The polls say Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives have dropped, a bit. Justin Trudeau’s Liberals have gone up, a bit.

How come? Ten reasons. Tories first.

1. Poilievre’s LikeAbility Gap. Every successful political leader in Canada – Jean Chretien, Rene Levesque, Mel Lastman, Ralph Klein, Doug Ford – was likeable. They were HOAGS: Hell Of A Guy – you could picture yourself having a beer with them. They were imperfect, and admitted their mistakes. The newly-minted Conservative leader doesn’t do that. And, as pollster Angus Reid has found, as Canadians get to know him, they find Poilievre “arrogant” and “insincere” – more than 40 per cent of them.
2. Peaking too soon: The Tories have had as much as a 15 point lead over the Grits in recent polling. That’s good, but that’s not something you want to have happen more than a year before an election. You want to have it happen in the third week of the election campaign. As in comedy, so too in politics: timing is everything. The Tories may have peaked way too soon.
3. Peekaboo Pierre: Apart from showing up at a pro-Israel rally or issuing a few tweets, the Conservative leader has been mostly silent on some of the big international issues of the day: the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. He’s kept his focus on the affordability crisis. At one level, making yourself less of a target is good politics. But sometimes, being invisible looks a bit timid, too. Love him or hate him, Trudeau has been visible and much more vocal on the wars – and Canadians are watching those wars closely.
4. Unforced errors: On those rare occasions where the Conservatives have taken a position on international issues, they’ve made unforced errors – as with the Ukraine-Canada free trade agreement. Poilievre told his caucus to vote against the deal because it “imposed” a carbon tax on the beleaguered European nation. Three problems: one, it doesn’t. The Ukrainians already have a carbon tax. Two, Volodymyr Zelenskyy came to Canada in September, in part, to push for the deal. He wants it. Three, what the Hell? Does Poilievre want to run Ukraine as well as Canada? Stay in your lane, Pierre.
5. Picking media fights: Poilievre’s testy exchange with an ill-prepared B.C. reporter while he chewed on an apple was a home run. Picking the occasional fight with the media is good politics, especially for conservatives – the base eat it up. But doing it all the time, as Poilievre tends to do, gets tired, and sometimes even looks like bullying. When nearly half of Canadians already think you’re arrogant (see above), that ain’t good.
6. Trudeau’s the devil we know: The Liberal leader, as disliked as he is, is a known quantity. Those who dislike him know why they dislike him. Those who like him – a quarter of voters – have stuck with him through thick and thin. Poileivre, however, has yet to be fully defined in the minds of voters. And, as they get to know him better, some clearly don’t like what they see.
7. One guy has a climate plan: And the other one doesn’t. This, more than any other issue, is what killed Erin O’Toole and Andrew Scheer with younger voters – the belief that Trudeau cares about the environment, and successive Tory leaders just don’t. Which is why an Abacus poll revealed, this week, that the one policy issue that still works for Trudeau is the environment. Most Canadians believe Trudeau has a green plan, however imperfect. And that Poilievre doesn’t.
8. Incumbency is Trudeau’s friend: Like him or not, it isn’t hard to picture Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister – because that’s what he’s been since November 4, 2015. As the former Special Assistant to Jean Chretien, trust me: real power – incumbency – confers gravitas and credibility on a leader. Being an opposition leader just doesn’t.
9. Audition for the job you want: …not the one you already have. Pierre Poilievre is an amazing Leader of the Opposition. He’s tough in Question Period, in committee, and in scrums. Yes. But there was another opposition leader who was great at all that, too: Tom Mulcair. So where’s Tom Mulcair now? Gone, baby, gone. Trudeau knows drama and auditions, and he’s always auditioning for the role of P.M. Poilievre, too, auditions for the job he’s already got.
10. Trudeau’s got a bigger base: Conservative-minded voters are highly motivated – to vote, to donate, to get involved. Progressive voters aren’t – but there’s more of them. When you lump the Liberal and NDP vote together, as Trudeau clearly does with his Axis of Weasels™ coalition, the progressive side offers more gettable vote. And some of it is clearly coming back to Team Trudeau.

Does any of this spell disaster for Pierre Poilievre, and another victory for Justin Trudeau? Of course not. The current shift in the polls is within the margin of error, as they say.

But Poilievre would be a fool to count out Trudeau.

And Pierre Poilievre is no fool.

Comments (37)


Peace in our time. 

With war raging, and yet more war seeming imminent, speeches were made. Leaders gathered together, rising to leave behind some words that would be remembered. Remembered by history.

Addressing his people, and the world, one powerful man rose and said these things.

“We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing causes, but trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and goodwill.”

Applause. 

He went on: “How horrible, fantastic, incredible we should be preparing for war because of a quarrel in a far away country of whom we know nothing.”

More applause. 

He lowered his voice for the next part: “No doubt the Jews aren’t a lovable people. I don’t care about them myself.”

Oh, wait. The above words were not uttered in the United Nations General assembly on Tuesday, although they certainly could have been. On Tuesday, you see, scores of nations – Canada among them – also deplored war and called for peace in our time. Canada, and others, called for a ceasefire. 

The above words didn’t come from the UN this week, however. They come from decades ago in Britain. Neville Chamberlain said those words.

He uttered that hateful statement about the Jews, too. Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Britain and the United Kingdom, actually said those things.

He was wrong about Jews, of course. But he was also wrong about ceasefires, and peace in his time. But he would’ve fit right in, quite well, at the United Nations this week.

With very little effort, too, he would’ve fit right in to Justin Trudeau’s cabinet, wouldn’t he?

It is regrettable that we need to remind people that Neville Chamberlain was hoodwinked by Adolf Hitler, and tragically wrong to call for “peace in our time.” But with a significant number of voters now getting information from TikTok, and not actual books and newspapers, it’s important to recall that lesson of history.

Namely, a ceasefire then only benefited Hitler. Just as a ceasefire now only benefits Hamas.

It’s a bit ironic, of course, that Trudeau’s government cravenly called for a ceasefire this week. It is almost amusing. Because, of course, a ceasefire was already in place. 

For years, Israel and the warring factions that surrounded it – the ones who wanted to wipe it from the face of the Earth (Hamas and Hezbollah, mainly) – had a ceasefire. Apart from the occasional skirmish, tentative peace was in place. It lasted for years.

It ended on October 7, 2023. Hamas broke it. 

It’s impossible to know, of course, whether Hamas’ billionaire leaders in their Qatari mansions laughed about the ceasefire vote at the United Nations this week. But we know that their predecessor, Hitler, certainly laughed when he fooled Neville Chamberlain.

It gave him time to regroup and rearm, and to spread his hateful ideology throughout the rest of Europe. As Hamas intends to do, in the Middle East. 

As we say, we do not know how Hamas reacted to the vote in the general assembly on Tuesday. The terror group gives us a clue in its Charter, however.

There, in Article 13, Hamas says: “So-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.” Take that, general assembly. 

It goes on: Hamas calls peace talks, and talk of peace with Jews and non-believers, “a waste of time.” Peace talks only help “the infidels,” says Hamas. All that is permitted is “jihad” – that is, holy war.

But Hamas does admit one thing, right in its Charter: peace conferences, and calls for ceasefires, are strategically useful. It gives them time to prepare for the next battle.

Take a bow, general assembly of the United Nations: you gave Hamas a big and unexpected victory this week.

Just like Neville Chamberlain did, so many years ago

To Hitler.

Comments (44)

What do you do when hate shows up in your neighbourhood?

In some cases, knowing how to react is pretty straightforward. When Heather Reisman’s bookstore in Toronto is attacked and vandalized because its owner is a Jew? You call the police. So, too, when Yeshiva Gedoloa, a Jewish school in Montreal’s Côte-des-Neiges neighborhood, is shot up – not once, but twice? You call the police.

When a member Ontario’s legislature – and a city councillor in Victoria, and a rape crisis centre at the University of Alberta – deny the acts of sexual violence that indisputably happened on October 7? When unions and universities applaud acts of genocide and hate? You petition those places and institutions to take remedial action.

But hate, and anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, can express themselves in subtler, less-obvious ways, can’t they? Hate does not always end up on the front pages of newspapers, especially in dangerous and dark times like these.

And that’s been happening a lot, in Canada, since, October 7. Hate has been like a snake, slipping into unexpected places, manifesting itself in surprising ways. Unseen, until it is often too late.

So, all of us have had friends and family saying truly awful things since Israel commenced its (necessary, unavoidable) war against the monsters who constitute Hamas.

For myself, I have had a friend of thirty-plus years say that a column I wrote – one in which I quoted someone calling for peace for Israelis and Palestinians alike, and in which I said Hamas were inhuman – was “dehumanizing.” Another one, a prominent former Conservative candidate, opined that Jewish community centres were legitimate targets of hate graffiti. What does one do with that?

And, from my Jewish readers, I have heard how people they considered close friends have favourited anti-Semitic memes online, or even said aloud anti-Semitic things. I have heard such stories too many times to count.

And, then, there are the many, many who remain silent in the face of horrors. Like Canada’s hapless Global Affairs Minister, for instance, who took 62 days to condemn the rape and sexual violence endured by Jewish women on and after October 7. Sixty-two days.

So what does one do when hate shows up in your backyard? What then? What does one about those you know, and who should know better?

Take Prince Edward County’s Royal Hotel, for example. Because I live most of the time in the County, as it is called, I have been there a few times. It’s an old hotel in Picton, Ont. that has been painstakingly restored by Greg Sorbara – the former Ontario Finance Minister, the current York University chancellor – and others. They did a good job.

This week, another local business, Bloomfield Beauty Co. – a spa that offers facials and “cosmetic injectable services” – announced that it was joining the “global strike in support of Palestine.” They were doing so, they said in a post on Instagram, because of “the most horrific crimes against humanity.” And that “it is weighing on us.”

People have been urged to stay home and not go to work or school during the global strike. The strike was called by Palestinian National and Islamic Forces, which came into being during the second Intifada (uprising), and was the creation of the Palestine Liberation Organization and Marwan Barghouti, a convicted murderer and terrorist.

I heard from people who live in Prince Edward County – Jew and non-Jew – who were appalled that a business they had patronized was accusing the Jewish state of “crimes against humanity” and “genocide.” Quote unquote.

Someone at the Royal Hotel saw their Instagram post, too – and indicated support. “The Royal Hotel Picton” – it applauded the words about genocide and crimes against humanity. “Wow” was all I could muster.

So, I wrote to Bloomfield Beauty Co. and asked them “what is your response to Jewish residents who have been upset by your post?” I also asked them if they had also “commented on the need to release the hostages, and condemn the acts of violence against women on October 7?”

They didn’t respond. I asked the Royal Hotel the same thing: would “the hotel (or the Sorbara family) also condemn the documented acts of violence on October 7 against Israeli men, women and children?”

Late in the day, an executive at the hotel replied: “[We are] shocked to find out that such a post was “liked” by our account. This in no way reflects the values or opinions of the hotel, me or my family. We have removed the “like” and are dealing with this internally.”

Hate is always bad. When it is accompanied by violence, of course, it is even worse. We in the media write and broadcast about it.

But paler shades of hate – racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, misogyny, take your pick – don’t always attract attention of the media.

But when subtler hate slithers into your backyard, or when it comes out the mouths of those you know? That’s almost as bad.

Sometimes, it’s way worse.

Comments (11)

Comments (32)

Ehrlich Anthony Coker was a rapist.

He was a murderer and thief, too. While serving three life sentences at the Ware Correctional Institution in Waycross, Georgia, Coker escaped.

On that same night, Coker broke into the home of Allen and Elnita Carver and held the couple hostage. He raped Elnita, and then took her with him, using the couple’s car. Elnita got free, and the police re-captured Ehrlich Anthony Coker.

This time, he was charged with a capital crime – rape. In Georgia, North Carolina and Louisiana, in those days, rape was punishable by death. Coker was sentenced to death.

The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Justice Byron White wrote for the majority. White wrote that rape is a crime that shows “almost total contempt for the personal integrity and autonomy of the female victim.” Apart from murder, rape is, White wrote, “the ultimate violation of self.”

The ultimate violation of self: that is what it is – and, as we have learned in the intervening years – it is really not just about sexual gratification. It is, as White wrote for the highest U.S. court, an act that “inflicts mental and psychological damage.” That, oftentimes, is the rapist’s purpose, their goal: subjugation, degradation, domination.

That was the goal, too, of Hamas on October 7. They slaughtered 1,151 Israelis, their government now says, and they took 240 hostage.

But Hamas also raped many of them.

At the United Nations this week, there was finally a presentation about Hamas’ use of sexual violence. CNN, which has been frequently critical of Israel’s war against Hamas, reported – as fact – that the U.N. was shown “evidence of sexual violence [that] was ample and overwhelming and came from different sources.”

Here is just a short summary of it.

• “A woman was shot in the back of her head, lying on her bed, naked from her waist down. A live grenade was planted in her hand.”
• “[Another woman] had nails and different objects in her female organs. Her body was brutalized in a way that [first responders] could not identify her.”
• “There were girls with broken pelvis due to repetitive rapes, their legs were split wide apart.”
• “We heard girls that were pulled out from the shelters. Girls that shouted. They raped girls. Burnt them just after that. All the bodies outside were burnt.”
• “Several female soldiers were shot in their crotch, intimate parts, vagina, or shot in the breast. There seem to be a systematic genital mutilation of a group of victims.”

And, now, CNN reported, “dozens of hostages have been released from Gaza as part of a truce between Israel and Hamas and some have also mentioned sexual abuse during their testimonies.” So the rape and torture and sexual violence that happened on October 7? It continues.

A few weeks ago, this writer (and others) was invited to the Israeli consulate in Toronto to see video shot by Israeli first responders, or Hamas terrorists themselves. Over the course of 42 minutes, I saw 138 people killed by Hamas, or the immediate aftermath. Men, women, children and babies. Over and over and over.

We also saw something else: many, many women and girls, stripped below the waist, legs apart, their bodies bloodied and charred. We didn’t need to be told what had happened to them. We knew.

Despite that – despite all of us knowing that denying sexual assault re-victimizes the victim, despite the lessons of #MeToo – some denied it all. The former Ontario NDP politician Sarah Jama denied it. So did the University of Alberta Sexual Assault Centre. So did a Victoria, B.C. city councillor, Susan Kim. So have others, using cowardly, slippery phrasings online.

And some have just ignored it. It was only this week, in fact, that Canada’s own Minister of Global Affairs, Melanie Joly, finally issued a clear statement on the rapes and horrors of October 7.

Sixty-two days after the rapes took place, Joly put up a few words on X: “Using sexual violence as a tactic of war is a crime. We strongly condemn [sexual and gender-based violence], including rape, perpetrated by Hamas against women in Israel on October 7. We believe Israeli women. Canada will always stand against #SGBV and advocate for justice for all victims.”

Except Canada didn’t strongly “advocate” for Israeli women, in that way, for many weeks. Despite being asked to do so. Despite clear evidence that “the ultimate violation” had taken place on October 7.

Which leads us back to the 1977 judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court in the appeal of Ehrlich Anthony Coker. Capital punishment was too harsh a penalty for Coker, the Court ruled.

For Hamas, it isn’t.

Find them, and end them all.

Comments (13)

My girlfriend Paula Christison had been over, and we’d been studying, then watching something on the little black and white TV we had. My Carleton roommate, Lee G. Hill, was there too. Lee and I had been great friends in Calgary. In junior high, we’d started a couple fanzines with Beatles-centric themes. In our shared room on Second Russell, we had a couple John Lennon posters up amongst the punk rock stuff.

Paula left for her place downtown, so Lee and I were studying when the phone rang. It was Paula. “John Lennon’s been shot, babe,” she said. “It’s on the radio.”

His assassination, on December 8, 1980, was of course a terrible tragedy – and so, to me, was the fact that his last album (before the inevitable avalanche of ham-fisted compilations and retrospectives) was a piece of self-indulgent, saccharine shite like Double Fantasy.

Generally, he always needed Paul as an editor, and vice-versa. But his best album – and one of the best albums of all time, in my view – was Plastic Ono Band. It was like him: it was stark, and raw, and different, and deeply, deeply personal. Some say the LP was the product of his dalliance with primal scream therapy, or his response to the (necessary, and overdue) collapse of the Beatles. To me, it was instead an actual piece of art and great rock’n’roll, improbably found under the same piece of shrink wrap. Like listening to someone’s soul, without having received an invite to do so.  You should listen to it today.

The next morning, exams weren’t cancelled, though it felt to me like they should have been. When I walked into Carleton’s gym, there was a guy sitting there, already wearing a John Lennon T-shirt. I wanted to punch him. Instead, I just took my seat and wrote the stupid exam.

So long ago. I can’t believe he’s been gone that long; I can’t believe I’m way older than he ever got a chance to be. It sucks.

Here’s my favourite picture of him, the one I used to use on posters I’d make up for Hot Nasties shows.  I liked it because he looked like a punk. That’s Stu in the background, I think.  Also long gone.

We miss you, John.  Hardly knew you.

Comments (11)