Of course it is – sort of.  So sayeth this pollster:

Some Canadians believe that the country’s values have shifted over the past decade, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll conducted in partnership with L’Actualité has found.

In the online survey of a representative sample of 1,006 Canadian adults, more than a third of respondents (37%) believe that the values of Canadian society are more right-wing now than 10 years ago, while 22 per cent report no change. Only 15 per cent of Canadians think the country is now more left-wing oriented.

Almost half of Canadian men (48%) think the values of Canadian society are more right-wing than ten years ago. Only one-in-ten respondents over the age of 55 (9%) say that Canada is now more left-wing oriented than a decade ago.

More than half of Canadians (56%) believe the Federal Government has an important role to play to redistribute the wealth and intervene in the economy, even if it means increasing taxes.

Comments (25)

 “Their attack on me is a disgrace. They’ve attacked my patriotism. They’ve attacked my commitment to the country. And now they’re attacking my family.”

He said the Tories’ targeting of his character and family is unparalleled in this country. “These personal attacks are unprecedented in the history of Canadian democracy,” Mr. Ignatieff charged.

“[Stephen Harper] is absolutely out of control. He thinks he can get away with and say anything,” the Liberal Leader said...

He added: “Canadians got to ask themselves is this the kind of politics you want? This is a prime minister who is prepared to say anything to hold on to power.”

Wise words.  Are you listening, Geoff and Jordan?

Comments (20)

The repugnant folks who brought you the Persian Gulf War are at it again!

Here’s their list of QP Twitter “influencers.” As determined by, um, Hill and Knowlton.

There’s some people I know who, er, have more Twitter followers than quite a few of the “influencers” put together.

Wouldn’t want to mention a competitor would ya, now, H and K?

Comments (6)

This morning’s judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada – which licences mandatory courses to teach religion to student in public schools – is very, very troubling.

Along with suggesting that Conservative attempts to remake the highest court are bearing fruit, I have a few other problems with the decision:

• It involves governments directly in matters of religion.  Religions should have no influence over governments, and governments should have no influence over religions.  This decision creates a direct and ongoing relationship between the two.
• How will government bureaucrats decide which religions should be taught, and which should not?  If I was legal counsel to the Scientologists or the Identity Christians, I would immediately commence litigation to demand that my faith now be taught to students.
• How will the very significant differences of opinion between faiths be depicted?  Jews do not believe Christ was the Messiah.  Some Christians still believe Jews murdered Christ.  Interpretations of the Koran and the Bible – as we all know too well – range from the mundane to the extreme.  Who will determine which interpretation will prevail?  How will they do that?
• Who will evaluate whether the “teaching” is being conducted in an even-handed manner – and when it devolves into discriminatory proselytizing? Is there going to be a watchdog in place to continually monitor these classes, to ensure what happened in Jim Keegstra’s Eckville High social studies class doesn’t happen in a Quebec classroom?  Why not, if not?
• I take my children to church; I believe they need to be exposed to the moral teachings which make up most of our major faiths.  When they get older, they can be whatever they want.  Until they then, their mother and me should be the ones guiding them – not some faceless bureaucrats and a teacher whose motives are unknown to me.

And so on  and so on.

I’m usually in a minority on these things, but that’s fine.  But when it comes to my children, I intend to be the one who decides what religions they are exposed to.  When it comes to them, their Mom and I are the majority.

Not some bureaucrat.  And certainly not the unelected conservatives on the Supreme Court of Canada.

Comments (23)

Some of you have asked me what I think of his report.

I don’t like it.

Not just because of the content, but because I believe we have empowered elected and unelected officials to determine policy.  Not outside consultants.

Yes, yes, I know: I’m an idealistic democrat, in my old age. And it’s true: I believe the people’s will should generally be supreme, and that the people should be determining the agenda.  Not consultants.  (And I’m a consultant!)

There.  You asked what I thought, now you know.

Comments (27)

Here’s what I wrote in The War Room:

[Opposition research] doesn’t mean prying into [a political opponent’s] personal life; if you do that, looking for dirt, it says more about you than it does about your opponent.

And:

When getting tough with an opponent — in paid media (with advertisements) or in earned media (with a pithy quote) — there are three rules you must always observe. One, the critical statement of fact you are making about your opponent has to be scrupulously accurate. No ifs, ands, or buts. Check it a dozen times, then check it again. Two, the allegation you are making must be an even-handed take on the facts — that is, it can’t be so wildly out of context that it offends people’s sense of fairness. It should heap ridicule on an opponent, not invite it against you. Three, the critical statement must be on the public record — what is sometimes called “quotes and votes.” Nothing about a person’s personal life.

And:

Most of the time, opposition research focuses upon a politician’s public life — the votes he or she made in the legislature, the curriculum vitae he or she bragged about, the travel costs he or she passed along to the taxpayer. Few folks would argue that an opponent’s public record should be exempt from scrutiny. It is one of the main ways, and sometimes the only way, voters can make informed choices on Election Day. A louder debate, naturally, rages about the ethicality of probing a politician’s personal life. Is it fair to publicize long-ago bounced cheques, or drug use, or draft dodging? Is it right? As a rule, and as I’ve said before, I don’t like it.

And:

[Carville] got on TV and told the truth about what was really going on: namely, that the Republicans and the Clinton-hating conservative media were trying to turn the personal into the political, trying to transform sex into an impeachable offence. Throughout this period, I observed what Carville was doing very carefully. I took notes, even. His handle-scandal strategy worked — and the proof of that was found in polling. The vast majority of Americans agreed with the essence of what Carville was saying. At the height of the scandal, a Pew Research Centre poll found that, even among Republicans, only 36 percent saw the controversy as very important, and only 33 percent were following it very closely. Clinton’s approval ratings went up, not down.

And so on.

I recall one day in the fall of 2009 when those of us who were assisting Michael Ignatieff heard a rumour about the personal life of a prominent Conservative politician. I and others spoke to Ignatieff about it. He said to us, with fire in his eyes: “If any member of my staff – anyone – is found to be circulating this crap, they will be fired immediately. Am I clear?”

That was the right and ethical position to take. Fight your opponents aggressively, for sure: that has always been my credo. But leave spouses and children out of it. It’s not fair to them. And it reflects badly on you.

Geoff Hall and Jordan Owens, former Ignatieff staffers, are you listening?

Comments (56)

Read this one on air. If a certain Ottawa City Councillor aide isn’t careful, he’s going to get linked to this disgusting targeting of Toews’ family.

Comments (72)

Many guys will understand what I mean when I say this: your father is both a bit of light, and a bit of shadow, over your path through life.

Mine, T. Douglas Kinsella, MD, OC, would have been 80 years old today. Eight years after we lost him, he remains a constant in our lives. He still illuminates some of the path. Without even being here, he still quietly persuades me to examine the choices I have made.

Me? I have made bad choices. I have been reckless and cruel with the hearts of too many. I have not lived by the single rule he left us.

“Love people, and be honest,” he said to us, and I often feel I have done neither.

He saved many lives as a physician, and he won accolades, and he was a member of the Order of Canada. But for us – my brothers, my closest friends – he was the man we aspired to be.  Not for the distinctions he received, but for how he was, in his soul.

He was unfailingly honest; he was kind to everyone he met. He married his high school sweetheart, and was with her every single day for 50 years, and my God how they loved each other. We would sit there at the kitchen table in Calgary or Kingston or Montreal, and we would listen to him. He’d listen to us, too, and persuade us to try and figure things out. There were some great times, around that table.

The best thing is having a father like that. The hardest thing is knowing that you will never be like him.

On Saturday night, then, I dreamt that he died in 9/11; I don’t know why, but I did. I woke up weeping, and remembered that I wasn’t a boy anymore, and that he has been gone for almost eight years. I don’t think he would like what his son has become. I know I don’t.

So I put on my pants and shoes, and went out into the day, looking for what’s left of the path.

Happy birthday. I miss you.

Comments (36)

From reader AP:

• Atheist
• God Hater
• Child Hater (remember it is always about the children)
• Rural Canada Hater
• Outdoor Sportsman Hater
• Tim Hortons Hater
• Oil Sands Hater
• Witch Lover
• CBC Lover
• Lover of the Arts
• Book Lover
• Statistics Canada apologist
• Baby Seal Lover
• United Nations Lover

Comments (34)

Keep it simple. Show it, don’t say it.

On the weekend, a great example of that happened in Canadian politics, whether you noticed it or not. Chances are you did.

Some context: A few Democratic Party strategists participated in a panel a few years back. James Carville, the Ragin’ Cajun, was one of them. Carville made a pithy observation that all progressives should remember: “(We) need a narrative. It’s tough to beat a narrative with a litany. And that happens to us again and again and again.”

Progressives — be they Democrats in the U.S., or Liberals and New Democrats up here — too often make things too complicated. Instead of promoting just a few memorable campaign planks, like Ronald Reagan or Stephen Harper do and did, progressives and liberals always come up with litanies of stuff. That is, mind-numbing laundry lists of policies.

If you have too many priorities, some wag once observed, you actually don’t have any. So, in the historic 2006 federal election campaign, Harper had just five: Government accountability, GST cut, slash health waiting times, child care cash and tougher sentences for gun crime. That’s it.

His Liberal rival, Paul Martin, had his platform leaked before its official release, and it contained nearly 200 priorities. The Liberal document was bursting at the seams with weasel words, such as “work with,” “work closely with,” “work to develop,” “work towards,” “work to increase,” as well as lots of fuzzy promises about “reviews” and “dialogues” to consider, study, encourage, and explore. Blah, blah, blah.

Comments (17)