarily candid. Rhodes told Samuels, on the record, that the press corps are “27-year-olds…who literally know nothing.” He called the entirety of the foreign policy establishment – including Hillary Clinton – “the Blob.” He said he had created an “echo chamber” of talking heads who say “what we [have] given them to say.” He said some of his colleagues “can’t keep a secret for two hours.” He said – and, again, this is a quote – “I don’t know anymore where I begin and Obama ends.”

Sound familiar?

Sound, say, like not a few “senior strategists” who have blown into town on the wings of someone else’s election victory, achieved unprecedented powers, and then frittered it all away with an ill-advised sit-down with someone like David Samuels?

It happens all the time. A senior staffer succumbs to the siren song of some scheming media inquisitor – You’re so influential! The bureaucracy and caucus respect you so! How did you get so close to The Leader? Was that your words I detected in that wonderful speech/policy/year-end interview? – and, inevitably, they come to profoundly regret it. The newspaper containing the profile piece thuds against their door early one morning, they shuffle to get it in their slippers, they scan it, they frown. They start frantically texting friends: “Do you think it’s bad? Does it create a problem for the boss? Should I demand a correction?”

Take my word for it, having previously taken a celebrated trip to the burn unit, myself: it’s almost always bad. It creates a problem for the boss. And a correction won’t undo the damage.


Kathryn Borel says someone did just that to her.

Borel, as you probably know, was the complainant in the second Jian Ghomeshi trial, the one that had been slated to start in June. As you also undoubtedly know, that trial is not going to happen, now, because Ghomeshi agreed to apologize to Borel, who was a producer on Ghomeshi’s CBC radio show. He also agreed to stay away from her for a year.  No weapons, lots of therapy, etc.

So Borel spoke to the assembled media after the deal was done in Court. She was very articulate and effective. To me, her statement sounded like it had been lawyered, because it was pretty careful, and because it suggested an understanding of the law that had completely escaped the three previous complainants (and the Crown and the police, frankly).

But Borel said one thing that blew me away, frankly, and no one else seems to have picked up on it:

“Up until recently, I didn’t even internalize that what [Ghomeshi] was doing to my body was sexual assault. Because when I went to the CBC for help, what I received in return was a directive that, yes, he could do this and, yes, it was my job to let him. The relentless message to me from my celebrity boss and the national institution we worked for were that his whims were more important than my humanity or my dignity.”

“A directive.”

That bolded part, to me, is truly extraordinary. It must be true, too, because the CBC put the entirety of it on their web site, as seen here. They didn’t redact her statement or edit it, as they had initially done.

As a result, we can only conclude what Borel said was true – she was, in fact, “directed” by her superiors to submit to sexual assault.  That’s what she said, and CBC is not disputing it in any way.

I’m just a simple Calgary lawyer, but my questions therefore are:

  1. Who directed Borel to submit to sexual assault?
  2. Have they been disciplined by the CBC for this? Why not, if not?
  3. Are they going to be charged criminally for facilitating sexual assault? Why not, if not?

As someone whose tax dollars go to the CBC, and who pays the salaries of Borel’s anonymous bosses – who function like pimps, apparently – I would like to know who directed this woman to submit to repeated sexual assaults, please and thanks.

I suspect lots of other folks will want to know, too.




I have a son who was born 18 years ago today – his arrival prompted by a bank robbery, a garage sale, and a crazy ride in 1974 Volkswagen Beetle. (Long story.)

Eighteen years later, he has been accepted to every university he’s applied to, with scholarships to boot. He’s decided on McGill, however, which will please his grandfathers. He’s a Bernie Sanders fan, he’s agnostic, he adores Justin Trudeau, and he is a Hell of a golfer. So I gave him a Big Bertha driver, which looks like a dinner plate on a stick.

Anyway. Can’t believe 18 years have gone by. He will be running the country one day, just watch.

This has been a public service announcement by a Proud Old man.

Sounds like an indie band, eh? But, after this morning, I suspect many will be wondering if there was a better option in the R. v. Ghomeshi cases.

The first trial, as we all know, was a collision between (a) highly compromised complainants (b) a highly ineffective Crown and (c) a highly effective defence lawyer. The second trial, resolved today, won’t even go to trial.

Is there an alternative to this kind of a process? Everyone, I think, is unhappy about what happened in the Ghomeshi mess.

Here’s a summary of criminal ADR (alternative dispute resolution) approaches found around the globe (with edits made to the language used therein).

1. Victim-Offender Mediation Programs (VOM). Also referred to as victim-offender reconciliation programs (VORP) or victim reparation programs. In most cases, its purpose is to promote direct communication between victim and offender. Victims who participate are provided with an opportunity to ask questions, address the emotional trauma caused by the crime and its aftermath, and seek reparations.

2. Community Dispute Resolution Programmes (CDRP). CDRP seeks to dispose of relatively minor conflicts before trial.

3. Victim-offender Panels (VOP). VOP developed as a result of the rise of the victims’ rights movement, and particularly in relation to the various campaigns against drunk driving. They are used to provide the offender with an opportunity to appreciate human cost of their actions on victims and survivors. It also is aimed at decreasing the likelihood of repeat offenses.

4. Victim Assistance Programs. VOCA established the Crime Victim’s Fund, which is funded by fines that are collected from persons who have been convicted of offences in the United States (except for fines that are collected through certain environmental statues and other fines).

5. Community Crime Prevention Programs. The community crime prevention has included a plethora of activities, including media anti-drug campaigns, silent observer programs, and neighborhood dispute resolution programs.

6. Private Complaint Mediation Service (PCMS). This process provides for mediation as an alternative to the formal judicial process of handling summary-type offences.

Apart from these, there are also sentencing circles, ex-offender assistance, community service, school programs, and specialist courts. These programmes point towards a gradual shift from deterrence to reparation; they show the application of restorative justice.

What do you think, folks?

For reasons I do not fully ken, these two Eighties gems popped into my head this morning. I am a sucker for a weirdo bass line.

Useless facts: one guy was in both bands. Can you name him?

I interviewed XTC a million times. They are great guys.