For more than a month Russia has been waging a brutal, relentless war on its democratic neighbour, Ukraine. Those of us who thought it would be over in a matter of days as the massive Russian army overwhelmed the much smaller and less well armed Ukrainians were wrong as Ukraine has fought tenaciously to preserve its independence and its freedom.

At this point the civilian death toll is impossible to determine although it certainly is in the thousands if not tens of thousands as Russia brutally unleashed its military might on civilian targets intending to demoralize the population and force its government to surrender. There is plenty of evidence Russian forces are ignoring the international norms for conducting war as they commit war crimes on a scale not seen in Europe since the breakup of Yugoslavia. Torture, rape and murder are occurring in territory occupied by the Russian aggressors, most likely with the express consent of Russian leaders, again with the intent of terrorizing, demoralizing and weakening resistance in those parts of Ukraine that remain free. If that is the plan, it seems to be backfiring as Ukrainian resolve is strengthened with each new disclosure of atrocities against its people.

Weapons that have been expressly banned, such as cluster bombs, are being used against civilian targets with terrible results. And now there are preliminary reports of Russia’s use of chemical weapons, something that if confirmed shouldn’t surprise anyone given its history in conflicts in the middle east and the caucasus. Even if these initial reports cannot be verified, there is little doubt Vladamir Putin and his henchmen will use everything in their armory to try to win this war including tactical nuclear weapons. At least, that is, if they think they can get away with it.

Although I generally approve of how the democracies have responded thus far, with military aid to the Ukrainians and massive economic and political sanctions against Russia, there is at least one area where I think they have misstepped and that is in being so definitive from the start that under no circumstances will they intervene militarily. I understand the rationale behind this position and the political forces in different countries that drive it but wonder if it didn’t embolden the Kremlin to go further than it might have otherwise. And perhaps now is the time to reconsider that position.

So called “red lines” are always a dangerous and often foolish thing to describe (just ask President Obama). But that doesn’t mean there aren’t any red lines beyond which policies, strategies and responses will change. As someone with a great deal of experience leading negotiations, I can say there are always red lines, core objectives or bottom lines, whatever you choose to call them, but it is almost never wise to share those with your counterparts.

It is time for the democracies to be clear that, in light of Russia’s escalating barbarity, everything is on the table by way of a response. I don’t know at exactly what point we can no longer tolerate brutality on this scale, but I like to believe there is such a point. Of course there are those who argue that in international relations the only consideration for nations is their own strategic interest and, by extention, Russia’s subjugation of Ukraine, no matter how brutal, does not warrant a military response from nations either geographically distant or protected by the NATO umbrella. While that may have been the predominant ethos throughout human history, I wonder how countries founded on the principles of self determination, liberty, human dignity, the sanctity of life and human rights can endure when the blatant abrogation of those principles is tolerated, indeed rewarded, in much of the world.

I am not advocating for a full NATO engagement, at least not yet, but I do think introducing some uncertainty into the trajectory of the war would be beneficial. And the democracies need to be thinking long and hard about when the line is crossed and a more robust engagement is called for. Of course Russia is using its nuclear arsenal as blackmail to limit further engagement by the democracies. But blackmail, if it works, only leads to more blackmail and more bad behaviour by its perpetrator.

People of my generation remember the Cuban Missile Crisis where a young, untested American President stared down Moscow and forced the removal of nuclear weapons from Cuba (yes, I know it was more complicated than that) and that response, terrifying as it was, changed the relationship between the democratic world and the Soviet Union in ways that contributed to its demise thirty years later.

I don’t know exactly how the democracies should increase their engagement but I suspect there are ways that will have an impact and will signal our willingness to stand up to Russian aggression and barbarity. It might include providing some air support (not a “no fly zone” for all sorts of reasons). It might include putting troops on the ground and planes in the air to defend civililian escape corridors. It might include sending a significant naval task force to the Black Sea so the Russian Black Sea fleet has to be concerned about its back. It should certainly include clear, perhaps quiet, messaging to Moscow that any use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons will result in significant escalation whether or not they directly impact NATO countries.

I understand everyone is scared the war could escalate to a full nuclear exchange but I think it’s important to remember the leaders in Moscow are not insane, at least when it comes to their own survival and that of their country, even though their behaviour deeply offends our most cherished ideals. They understand strength and force and need to be disabused of the idea the democracies will never risk all to defend democracy itself.

Just sayin

G.

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” button that will appear at the lower right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

March 14, 2022. Looking out the window I can barely see across False Creek to Granville Island. Rain is falling and it is very, very dark. Winter seems determined to keep us in its talons this year. This, after a year of unparalleled extreme weather, first drought leading to the heat dome that killed nearly six hundred people in Vancouver; then wildfires that, fed by the extreme heat, enveloped and obliterated vast areas of B.C., destroying homes and livelihoods, including completly wiping out the town of Lytton; then torrential, incessant rain that stalled over Vancouver and coastal B.C. dumping astonishing amounts of water on the area leading to dikes and levees collapsing, sending water flooding over the province’s most fertile farmland and submerging towns and villages across the province; then the avalanches and slides that overwhelmed the province’s highways, bridges and rail lines, effectively cuttting off Vancouver from the rest of Canada and virtually shutting down Canada’s largest port. And finally, by Vancouver standards, a long and cold winter.

And all the while the pandemic ebbed and flowed, sometimes offering hope that it might be ending and then cruelly dashing that hope with yet another wave of infections and death as now the fifth wave retreats.

And across the world the democratic idea is under seige, whether in the most powerful democracy, the United States, where the previous President and his supporters continue to spread lies and disinformation about the last election while maneuvering to thwart the democratic will of Americans in the next, and where the Republican Party and its leaders have turned their backs on the foundational principles of American democracy in pursuit of power at all cost.

Or in the relatively new democracies of eastern Europe who, after being freed from the tyranny of the Soviet Union, rushed joyously to embrace the western idea but now are retreating to the nativism and populism that brought so much suffering and destruction to Europe throughout its history; or in the democracies of south and Southeast Asia now confronting an increasingly militant, revanchist China apparently intent on getting its way regardless of the cost to regional and international order.

And then there is Russia brutally invading Ukraine to, at a minimum, disrupt its progress to becoming a western democracy or, at worst, forcibly incorporating it into the Russian empire ruled by an increasingly corrupt and despotic Vladimir Putin, and perhaps willing to risk an all out confrontation with the west to achieve those ends.

It’s as if the last century has suddenly disappeared taking with it the lessons and progress that came from its disasters. Only this time the bleak landscape is made much darker by the ravages unleashed by climate change.

I’m a baby boomer. Not just a boomer but a baby boomer at the front edge of that demographic and, now in my seventies, looking back I realize how very, very fortunate my generation was living in a world of optimism, hope and progress in so many areas of human endeavour. Of course I was aware our ancestors had it much tougher. Even our parents, members of “the greatest generation”, had endured the ravages of the great depression and the the rise and fall of the hideous evils of fascism and communism that cost millions of lives. And my maternal grandmother had died in the last great pandemic, the Spanish flu, in 1919. But somehow we were inured to that past, cossetted in the affluence of the west in the latter part of the twentieth century. And to us it seemed the most natural thing. Everything else was hypothetical, history. Somehow we failed to appreciate how utterly unique and privileged we were in the history of homo sapiens.

So what we are confronting now is more than a shock. It seems to be the complete unravelling of our most foundational myths. And there are times we have no idea how to cope with that. Of couse there’s pessimissm, despair, retreat, coming to believe everything is beyond our control and that the horrors of the past will continue to haunt the future no matter what.

But there is also hope. There must be hope. And, perversely, Vladimar Putin’s brutal assault on Ukraine offers just that. Even as he and his fascist todies emulate Hitler, the heroic resistance of the Ukrainian people to this onslaught inspires us all. This from a people with little history of democracy but they are putting everything on the line in defence of theirs. Their homes, their cities and, of course, their lives. It should remind us that is what our forbears did to get and build the western democracies and it must reinvigorate our commitment to the struggle between freedom and tyranny. I believe it will, not just in the short term, but for the long haul. We, have taken our freedom and liberty for granted for too long. We have forgotten the sacrifices that were made to get us here and now, thanks to heroism of Ukraine, that is changing.

Of course the daily butchery we watch on live TV is unbearable and of course we must do everything we can to help Ukraine fend off this aggression without triggering a third world war and, if I learned anything in over forty years negotiating contracts, it’s that sometimes you have to call a bluff even if the possible consequences look awful. On the whole I think NATO and its allies are handling it well but Ukraine’s plea to help it fend off missile and bomb attacks on its cities and civilians does require careful escalation on our part. I would be very surprised if that is not happening right now.

There’s also hope on the pandemic front. Not just because the latest wave seems to be receding in North America (although I note it is on the upswing again in the UK and parts of western Europe) but because of the extraordinary advances medical science has made fighting the virus, whether vaccines or anti virals all of which are being marched out to meet this foe that has threatened us for over two years.

Even on climate change I see some reason for optimism, not because the world is finally responding quickly and effectively but because it, on the whole is responding finally. Things won’t return to “normal” in my lifetime but I believe we have passed the inflection point in raising consciousness and that, eventually, will turn this monster around although not without much human suffering and displacement.

And did I mention the sun has just come out.

Just sayin

G

If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” button

As many of you know, I spent much of my career interacting with Canada’s healthcare system. That experience made me aware of its shortcomings and, frustratingly, how for the amount of money we spend on it, it could be so much better if only we could get beyond the ideologies and resulting legal structures that inhibit much innovation and improvement. I am still aware of those needs but very recently had the experience of being a patient in the system. It was the first time since the 1960’s I had been admitted to a hospital and had a patient’s-eye view of its workings. It provided some perspective.

Ten days ago I experienced a massive deep vein thrombosis along with a pulmonary embolism. Although it had almost certainly been building for weeks or even months, its acute onset was rapid, taking no more than ten or fifteen minutes. I managed to call 911 and within ten minutes the paramedics came through my front door. They assessed me, got me on a stretcher and into an ambulance for a short ride to St. Paul’s Hospital, during which they continued to assess, monitor and check my vital signs.

For those of you who don’t know, St. Paul’s Hospital is the large old downtown hospital in Vancouver. Because of its location, its Emergency Department is often chaotic, even at the best of times. It was late on a Thursday afternoon so it was neither the best nor the worst of times but it was filled with desperate people seeking help yet, within perhaps fifteen minutes of my arrival, I had been assessed by an Emergency Physician, priorized and moved into a bay. Over the next thirty six hours I was examined by at least a dozen physicians from six different specialities. I was also given an ECG, a CT scan, various tests, all the while receiving twenty four hour monitoring. Then I had two procedures, one to prevent any further migration of clots into my lungs and one to break down the major clot.

I was then placed in a “high level of care” ward where I had 24 hour monitoring by a single nurse. I remember through the haze of painkillers waking periodically in the middle of the night and seeing her/him sitting by the bed monitoring a computer. All I had to do was move or say their name and they were instantly at my side, all the while monitoring my blood, vital signs and circulation in my left leg every hour on the hour (made sleep a fairly challenging proposition).

Subsequently I had another procedure that removed most of the main clot and I was then transferred to a room in a surgical ward where, although not at the same level of intensity, I was closely monitored by nurses and other professionals. I should mention that through all of this I was visited by vascular surgeons, hematologists, internists, thrombosis specialists, anesthesiologists and radiologists who it seemed were directing the whole operation. I also received a second ECG and CT scan and an Echocardiogram during this period. After another three days I was sent home with the understanding I will return next week to have stents put in. In all, I was in the hospital for eight days.

And what was I carrying when I left? Not a bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not the expectation such a bill would be in the mail. Not even a notice of what my insurance might pay. No, just a paper bag with enough medication to allow sufficient time for my local pharmacy to take charge of my medication management.

One thing that struck me as I lay on a stretcher in the Emergency, or on a bed in the high level of care ward, or finally in a room was how, out of the seeming chaos, everything was running smoothly most of all because of the extraordinary work of the men and women working there whether physicians or cleaners (I should just note that I was also struck by the overwhelming presence of Asian Canadians in those many roles).

So, despite the obvious challenges, the healthcare system was there for me when I really needed it and for that I am very, very grateful. And, for my American friends, I offer this experience as a kind of rejoinder to the occasional slagging of Canada’s healthcare system by certain media outlets there.

No one should take this as a sign I have changed my mind about reforms needed to ensure Canada’s Medicare system is there in the future. It would be a good start if the so called “friends of Medicare” and their supporters would stop viewing the governing principles and surrounding legislation of “The Canada Health Act” as having been conveyed to Tommy Douglas and Monique Begin on clay tablets on Mount Sinai. Fundamental changes do need to be made for the system to be sustained. And it’s clearly worth the struggle to get there.

Just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog just click on the “follow” button that will appear on the lower right side of your screen when you open the blog.

I marched in the first protest against the war in Vietnam in Vancouver. Although time has blurred my memory, I think there were a couple dozen of us, certainly no more, and we marched from somewhere in Kitsilano across the Granville Bridge to somewhere downtown. I remember nothing about the embarcation point or the final destination, but I do remember crossing the bridge, on the sidewalk I stress, and being subjected to much abuse from the cars passing us. We were called “commies” and, I suspect, much worse but still we walked bravely holding our hand made signs aloft, signs that demanded America get out of Vietnam.

In 1968 Vancouver Mayor, Tom Campbell, banned the selling of the newspaper “The Georgia Straight” in Vancouver. Just to be clear, the paper wasn’t the glossy weekly we receive today. It was very much of the counter culture and Mayor Campbell and his supporters described it as “filthy” with its coverage of sex, drugs and rock and roll. A small group of us formed The Committee to Defend the Georgia Straight. I don’t know what role we played in getting it “unbanned” but we did do somethings and, as I noted at the beginning of this paragraph, the Georgia Straight is alive well today.

In 1971 the Four Seasons Hotel Chain acquired the land at the entrance to Stanley Park to build a highrise hotel complex. Some of us thought that was a very, very bad idea and we set up a protest encampment on the site, refusing to leave despite threats of legal and police action. In the language of the day we were described as “hippies” and we didn’t just occupy the area, we began work on a park there. After a prolonged standoff, the federal government intervened, bought the land and it is now Devonian Park, a worthy entry to Canada’s greatest urban park. A few years ago the Vancouver Art Gallery mounted a photography exhibit of the protestors and our camp and a friend of mine helpfully pointed out a very unflattering picture of a young me standing in front of one of the tarpaulin tents, shoulder length hair and all.

In 1969 the United States launched a covert and illegal bombing campaign in Cambodia. My father, who was a United Church clergyman and certainly no radical, joined two of his colleagues picketing the American Consulate in Vancouver in response. The newspapers and TV news covered it and my sister was mortified but I was rather proud of the old man (I say “old man” but he was much younger than I am now).

In 1970 then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau invoked “The War Measures Act” in response to the “October Crisis” where Quebec separatists were setting off bombs, kidnapped the British Consul General in Montreal and kidnapped and murdered Pierre LaPorte, a Quebec Cabinet Minister. It was the only time in peacetime it had been invoked and it was subsequently replaced by “The Emergencies Act” which has just been invoked in response to the “truckers” convoys. The only party in the House of Commons to oppose invoking The War Measures Act was the New Democrats and I was one of a relatively few Canadians who were also loudly and vociferously opposed to it, seeing it as a harbinger of the end of democracy as we know it in Canada. The irony of the New Democrats now supporting invoking the Emergencies Act isn’t lost on me.

In 1983 the Social Credit Government of British Columbia, led by Premier Bill Bennett, adopted measures to slash spending in the public sector and to curb the power of unions. In response, “Operation Solidarity” sprang up, the largest single, coordinated protest movement in British Columbia’s history. As it disrupted everything from schooling to the provision of government services, things moved seemingly inexorably towards a general strike, the ultimate confrontation between government and labour and its allies. Operation Solidarity was managed by a small steering committee, usually meeting clandestinely at the BCGEU headquarters in Burnaby. I was a member of that committee as we tried to stare down the democratically elected government and weaken its ability to govern.

And yet here I am today supporting the government’s use of The Emergencies Act, cheering on the police as they clear the border blockades and the occupation of downtown Ottawa, taking satisfaction from and, indeed contributing money to, the class action lawsuit now launched against the protestors in Ottawa, particularly the court order freezing all the Go Fund Me, bitcoin and other monies raised to support the demonstators, and chuckling when I hear their bank accounts are being frozen. And most of my “left wing” friends are reacting the same way, in fact are supporting taking the hardest of lines.

So what has happened? I guess some of it should be ascribed to the familiar ideas about becoming more conservative as we age, or to the unique threats of the pandemic and the sense the protestors pose a real threat to the rest of us. Or maybe its because, instead of just protesting, they have chosen to occupy, to obstruct and to inflict economic hardship on others although, while I noted above the first anti Vietnam march did stay on the sidewalks and didn’t obstruct others, that didn’t always remain the case with later demonstrations over the war or, for that matter, our actions blocking the development of the Four Seasons Hotel development. Maybe we’re just slow motion hypocrites although I think that’s a bit harsh.

Let me be clear, I profoundly disagree with the message (to the extent there is one) and actions of the protestors and I wish the governments had moved pre-emptively to avoid the mess we are in now. That said, I do not believe most of the protestors are bad people, the sort of extremists Prime Minister Trudeau singled out in his very unhelpful early comments on the protests. As we’ve seen with the weapons cache in Couts Alberta, there are some amongst them who are bad actors and they need to be pursued aggressively. For the rest, however, we need to be very careful not to permanently radicalize and exclude them by continuing to demonize, ridicule or sanction. I am struck by how many, when interviewed, say this is their first demonstration ever and display almost charming naivete about the consequences of their actions.

We witness daily the divides and dysfunction that plague America. Its two solitudes seem irreconcilable. And we don’t want that in Canada but we know once it starts it’s difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. For most of the protestors this will remain a good memory, one they are proud of, whether secretly or otherwise, just as my memories of early protests and demonstrations in Vancouver are viewed by me at age 72. And once the demonstrations are behind us we all need to settle back into being good Canadians, regardless which side we were on.

Just sayin

G

If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” button that will appear on the bottom right hand of your screen when you open the blog.

When countries elect leaders they do so with a predictable set of expectations: they want them to be competent running the day to day business of the nation; they want them to represent the nation effectively on the world stage; they want them to resolve the relatively minor crises that come up from time to time and, most importantly, they want them to be there when the big challenges arise and to lead the nation responding to them.

Two weeks ago a small group of truckers and their supporters began a treck to Ottawa from B.C. to pressure the federal government to end pandemic restrictions in Canada. It mattered little to them that most of those restrictions are imposed by provincial governments and that the one specific restriction that directly affected truckers, the requirement for quarantine for unvaccinated truckers who cross from the U.S., was also a requirement of the U.S. government. They were mad as hell and weren’t going to take it anymore.

They were joined by other protestors as they drove east, arriving in Ottawa, proceeding to surround the Parliamentary Precinct, and then stopping. Since then, they have stubbornly remained, issuing various demands including the dismissal of the democratically elected government of this country, while completely disrupting the lives of the people of Ottawa. Subsequently, they have been joined by other such protests in cities across Canada and now elsewhere in the world. Most recently, they have added border closures to their protest, blocking the bridge between Windsor, Ontario and Detroit, Michigan, the border crossing at Couts, Alberta and slowing the crossing at the Pacific Border Crossing south of Vancouver.

The occupation of Ottawa, while embarrassing and undoubtedly infuriating for its citizens, has little direct economic impact on the country. The closure of the border crossings is another matter entirely. The bridge between Windsor and Detroit carries approximately one third of Canada’s trade with the United States, its largest trading partner, and its closure is already leading to auto plant shutdowns and the layoff of auto workers. As the blockades escalate, the downstream economic and social impacts will grow significantly.

The people participating in these protests call them “Freedom Convoys” and include a disturbing mix of right wing extremists and other fringe groups. They represent neither the vast majority of Canadians nor the truckers they purport to support and yet they are seeking to impose their will on the majority in the name of “freedom”. They are well funded from all over the world, with more than fifty percent of those funds coming from the United States, undoubtedly including from some of the same groups who supported the January 6 attack on the U.S. capital.

Right wing American politicians, including the former President, are expressing their support for the protestors and encouraging them to continue. I have little doubt that when this is over we will learn that other countries that are hostile to everything Canada represents are doing everything they can to encourage the protests and to weaken and divide Canada.

So here we have a situation where a relatively small group of people, with the active support of people and organizations who wish Canada harm, are attempting to overthrow the government of Canada and thwart the will of the majority of its people. In his excellent Op/ed in the Globe and Mail on this former Bank of Canada and England Governor, Mark Carney, labelled this “sedition”. And that is exactly what it is. And for those actively colluding with foreign enemies, it’s treason.

Despite the fact the federal, provincial and Ottawa City governments all knew the convoy was coming to Ottawa and was very clear about its intention to occupy in the face of completely unacceptable demands little seems to have been done to prepare to defend the city. That’s water under the bridge although I do note that authorities in Quebec and Toronto were more proactive and, thus far at least, effective in stopping the kinds of disruption we see in Ottawa and elsewhere.

One of the most distressing aspects of this whole affair has been the woefully inadequate response of the federal government led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. That the front benches of the Official Opposition are now populated by MAGA wannabees has provided him some political cover but, after two weeks of this debacle, the lense needs to focus directly, relentlessly on the Prime Minister. And what has been his response? First, he and his family were spirited away to a safer place than the grounds of Rideau Hall (although you don’t have to be even vaguely informed about Canada to know they were simply going to the other Prime Ministerial residence at Harrington Lake), then after days of silence, we began to hear a few comments attacking the protestors and asserting he would never meet with them or bend to their demands. Well, all fine and good. But what is he going to do about it?

I started this blog by noting we choose leaders for a number of reasons, but the most important by far is their ability to respond and lead effectively at times of national crisis. Some succeed and some don’t. And it’s moments like this current one that sort them, causing them to fall into the Winston Churchill column or the Neville Chamberlain column. They are remembered with respect and pride or with contempt. Canada has had a few of each, although for the latter, they are mostly deservedly forgotten.

There is no longer any excuse for the federal government not to use its considerable power to end this, not by negotiation or compromise, but by force. And to do that we need a Prime Minister with a spine, one who isn’t governed by the polls or fear of what the political cost might be. Thus far, Prime Minister Trudeau has said most of the right things while ducking ultimate responsibility. That has to stop. All the resources necessary to clear the bridges and border crossings and the blockade of Ottawa have to be focussed on that single task. And yes, that does mean using the military and the combined police forces of the federal, city and provincial governments. This is sedition and the government’s first obligation is to end it and ensure that those committing it are punished so that it never happens again.

This is no longer about vaccine mandates or quarantines or mask requirements. It’s about the integrity of this country, about its capacity to stand up for the core values that define and shape it and to resist pernicious interference by foreign enemies.

As early as 1867, the Canadian Constitution described the overriding responsibility of the federal government as providing “peace, order and good government”. Right now, we have none of these. The Prime Minister needs to step up and do his job or step aside and let someone else do it. And that needs to happen now.

Just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog click on the “follow” button that will appear at the bottom right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

Two days ago a substantial majority of the federal Conservative Party caucus voted to remove Erin O’toole as leader. The only real surprise was the margin of the vote, 73 in favour of removing him, 45 in favour of keeping him. And so, just like that, he’s gone, now replaced by MP Candice Bergen as interim leader who will, in turn, be replaced by a new “permanent” leader after a leadership contest. Ms. Bergen has been one of the more full throated supporters of the so called “Freedom Convoy” that is currently completely disrupting Ottawa.

The issues that led to O’Toole’s ouster were fairly predictable although the prominence of one did surprise me. No one should be surprised that his embrace of a carbon tax in the last election left many of the Conservative’s prairie base fuming or, for that matter, his reversal of the party’s position on guns, but what does surprise me is the apparent weight given to his facilitating the unanimous support in the House and Senate for the Liberal government’s legislation banning conversion therapy. That’s doubly so because no Conservative MP or Senator spoke out against it at the time. But, apparently, for many of his MP’s it was a step too far, one they were magically forced to take and ever since have been marinading in their anger and resentment. Aside from the mystery of how they acquiesced at the time, this information raises the perennial fear that many Canadians have about the Conservative Party, that it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing wanting to radically change Canadian society in ways that the majority of Canadians profoundly disagree with. I mean, how can we ever trust them again on any of these issues now that we know how they really feel?

The current odds on favourite to replace O’toole is Pierre Poilievre, an Ontario MP who was born in Alberta and has distinguished himself in the House as an attack dog or, worse, a Minister in the Harper government who nearly got away with seriously limiting the voting rights of Canadians. Most recently, he is another visible cheerleader for the so-called “Freedom Convoy” of truckers and their hangers-ons who are currently causing gridlock in Ottawa and blocking the American border in southern Alberta demanding, well, no one is quite sure what they are demanding aside from an end to all pandemic restrictions and mandates and the resignation of the democratically elected government, coupled with Nazi and confederate flags and racist statements, while apparently getting funding from the United States with the full throated endorsement of a very ignorant Tucker Carlson on Fox.

Aside from Pierre Poilievre’s political positions, he is not exactly a charmer, having mastered the art of the put down and the sneer; certainly not someone you would want to be trapped in an elevator with.

There are other names being bandied about too, including some that would seek to “unify” the party. The perennial bridesmaid, Peter McKay, who, by the way, got us into this mess when he made the unholy alliance between his own Progressive Conservative Party and Stephen Harper’s Reform Party, is mentioned as “maybe interested”. Also, MP Michelle Rempel is discussed as rooted in Alberta’s gun culture but having a good record on social issues. And there’s MP Michael Chung who, in the last race, advocated for a carbon tax and was swiftly dispatched by the dinasaurs from Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Or, I suppose they could just bring back Maxine Bernier. Remember him? He’s the former Foreign Affairs Minister who left a highly classified file at his then girlfriend’s house, she being a known associate of various players in the criminal underworld including the Hell’s Angels (I mention this for my non Canadian readers who probably think Canadian politics is boring). Bernier very nearly won the leadership when Andrew Scheer was elected and, of course, that would solve the pesky problem of his “Peoples’ Party of Canada” which he created after losing and then sulking away from the Conservatives. They could just come back home to their angry roots and bolster those they left behind.

I saw a former federal Cabinet Minister, Lisa Rait, who I quite like being interviewed on the prospects for a new leader. She emphasized the need for someone who was “personable”, who would get along with everyone, in other words someone who could yet again paper over the fundamental differences within the Conservative Party. All that would do is kick the can down the road until the next blowup when the social conservatives and moderates square off yet again.

The right solution is staring us in the face. When a marriage is as dysfunctional as the merger of the Progressive Conservatives and the Reformers you get a divorce, divide the assets, settle custody rights for the kids and move on. And it’s time for that to happen. The alternative is a future where anyone even vaguely identifying with the centre of Canadian politics having no choice but to vote Liberal again and again and again. Aside from the obvious failings of the current Liberal government, that isn’t good for any democracy and, despite Canadians’ smug assurance that we are moderate, stable and peaceful, it wouldn’t end well here either.

Of course there will be birthing pains but they will pass and the perpetual cramps of the current union will end. A new centre/conservative party should be founded that addresses significant issues like the role of government in society, the national debt, defence and a whole range of other issues that Canada is ducking, all the while eschewing the nasty social conservatism of the Reformers, not to mention their views on science, medicine and just about everything else that distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

And I even have an idea for a name for this new party. How about “The Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada”?

Just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” box that will appear at the lower right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

With the exception of the darkest days of the AIDS crisis, the past two plus years have been the most difficult and depressing of my life. At every turn those things that had been reliable constants seemed to be falling away. Whether with disease, political upheaval or climate change, the world I had grown up in was no more. It seemed unbelievable, and yet here we are.

With the benefit of hindsight, I realize the world I was born into and grew up in was the exception. In fact, no other group of human beings had been so privileged as those of us born and raised in the West in the aftermath of the Second World War. Fatal diseases, if not completely vanquished, were in retreat and would almost certainly fall to human ingenuity. The Western ideals of democracy and human rights and liberty were well entrenched in our corner of the world and, particularly with the collapse of the Soviet Union, seemed destined to envelop the globe. Most of us experienced unparalleled prosperity enhanced with the invention of all sorts of new things to make life easier and supposedly simpler. Although there were moments when the Cold War threatened to get out of hand, on balance we, particularly those of us in North America, felt protected from the sorts of armed conflicts that had plagued mankind throughout millennia. And we assumed this was the norm, looking askance at those countries still struggling with disease and war and starvation and hatred.

But of course it wasn’t the norm. It was the great exception and resulted from the confluence of decisions and actions and a great deal of luck over the preceding three hundred years. And, no, I’m not blind to the fact that much of the prosperity we enjoyed was built on the backs of other peoples colonized by our ancestors around the world. But I was then. In fact, most of us were.

Then, as we neared the final years of our lives, things began to change and they did so with terrifying speed. I can’t pinpoint an exact moment for this inflexion but I think it probably started with some of the early rumblings in the United Kingdom pushing to leave the European Union. At about the same time, some of the newer members of the Union and NATO began to revert to their blood and soil nationalism, chafing against the liberalizing thrust of the European experiment. Certainly the civil wars resulting from the collapse of Yugoslavia demonstrated how shallow the roots of civility still were in parts of Europe but, from our perspective, they still seemed in a far off place with very different traditions and values from our own.

But that was only the beginning. As the United Kingdom spriralled towards Brexit and perhaps disunion, governments in Poland, Hungary and, to a lesser extent, other countries from the former Soviet Union demonstrated again and again how shallow their commitment to the democratic idea was while seeking to enjoy all the economic benefits offered by the EU. Still, sitting in Canada, things seemed pretty stable, until they weren’t. The rise of Donald Trump giving voice to a toxic strain in U.S. politics that, while ever present, was seldom visible, shook our remaining confidence to its core. Even though he is no longer President, the forces he unleashed still threaten to upend and fracture the most powerful democracy on earth and it is happening before our very eyes.

Sensing the disunity and weakness in the west, the dictators in Beijing and Moscow see an opening, an opportunity to right the wrongs of the past two centuries and/or to establish their model of government as the preferred one across the globe. And so we have the Peoples’ Republic of China moving seemingly inexorably towards an invasion of Taiwan and Russia massing its forces on the borders of Ukraine, perhaps willing to finally shatter the post war consensus that has allowed a longer period of peace and prosperity in Europe than any other in its history.

And all the while, the climate became less and less predictable finally turning my little corner of the globe, the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, into a demonstration project for all that will go wrong with the climate because of “global warming”. During 2021 we went from unprecedented drought in the spring, to a fatal heat dome in the summer, to wildfires surging across the province, to “atmospheric rivers” causing dikes and levees to overlfow, mountain and hillsides to collapse and some of the most fertile land in Canada submerged, to freezing cold and snow. We even had a tornado touch down in Vancouver, something almost unheard of. Up to this point, most people seemed to feel we lived in a kind of goldilocks zone as far as climate change goes. Not any more and god knows what 2022 will throw at us.

No, I haven’t forgotten the pandemic, that suffocating blanket of misery that has now hung over us for over two years, disrupting our lives in ways that were once unimaginable and causing death and suffering in all corners of the globe. My maternal grandmother died in the Spanish flu pandemic at the end of the First World War but, while that remained a significant event in my family, it was so distant and seemingly unthinkable that the possibility of such an event happening again never quite broke though the surface of our consiciousness. Until it did.

So, it seems we are not so very unique after all. We are all part of the same flawed species that has inflicted untold harm on our brothers and sisters and on the environment over our relatively short span as the dominant species on earth.

There are a large number of opinion pieces and books being published these days that view our current circumstances through an almost apolcalyptic lense. Many focus on the growing divisions in America and see them, correctly, as threatening the democratic order worldwide. Quite a number assume the game is up and the progress made since the Englightenment will be swept away in a tide of reinvigorated nationalism, racism and authoritarianism, made more extreme by the pressures of climate change and disease. And it is easy to see how those doomsayers may be right. We may be the last, dimming light of the Western idea for many years to come as the world plunges into a new dark age.

Or not.

Winston Churchill is credited with saying “America will always do the right thing after trying all others”. Someone else said “never bet against America”. And much of the history of the last century lends credence to those aphorisms but, of course, that doesn’t mean they will always be true. I hear the voices saying “this time is different” and “the fractures in America cannot be repaired” but I wonder if either of those statements is true. America has always been an incredibly disputatious place. It began in a civil war and then, less than a century later, had another one. There have always been voices of “America First” and racism and intolerance and conflict. That, it seems, is the price for the kind of society its founders created and that has been the engine of unprecedented prosperity in America and elsewhere in the world. And yes, most of the time, America has emerged on the right side of history. But that wasn’t inevitable. Up until the bombing of Pearl Harbour a very substantial majority of Americans were opposed to it joining the Second World War on the side of the Allies. In fact, even after the attack, it wasn’t clear it would go to war with the other Axis powers until Hitler, for reasons lost to history, declared war on America. But we look back now and see a narrative where it was inevitable America would join the fight for democracy and freedom. So what we witness there today is not unusual although certainly amplified by social media and twenty four hour broadcast news. And, if history is any indicator, America will find a way to get through its current conflicts intact and, of course, that is crucial to the continued success of democracy in the world. I don’t know exactly how that will happen but I do know the stakes are too high for Americans to let America fail.

Climate change will continue apace as mankind moves woefully slowly to curtail carbon emissions and it will lead to major disruptions across the globe as populations move to find food and water. But even that will eventually come to an end. Although the obstacles are enormous the impacts of climate change will eventually force mankind to change in ways that attenuate it. We won’t get there in my lifetime and there will be a great deal of unnecessary suffering in the meantime, but mankind will survive.

And “the pandemic?” you ask. Well, I’m no epidemiologist but, based on what we are seeing today, there are grounds for optimism. Parts of the world are almost certainly moving to the endemic stage of the disease. That will be disrupted by “surges of variants” but, on the whole the movement away from the suffocating effects of this disease are well underway. In the not too distant future life for many of us will look more and more familiar.

So, to all the doomsayers I say “you may be right” but the human species, for all its flaws, is remarkable and unique in the history of life on this planet. I wouldn’t bet against it.

Just sayin

G.

Please share this. If you would like to be notified each time I publish a blog click on the “follow” button that will appear at the bottom right hand corner of your computer screen when you open the blog.

Although I hadn’t planned it, my recent return from Mexico resulted in a prolonged stay in southern California, first in LA and then in Palm Springs. I had intended to make brief stops in each to visit old friends but, when I tried to schedule the required COVID test for my return to Canada, discovered they were as scarce as hens’ teeth. And so I ended up spending two weeks in Palm Springs before I could organize the test and a new flight. That stay coincided with the first anniversay of the storming of the Capital Building by the angry mob on January 6 and, not suprisingly, the coverage on mainstream media (Fox doesn’t count) was wall to wall.

For an outside observer it does look like America is in a shambles, one that doesn’t seem to have any easy fix. The former President, ensconced in the belly of his golden beast in Mara Lago, continues to foment lies about the conduct and result of the last Presidential election, lies that are echoed and shared by a substantial majority of the Republican universe all with the goal of fundamentally undermining the Presidency of Joe Biden. In anticipation of the mid term elections this fall, some Republican members of Congress are now saying they will move to impeach President Biden if they gain control of the House of Representatives, although it isn’t at all clear on what charge the impeachment would be based.

Conduct, language and attitudes of some of the more extreme members of the Republican caucus wouldn’t be tolerated in most middle school playgrounds. And yet, here they are acting out and being rewarded for it. Some, one assumes, actually believe the nonsense they are spewing but others surely do not and, instead, in acts of craven cynicism, behave this way to advance their own political careers at whatever cost to their country.

It’s clear now that a significant majority of the Republican Party and its elected representatives are willing to forgo real democracy in exchange for hanging on to power for a shrinking white minority. This will not end well.

And on the other side of the aisle there are the Democrats whose rag tag coalition never looked more fragile, and at a time when it needs to be rock solid. On the left we see a determination to radically change the role of government in American life and to move America dramatically towards a more social democratic model akin to that in Canada or Western Europe. And on the right (for lack of better term) we have members who don’t believe they were given a mandate for radical change when they won both Houses and the White House and who expected President Biden to carefully hold to the centre while protecting the democratic institutions themselves. Thus far, no amount of cajoling by the President, the Democratic Leadership and others has caused either side to move significantly from their initial positions.

Presiding over this toxic stew, President Biden has failed to effectively use his vaunted legislative skills to bridge the gaps between Democrats and Republicans or even between the left and right in his own party. Watching him flailing about, I am reminded that he is a good and decent man but that only goes so far and, thus far, he doesn’t seem to be able to wield the mighty power of the Presidency to bend others to his will or, at a minimum, to reach middle ground. Yes, he does deserve credit for the COVID relief package and the Infrastructure Bill but these have been drowned out by the braying on both sides over the so called “Build Back Better” legislation. At a time when America needs a President with the persuasive skills of a Lyndon Johnston and the empathy of a Bill Clinton, it has neither.

One of the more telling indicators of the impasse in America is the approach to the January 6 assault on the Capital. Although some Republican leaders initially condemned it in appropriate terms they have, with very few exceptions, retreated behind the malevolent shadow of the former President, now arguing it was nothing more than a demonstration or peaceful gathering or, worse, may have been instigated by left wing infiltrators/agitators. The standout exceptions to this revisionist/appeasement are Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois. And they are both under ferocious pressure within the Republican Party. Kinzinger has decided not to run again and Cheney is facing a primary challenge supported by the former President. I know I’m not alone in feeling surprise at how much I admire Representative Cheney, a woman whose political compass is far to the right of my own but who is showing over and over again what it takes to speak truth to power and how to show fidelity to constitutional order and democracy. Even her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, showing up at the House of Representatives on the anniversay of the January 6 assault, caused a tiny tingle of admiration although quickly qualified by my memories of his record in office.

While the Republicans want Americans to basically forget about the assault on the Capital, the Democrats want it seared into the American consciousness with the same intensity as the attack on Pearl Harbour or the attacks of 911. Although the Republicans are way offside on this, I also think the Democrats are overreaching and may, in the process, alienate some independent voters. There is no doubt the attack on January 6 was orchestrated by the former President and his supporters, that he deliberately riled the crowd up and encouraged them to march to the Capital and their intention was to disrupt the formality of registering the electoral votes confirming Joe Biden’s victory. There is also no doubt there were acts of violence and desecration and people were injured and died. But on a scale of the attack on Pearl Harbour or the attacks on 911, not really. No question, it was an outrage and the full force of the law should be brought to bear on all who are responsible but the narrative is getting confused and Democratic overreach isn’t helping.

And while all this is going on, Republican controlled legislatures are creating obstacles to voting and to the fair counting of votes, this on top of gerrymandering that is outrageous even by American historical standards. Position by position, the officials who refused to overturn the election are being replaced by those more compliant to the former President’s message. While, despite their control of Congress, the Democrats seem paralyzed to take even the minimal steps that are necessary to protect free and fair elections.

The first test will be the midterms this November where, if current projections hold, the Republicans will regain control of the Senate and probably gain control of the House, giving them an effective veto over most of what President Biden will want to accomplish. And that is just the opening act. What happens if, in 2024, the former President or one of his proteges “wins” because of Republican legislatures ignoring the clearly expressed will of their voters in particular states? Will the big Democratic states, the ones that provide the economic engine to the country, sit idly by and allow someone to become President who, in their eyes at least, did not win the election? I think that’s unlikely and we all know where that leads, less than two hundred years after the last civil war.

One noteworthy development is the appearance of programs and commentaries asking whether American Democracy can survive? Even a couple of years ago such questions would have seemed so ridiculous as to not be given any serious consideration. And yet here we are. At a place where tens of millions of Americans believe the last election was “stolen”; believe they have a duty and a right to fight for the restoration of the former President; and believe that violence may be necessary to achieve that end. Oh, and need I mention, Americans are armed to the teeth.

I hear plaintive calls for bipartisan leadership; for the emergence of a “Kennedy-like” leader; for a coalition of Biden and Liz Cheney, but they are all whistling in the wind. There is no saviour on the horizon, nor is there likely to be one in time. As Americans talk past each other, as they demonize and dehumanize those who are not like them or who disagree with them, as they scream invective about imagined hurts and injustices, and as they wall themselves off from anything but the most narrrowly conforming orthodoxy, chilling reminders of what has happened to other societies that have gone down this path surface.

As someone trained in the study of English Literature I am bemused by the frequent references to “beasts slouching towards Bethlehem waiting to be born” or to “the centre cannot hold” or “mere anarchy is loosed upon the world” or “The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity” and on and on. But the poets are not going to save us, particularly as their phrases enter pop culture without understanding the terrifying background and aftermath of those words.

If anything will save America it is the American people and what’s left of its vaunted institutions and right now I wouldn’t bet on either. I hope the old saying “you should never bet against America” holds true yet again but this time feels different, chillingly so.

Of course the implications of an America in chaos, beset with civil strife and violence are almost unthinkable to those who are close friends and allies but time is running out and think we must.

Just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” box that will appear at the bottom right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

Like most sentient beings in North America I have now heard about Kyle Rittenhouse, the then seventeen year old from Illinois who took a semi automatic rifle to a riot in Kenosha Wisconsin and shot three men, killing two and seriously injuring the third. All three of his victims (although I note the judge in his trial explicitly banned the prosecution from referring to them as “victims”) were white although the riots were precipitated by a police shooting of a black man. Last week the jury in his trial acquitted him of all charges, presumably accepting his plea of self defence.

Like most of my liberal friends I was shocked, although not entirely surprised, by the verdict and, with little other thought, put it down to the systematic racism in America, including its judicial system. And then an American friend forwarded me information about the shootings that, shall we say, complicated my black and white view of what had happened. I had to acknowledge that I really knew little about the offenses Rittenhouse was charged with or the court case and yet I had little difficulty rushing to judgement, something I like to think I rarely do. I then shared the information on Facebook with a comment it “might” provide some further perspective on the case. The response was interesting.

With almost no exceptions, my “friends” were clear that their preferred view should prevail regardless of the facts. Several suggested the information I provided was most likely suspect, propaganda put out by Rittenhouse’s defence team and amplified by right wing media and social media sites. And yet no one offered any details for that claim nor attempted to systematically dispute the information I had shared. I should also note that most of the friends who reacted were Canadians despite my having far more American friends on Facebook.

Let me be clear, I abhor vigilantism and think any society that permits or, worse, encourages a seventeen year old or, for that matter, anyone to openly carry a semi automatic rifle along public streets and into a riot is seriously screwed up. As a Canadian I’m aware and proud of the fact that were such behaviour displayed here he would have been surrounded by a swat team and arrested before he knew what hit him. But this didn’t occur in Canada. It occurred in a nation that harbours what most outsiders see as a bizarre view of guns and peoples’ rights to own and use them. And in that context apparently nothing he did prior to the actual shootings was against the law. I know. I know. It’s crazy. But it is what it is.

And without laws prohibiting the display and use of such weapons it’s inevitable that people are going to get shot. I’m in no position to judge the claim of self defence once the right to carry the weapon into the riot is sanctioned and, frankly, neither are all of my liberal friends who have rushed to judgement. I certainly think what he did was profoundly stupid, immoral and should have been against the law. But the inescapable truth is it wasn’t against the law.

Which brings me to the real purpose of this blog and that is to offer some thoughts on how all of us respond to events in this polarized age of twenty four hour news and the bombardment of social media. The simple fact is we have largely lost the ability to do the real work of participating in a civil society. It is so easy to jump to a conclusion consistent with our increasingly deeply held beliefs and biases and then to join the braying pack expressing outrage as we amplify the divisions amongst us. And, ultimately, that will prove fatal to the kind of open, civilized countries we all claim to cherish.

There’s something else I want to comment on too: the creeping Canadian exceptionalism that increasingly seeps into our world view. For much of its over two hundred year history, what is now Canada was mostly defined by not being American. That was especially true of English Canada, the foundations of which were built by refugees from the American War of Independence. Over the decades we have watched with thinly disguised disapproval as our American cousins proclaimed their country the best on earth; the “shining city on the hill”; the only place in human history where an individual could achieve whatever he or she wanted to achieve. Canadians are experts at eye rolling when confronted with these claims but, on the whole, have considered them harmless, a bit like humouring an insecure relative.

And we were always proud that we didn’t behave similarly, relishing our image of the trustworthy, more civil, more democratic, less racist younger cousin or brother (choose you metaphor). The beaver and the maple leaf seemed the perfect antidote to all the chest thumping south of the 49th parallel. But ironically, somewhere back there that very behaviour began to look like a rather Canadian version of American exceptionalism. And it’s not very pretty. God knows, the last couple of years have taught us that our own history is fraught with behaviours by European settlers that, at least by today’s standards, are shameful. While we didn’t have slavery with its subsequent creation of a permanent underclass in Canada, we certainly displaced native populations from their ancestral homes with little regard for their rights. And while we may not have engaged in the types of Indian Wars as our U.S. cousins did, we did remove native children from their homes and families, trying to turn them into miniature Europeans and leaving subsequent generations permanently disadvantaged and disabled.

And let’s be clear, racism is not a uniquely American experience, although given its past as a slaveholding nation, it is certainly more obvious in America than in Canada. But Canadians shouldn’t take too much pride in that given Canada’s history of banning Asian immigration and placing strict quotas on Jews seeking to immigrate, often fleeing terrible repression in Europe. There’s lots of blame to go around including for Canada. And that’s why I find the new Canadian exceptionalism so very, well, un Canadian.

Just sayin

G

Please share this blog. If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog click on the “follow” box that will appear at the bottom right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

Although much of this blog is going to use the example from my home city, Vancouver, Canada, I suspect similar, if not identical, problems afflict cities across Canada and the United States. In fact, I know they do from first hand experience.

There has been a steady deterioration in the safety of our streets in Vancouver over the past several years to the point it is no longer unusual to hear reports of random violence committed against law abiding citizens simply going about their daily business. Two days ago, a woman leaving a coffee shop on Pender Street was approached and stabbed with a dirty syringe by a stranger. Police subsequently picked up the woman who did the stabbing, reporting she was “known to them”. After an initial court appearance, she is now out on the streets waiting a subsequent appearance. This is only the latest unprovoked attack on innocent people in downtown Vancouver.

Late at night ten days ago someone walked down Davie Street in Vancouver’s West End and smashed the windows of numerous small businesses. This, only a few days after a man walking to work on the same street in the early morning was punched in the face by a stranger and ended up in hospital.

At about the same time and a few blocks north someone went on a crime spree in Gastown, smashing windows and looting stores which was just a continuation of a crime wave that has engulfed that historic neighbourhood making it increasingly unlivable. Since April there have been eighty two violent crimes and two hundred and fifty nine property crimes in Gastown. And those are only the ones that are reported with police acknowledging that many, perhaps most, go unreported.

A few blocks south of Gastown, residents are fleeing Yaletown as its streets become increasingly unsafe at night and all across Vancouver, homeowners and strata councils are having to spend millions of dollars to increase security around their properties (my own complex has just installed “panic buttons” in the garages after residents were accosted by strangers in the garages at night).

And lest Vancouverites who live elsewhere in the city feel they are insulated from these problems, they are not, as disorder spreads outwards along Hastings, Cambie, Main and South Granville. It is only a matter of time before every corner of Vancouver is dealing with the problems of crime and disorder on its streets. It is already manifesting itself in Vancouver’s far eastern suburbs and the adjacent communities.

This is how cities die.

So how did we get to this point? Most would agree the root of the problem is Vancouver’s out of control illicit drug problem that manifests itself most dramatically in the rotten core of the city, the Downtown Eastside (the “DTES”). There should be little debate this is ground zero for the chaos that is metastasizing across Vancouver and, despite decades of attempts to address it, nothing has worked. The city, the province and the federal government have all poured billions of dollars into the DTES in a seemingly patchwork and uncoordinated effort to address its myriad problems. And yet they don’t only persist, they have grown worse and now spill into the rest of the city particularly as the city converts hotels into Single Occupancy Rooms in other neighbourhoods and then fills them with DTES residents.

It’s not clear when the DTES started really spinning out of control. When I was a teenager in the ’60’s it was a bit off the grid, almost certainly already the poorest postal code in the city if not the country but there wasn’t much evidence of wide spread drug use, at least not in public. It had a large population of transient workers, usually foresters, miners or longshoremen who stayed in the inexpensive old hotels in the neighbourhood. They all had beer parlours that were known to be rough but, again, not at all like the chaos we see today. My sense is the widespread use of drugs became more prevalent in the late eighties and the nineties until, eventually, it became the defining characteristic of the neighbourhood. Even then, however, it was mostly confined to the few blocks that make up the DTES.

But somewhere in the aughts, that changed as the chaos, lawlessness and disorder began spreading into adjacent neighbourhoods. First it was Strathcona. Then Gastown. Then the West End and the downtown core. Then Yaletown. And now across the bridges into the neighbourhoods to the south and east of the downtown core of the city. And lest people on the North Shore think Burrard Inlet will insulate them from these problems they should just look at how inadequate False Creek (the smaller harbour) was in doing so.

So why has Vancouver’s approach to this challenge been such a complete failure? There have been many attempts to find a coherent and effective approach but, clearly, none of them has worked. And it isn’t because of lack of resources. As I note above, billions have been poured into the neighbourhood by all three levels of government but, seemingly, to little effect. People who live in Metro Vancouver may be familiar with the term “Four Pillars” which is the catchphrase to describe the approach theoretically being used to address the problems on the DTES. It was championed by the recently deceased Mayor, Phillip Owen, in about 2003/04. It supposedly has four elements: Harm reduction; Prevention; Treatment and Enforcement. Aside from those basics most Vancouverites know little about it and it has become a kind of default phrase that supposedly describes a humane and effective program although the details are very hard to discern and, as the escalating chaos in the neighbourhood attests, whatever those details are they are either insufficient or are just not working.

I have come to believe the reason all our approaches have failed is that our leaders have looked, and continue to look, at the issue through the singular filter of the victim-hood of the drug users. In fact, that narrative has become so compelling that any deviation from it results in charges you are supporting death squads, or some kind of fascist militarization of the area, or, when it comes to moving people out of those neighbourhoods, that most searing of liberal charges: Nimby-ism. And, with rare exceptions, the politicians have cowered and buckled before those attacks.

I accept that the poor and drug addicted in the DTES are victims of many things but not, it seems to me, the only ones nor, necessarily, the ones with first claim on our compassion. It’s likely a claim of victim-hood can be mounted by most perpetrators of crimes, whether coming from a dysfunctional family, being the victim of sexual abuse, experiencing some traumatizing, life altering event, being of native origin or the myriad negative events that can affect a life but, as a society, for the most part, we still maintain a bar for behaviour that is acceptable and unacceptable and, irrespective of the background of those who don’t meet it, impose sanctions on them. Without that core understanding/rule, civilization as we know it would cease to exist. And yet, somewhere back there we decided to give a pass to at least some drug addicts and, most particularly, those in the DTES.

I have heard the arguments that drug abusers are not responsible for their condition; that once hooked they lack the physical and mental ability to come clean; that others, perhaps the large drug conglomerates, are to blame for their condition and position and as such they cannot be held accountable when they act out. There is undoubtedly some truth to this but only some. The simple fact is every drug addict made a choice at some point in time to use drugs and at least some have little interest in getting off them. In her excellent column in the Vancouver Sun on the weekend on the idiotic motion Vancouver City Council unanimously adopted to facilitate access to all kinds of drugs, Daphne Bramham cites several drug users who are accessing the drugs currently being provided by the city and province but who would prefer the unfettered access to all kinds of drugs offered by the organization that Vancouver City Council apparently now supports. The reasons given all fell into the zone of “convenience”, i.e. they didn’t like having to wait in line for their drugs, they didn’t like having to wait fifteen minutes after they’ve injected or ingested to see if they have an adverse reaction, and they didn’t like the quality of the drugs being provided. These don’t strike me as people who are desperately in need of a fix no matter the “inconvenience”.

So, where do we go from here? Well, for starters we elect political leaders with the spine to say and do things that will almost certainly provoke the outrage of the vested interests enabling the chaos on the DTES and everyone else who has bought into the orthodoxy of the victim-hood of the drug users. That means committing resources to the two pillars of the “Four Pillars” that have been largely ignored: treatment and enforcement and linking them. It means being clear that when people commit crimes, big or small, there are consequences and, what’s more, particularly if they are repeat offenders, those consequences involve being separated from society for a long time. It means when you assault someone with a deadly weapon (see the dirty needle attack I referred to earlier) you don’t just get to walk back out onto the streets. It means the so-called “victimless crimes” are prosecuted, whether it’s spraying paint on walls or sidewalks, defecating in public, selling stolen items, breaking windows…the list goes on. Because the simple truth is none of these are truly “victimless” as our city becomes less and less safe and livable for everyone else.

Yesterday the provincial government announced they were asking the federal government to decriminalize possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use in B.C. That announcement was supported by a wide array of leaders including the sainted Dr. Bonnie Henry all of whom seem to focus exclusively on the problems of the addicts, not the problems they cause. I can’t imagine how this is going to make the troubles we are having better. If it’s part of the effort to ensure a safer drug supply that’s only going to work if the government completely takes over the distribution of those drugs and, as the example from Daphne Brahmham’s column shows, even that won’t address the wants of some of the addicts. Moreover, unless the drugs are free, it will do nothing to curtail property crimes motivated by the need to purchase drugs. What it will do is remove one more tool from the enforcement side although, admittedly, that tool has been largely left on the shelf for the past couple of years anyway. This again is looking at the problem through the singular filter of the addict as victim without any regard for all the other victims of this plague. And let’s remember, much of the chaos on Vancouver’s streets relating to the opioid crisis is caused by people who are high, or stoned or badly damaged mentally by their use of drugs. How is facilitating access to those drugs without controls going to do anything but make this all worse?

It’s past time for all residents of metro Vancouver to raise their voices and make it clear to the political and medical leaders that the status quo is not acceptable and steps that will only worsen the current problems are not on.

The next civic election in Vancouver is in October. It’s our opportunity to elect individuals for Mayor and Council who will effectively address these issues by supporting all four of the Four Pillars, especially including treatment and enforcement (and I note that all members of the existing Council, including the Mayor and the alder-person who wants to replace him, voted for the extraordinary motion last week that, if implemented, will make the current problems much, much worse). They will then need to pressure the provincial and federal governments to do likewise.

I have lived in Vancouver for sixty years and on the downtown peninsula for fifty. I love this city and I’m not going let it fail without a fight. How about the rest of you?

Just sayin

G

If you would like to be notified each time I post a blog just click on the “follow” box that will appear on the lower right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.