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)

Great. Terrific. Brilliant.

An experienced, great guy like Lang gets pushed aside for, um, no one in particular. Wonderful. Did someone say Bob’s pal Furious George was running this show? Surprise, surprise.

Meanwhile, coming down Coxwell from Son One’s hockey game last night, we observe more NDP signs than houses.

Not a Lib sign in sight, not anywhere.

Sigh.

Comments (9)

From the New York Times:

“Big media companies love when their employees hit Twitter. After all, the short-form social media platform gives consumers direct access to media personalities, and along with it, an intimate connection that large media organizations, and the public, revel in.

Until something goes wrong. Roland Martin, who is paid to spout opinions on CNN, posted a controversial one on Twitter and now he is on suspension.

Like a lot of us, Mr. Martin watched the Super Bowllast Sunday and like many of us, he frolicked on Twitter as one more way of “watching” the big game, including commercials.

Mr. Martin, a syndicated newspaper columnist and a political analyst for CNN, got in trouble for writing, “If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl.”

Many, including gay advocacy groups, felt that the post advocated violence against homosexuals. Mr. Martin, a longtime hater of soccer, saw the immediate blowback on Twitter and said he was just mocking that sport, and nothing more. CNN also saw the outcry and suspended Mr. Martin indefinitely, saying in a news release that his post was “regrettable and offensive.”

This is not the first time someone who makes a living on one platform has been clobbered for making remarks on another.”

I’ve written about how fabbo Twitter is before (for political parties).  I’ve also written about how dangerous it can be (for media).

Here are my thoughts on the MSM and media, written in Tweet-style (that is, journalism with Tourettes):

• It is amazing how many seasoned journalists are utterly without self-awareness on Twitter.  Too many of them act, and sound, like pre-pubescents.  They thereby diminish the real journalism they do elsewhere.
• The tone they adopt on Twitter is awful.  They affect a cynical, world-weary tone, 24/7, that is boring and in no way endearing.  They come across looking like a bunch of pseuds trying to out-clever each other.
• Contrary to what the CBC evidently thinks, Twitter is not journalism.  Paying people to Tweet, and not much else, is absurd.  Their readers/viewers deserve more than brain burps.
• Political parties and corporations monitor Twitter regularly.  They use it to determine, in advance, how a journalist intends to put together a story, and what their bias might be.  I predict it will soon start showing up in defamation actions to provide evidence of malice.
• Everyone needs an editor.  Twitter removes editorial oversight, and some journalists we thought were great – turns out – aren’t.  Turns out their editors are the stars, not them.
• They sound clubby, cloistered and (often) clueless.  They do themselves, and their readers/viewers, no service.

Therefore, I’ve simply stopped following some of them.  Life’s too short, etc.

What do you think?

 

Comments (15)

• Ciano’s firm was paid $389,890 in total by 39 federal Conservative campaigns in 2011 general election (The Hill Times, December 15, 2011)
• Campaign Research used a push poll against Irwin Cotler in 2011, actions deemed “reprehensible” by Speaker of the House of Commons
• His firm will likely be subject to investigation for “professional misconduct” by the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association after they received multiple complaints of ethics violations
• Ciano’s company used unethical push polls against Liberals in 2007 and 2011
• Denying involvement in the 2011 push poll, Ciano told CBC that the poll was “super-shady”, “breaking Canadian law”, and “raises serious legal and ethical issues” (The Globe and Mail, December 16, 2011; CBC News, April 14, 2011)
• Campaign Research manipulated social media during Rob Ford’s campaign, and later bragged about it

Comments (16)