Last week eleven people died from stab wounds on the James Smith Cree Nation and in the nearby village of Weldon in Saskatchewan, Canada. One of the eleven was initially identified as one of the killers, along with his brother. The police have not yet released further details so it is unclear whether or not that was the case. The second brother was taken into custody but subsequently died of self inflicted wounds. All but one of the victims were indigenous Canadians, as were the assailant(s?).

This is just the latest, although certainly one of the most horrific, cases of violence committed against and within indigenous communities in Canada, and the search for answers as to how it could have happened has just begun. Fair questions are being asked of the Parole Board that released the presumed killer despite his lengthy criminal record, including violent crimes, with the assertion he “posed no danger to the community”. Similarly, many are questioning why the courts seem to function as a revolving door for repeat offenders in Canada. While this is most acutely raised by this latest mass murder, the same questions arise on a daily basis as individuals arrested for various acts of violence and property crime seem to go free with no obvious consequence for their actions, at least in the short term.

And, with a predictability that is virtually one hundred percent, we hear the claims that the perpetrator(s) were themselves victims of inter-generational violence because of the history of residential schools, and the “sixties scoop”, in Canada. For those not familiar with these issues, Canada, like the United States, established a system of residential schools that, starting in the late nineteenth century and continuing well into the twentieth, removed aboriginal children from their families and forced them to attend residential schools. The so called “sixties scoop” is a side story to the residential schools story where, during the nineteen sixties, children were removed from their homes, where it was deemed their care was lacking, and placed with non native families.

These programs have come under intense scrutiny in the past few years as ground penetrating radar has identified possible burial sites adjacent to the former residential schools. The narrative that has arisen as a result casts Canada in a very negative light with the suggestion that genocide occurred at those sites.

I have difficulty with this line of thought. First, thus far, no bodies have been exhumed and there seems to be little effort to do so. Even if that happens, it shouldn’t be surprising that children died and were buried in those locations at a time when untreated tuberculosis, as well as other terrible diseases like polio, regularly posed a mortal threat to children in Canada.

Second, I object to the use of the term “genocide”, including the Pope’s use of it on his apology visit to Canada a few months ago. Genocide, until recently, was reserved for the most horrific acts of planned and systematic murder of whole populations in the twentieth century, and expanding it to include terms like “cultural genocide” diminishes its force. I don’t dispute that the residential school program had a deeply negative impact on indigenous Canadians, but those effects do not rise to the level of the Nazi genocide in Europe, the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire, the Serbian genocide during the breakup of the Yugoslavia or the Rwandan genocide.

Third, I don’t accept that everyone associated with creating and running the residential schools program and the sixties scoop acted out of malice or with the intention to do harm to the children and their communities. In fact, I’m certain that, at the time, many believed what they were doing would benefit the children and allow for a fuller participation in Canadian society by the native communities. With the benefit of hindsight and changed social values, as well as the stories of abuse, we now know this to be profoundly wrong but that doesn’t mean the people who designed and implemented the residential school system are comparable to Adolph Hitler, Radovan Karadzic or Radko Mladic.

My father was a clergyman in Alberta and, while I have no idea what, if any, views he had on the residential school program, I do know he witnessed terrible scenes of deprivation and poverty in native communities, including families trying to survive an Alberta winter in tents, during his ministry. With that knowledge, it’s not hard to understand how Canadians at the time thought they were doing good with the residential school program.

What is especially troubling is the increasing use of the “victims of inter-generational trauma caused by the residential school system” narrative as a kind of get out of jail free card to account for everything negative in the lives of aboriginal Canadians, including acts of violence by them. In fact, it has reached the point where those words carry less and less meaning, just like the rote recitation of acknowledgements of unceded native land.

An awful fact of human history is that populations have been displaced by other peoples since time immemorial, resulting in genocide, slavery, and all other forms of oppression. In that regard the experience of native North and South Americans isn’t unique. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be sympathy and efforts by the dominant population to increase opportunities for members of the indigenous population. But as long as we continue to infantilize indigenous Canadians by placing their victim-hood at the centre of any conversation about them and their role in Canadian society we will never make the kind of progress on reconciliation that is necessary to end the cycles of poverty, violence and alienation that warps so many of their lives.

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 appears at the bottom right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

On July 11 a young man was walking near Smithe and Homer streets in Yaletown when he was stabbed by a woman, suffered serious injuries and died in hospital. He was 29 and his name was Justin Mohrmann. His assailant was arrested on July 18th in the Downtown Eastside. Her name is Lindsay Scott and there is no evidence that she and Justin Mohrmann knew each other. In other words, this was another random attack by a stranger, this time in one of Vancouver’s “better” neighbourhoods.

Although little information has been provided so far, police do indicate they are “familiar” with Scott and, in fact, she is facing another charge for assault from a different attack earlier in the day. The only comment from her family so far is that she has been suffering from some form of “mental illness” for several years.

And so it continues. The endless assaults, property crimes and general degradation of Vancouver by people who, for whatever reason, have chosen a life of drugs and crime.

The next day an elderly woman was assaulted with bear spray in the Downtown Eastside adjacent to the growing homeless encampment along east Hastings. I have no doubt that as I write this other, similar, incidents are occurring, many of them not even reported to the police.

And all the while, our political leaders in Vancouver, Victoria and Ottawa do little if anything to stem this tide of criminality that is rendering our city unlivable. Oh yes, they happily cite the mantra of “Four Pillars”, some at least acknowledging that the so-called pillars of enforcement and treatment are sadly lacking, but their real interest now seems to be ensuring an endless supply of “safe” drugs (as if there was any such thing) to the addicts. Little if any concern is given to the rest of us, the law abiding, tax paying, hard working citizens of this city. When (it now seems a certainty) this so called safe supply is available what will it do to stem the murders, assaults, property crimes and other anti social behaviours by addicts in Vancouver and elsewhere in the province? Little if anything. Yes, there may be less pressure to commit property crimes to support their habit, but I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting any sort of a significant drop in crime. In fact, one certain outcome will be an increase in the number of people coming to B.C. with addiction problems.

For too long this issue has been addressed through the sole lens of what’s good for the addicts instead of the rights and interests of the rest of us. I have lived for over fifty years in the downtown core of Vancouver and, for the first time in all those years, I now feel a need to be constantly aware of who is near me on a street, who might assault me, who might push me down a flight of stairs. This is not right and it has to stop!

If the laws have to be changed, so be it. If more resources have to go into policing, so be it. If the sensibilities of those who are opposed to any kind of real enforcement have to be trampled, so be it. To quote “Wall Street”: “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore”. And I know I’m not alone in this.

Of course I support actions that save peoples’ lives, including ensuring, to the extent it’s possible, that people do not inject fatal doses of drugs into their bodies. But this has to occur within a structure that attends to the interests of everyone else. In other words, providing “safe” drugs to addicts should only occur in the context of a commitment to treatment or, alternatively, incarceration. And the politicians who don’t have the cojones to advocate for and make this happen should step aside or be booted out of office.

Lindsay Scott should not have been on the streets on July 11th. Nor should hundreds of other, similarly addicted/mentally disturbed individuals. Our approach to this issue needs to be turned upside down with the rights of law abiding citizens coming first.

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 on the lower right hand side of your screen when you open the blog.

Old Canadian Joke:

Question: “What’s it like to live next door to America?”

Answer: “It’s like having a really nice apartment except that there’s a meth lab downstairs.” (source unknown)

I just returned from a twelve day vacation in New York and environs. Aside from the nightmare of getting there (with airline postponements and cancellations it took two days), I landed in a country in shock. And if that wasn’t bad enough, it became much, much worse as, in the succeeding days, a rogue Supreme Court rendered profoundly unpopular decisions on several issues affecting the most personal lives and safety of Americans, with signals it was just getting started.

Now, of course New York isn’t America writ whole and is in many respects the liberal antithesis of some of the more odious and retrograde impulses currently washing back and forth across America but, in its own unique way, is a good representative of the shock and dismay a majority of Americans feel about the direction of their country.

The fallout from the pandemic was evident everywhere with closed businesses and homeless people trying to camp in doorways or passed out on subway platforms. Like most other major western cities, New York has always had a homeless problem but this time there was a palpable fear of homeless people that I presume arises from the reports of random attacks by some of them on strangers, not unlike what is happening in Vancouver by the way. At one point a porter at my hotel grabbed my arm as I was about to step out onto the street and pulled me back into the entrance, saying “there’s a homeless person heading towards us” and, indeed there was, a black emaciated man wandering in a daze down the street, utterly lost in the richest city in the richest country in the world, forgotten, invisible except when he might pose a threat to the rest of us.

And although the pandemic isn’t over the signals are getting more and more confusing. Many people, although probably not a majority, still wearing masks with theatres and some commercial establishments requiring them and the subways, buses and taxi’s requesting them. Speaking of the subway, many long time New Yorkers are afraid to return to it because of a combination of fear of COVID and the violent crimes that have occurred recently on it. I rode it several times and felt as safe as I ever have on it but, then, that may just be my naivete at play.

And into this already stressed environment, the Supreme Court had just tossed a grenade, striking down New York’s 108 year old law that strictly limited a person’s right to carry concealed firearms in public. Another example of a conservative minority imposing its will on the citizens of a state that overwhelmingly supported the pre-existing limits. At about the same time Congress finally managed to pass some legislation that imposed minimal new restrictions on access to firearms and yet it was hailed as a major breakthrough after years of failing to adopt any new restrictions despite serial horrific mass shootings that continue apace to this day.

But the best was yet to come. On Friday, June 24th, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court struck down Roe vs. Wade that had, for nearly fifty years protected a woman’s right to have an abortion. The decision wasn’t a surprise, particularly in light of the leaked draft opinion earlier, but the shock was still profound and the shock waves continue to roil the country. Theoretically, the decision simply puts the issue back in the hands of state legislators but, effectively for much of the country, it leads very quickly to complete or almost complete bans on abortion, including in some states where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or where the fetus is mentally or physically compromised. In one fell swoop, five conservative justices, three of whom were appointed under a cloud by Donald Trump, removed one of the core foundations that allowed women to participate in American society as full and equal partners. That women will certainly die because of this decision and that its impact will fall disproportionately on poor women and women of colour seems to have had no impact on the three avowedly Christian men and one woman (actually four men if you count Chief Justice Roberts who voted with the majority although dissented from the scope of the decision) in their decision.

And just in case people not directly affected by the decision felt it didn’t concern them, Justice Clarence Thomas helpfully wrote in his opinion the Court should now move to dismantle the rights to marriage equality, private sexual relations between consenting adults and womens’ access to contraceptives. Notably, he didn’t include the right to inter-racial marriage which was decided by an earlier court using similar reasoning as that applied in Roe vs. Wade and the decisions on private sexual relations and marriage equality. Perhaps the omission is because he, a black man, is married to a white woman who, by the way, was up to her elbows in the effort to overthrow the free and fair election of President Biden. But then after all, this is Clarence Thomas of Anita Hill fame. Americans were warned about him a long time ago and chose to ignore it.

And if heads weren’t already spinning, the committee inquiring into the January 6 insurrection began its public hearings and, bit by bit, painted a picture of political and legal malfeasance by the Trump administration that made Watergate look like a tea party (and, no that is not some oblique reference to the Boston tea party of two hundred plus years ago). What to say about these disclosures? Just when you felt nothing would shock, it does. The stain on Monica Lewinsky’s dress is now surpassed by ketchup sprayed across the wall of the private Presidential dining room in the White House as an enraged Donald Trump vented his infantile fury at being blocked from staging a coup by those from whom he expected complete obeisance. What an utterly appropriate epitaph (I hope) for this monstrous, egotistical, sociopath. And don’t even get me started on his attempt to seize control of the Presidential limousine and joining “his people” in their armed assault on the seat of democratic American government.

Those of you who read my blogs know that I have a great deal of affection for America and that I wish it well, if only because the well being of the democratic world depends upon it. And I’d like to be able to say I remain confident it will pull through this current litany of disasters but the truth is I’m not sure it will. The disconnect between the majority of its citizens and significant parts of its government, particularly the courts, is something that cannot continue indefinitely. Eventually, a majority will say “enough” and demand fundamental change. That’s the point at which the bonds that bind a nation will be tested as they have rarely been in the past. On the other hand, I do remember America has survived similarly challenging times previously and, with couragious and uplifting leaders, has met and overcome them. I profoundly hope it does again.

Oh, and my return trip to Vancouver was just fine.

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.

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.