I’m in California. Being in the U.S. provides some good perspective on what we in Canada consider a political scandal these days. I also have a few things to say about gun control in Canada.

For the past twenty two months Americans and many others have waited with bated breath for the conclusion of the Muelljer Inquiry into allegations that President Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election and then obstructed justice to try to cover that up. Many, myself included, felt the findings could spell the end of the Trump presidency. We were wrong.

A week ago Friday the Mueller report was given to the Attorney General of the United States, William Barr, who then issued a precis of its principal findings, including that there was no evidence that would support criminal charges that Trump or his campaign had colluded with Russia. It did confirm what Trump has denied, i.e. that the Russians did interfere in the election on his behalf. On the obstruction claim, it found that while there was evidence that might support an obstruction of justice charge, there was also countervailing evidence and, as a result, the inquiry drew no conclusion. Barr then drew his own conclusion that there was no basis for charges on the obstruction claim which, given his well-known views on the authority of the Executive Branch, is not surprising.

Predictably President Trump has claimed total vindication and is now suggesting those behind the inquiry be investigated for treason.

But, not so fast here.

Certainly on the issue of obstruction, even according to Attorney General Barr, the report does not vindicate Trump. The report neither exonerates nor clears him. And even on the collusion piece, as I read it, the report says there is no basis under U.S. law to charge anyone but it doesn’t say anything about behaviour that supports the collusion claim but fails to meet the standard for pursuing a criminal charge. In the context of the U.S. legal and constitutional system, this is an important distinction.

Over these past months much has been made about the U.S. Department of Justice policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted. This has been advanced mostly by Republicans, particularly those close to the President, and they have pointed out that the U.S. constitution provides a separate process for addressing misconduct by a President: impeachment. They have also said impeachment is a “political” process where actions that might not be strictly criminal but are, never the less, abhorrent can be considered, the most recent example being President Clinton’s impeachment based on his having had sex with an Intern and then denying it. Given the sex was consensual and the Intern was an adult, no laws were broken and yet Republicans at the time considered it sufficiently heinous to warrant impeachment.

We’ve all witnessed Donald Trump’s misbehaviour on a scale that makes consensual sex with an adult intern seem almost quaint. Whether in international relations where he’s run roughshod over traditional American alliances and commitments and pandered to authoritarian dictators, or his lying about business involvements in Russia, or his lying about paying off women with whom he’s had affairs, or his attitude towards minorities and women; or his inciting violence and racism while refusing to criticize so-called white nationalists; or his nepotism, it has been on full public view, never mind the Mueller Inquiry. In fact, he’s run roughshod over the entire catalogue of decent and appropriate human behaviour for any adult, let alone a President and, in the process, has inflicted real damage on America, its allies and countless individuals.

And then there are the many unanswered questions about his relations with Russia: his being surrounded by advisers and confidants with deep, byzantine ties to unsavoury Russians; the stories of compromat and financial conflicts of interest, and his servile obsequiousness towards Vladimar Putin. Not to mention his constant lying about it all.

Apparently none of this rises to the standard that would support criminal charges according to the Mueller Report, although other ongoing investigations may change that, but they certainly signal something that is not right. And isn’t that what the constitutional process of investigation by Congress and, if appropriate, impeachment is for? Which is why it is so important the complete Mueller Report be made available to Congress. All the information gathered in that investigation must be available to Congress if it is to properly fulfill its constitutional responsiblity.

Many Americans hoped the Mueller Report would end the nightmare that for them is the Trump Presidency. Robert Mueller came to embody a kind of saviour, one who would ride into town, shoot or imprison the bad guys and allow the halcyon days of old to return. Well, that isn’t going to happen. No cavalry is coming to the rescue. The American people will have to rescue themselves. The important date is Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Giddyup.

Gun Control in Canada

I suspect most Canadians are unaware there is a guerilla war being fought fiercely right now over gun control in Canada. In the wake of the Danforth shootings and the earlier killings at the Quebec City mosque the federal government set up a review of existing gun regulations with the possibility of expanding the outright ban on certain types of guns, including handguns. The review is being led by the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, the Hon. Bill Blair who is also an MP from Toronto and the former Chief of that city’s police force.

The profile of this review has been raised by the recent massacre at the two mosques in Christchurch New Zealand. Canadians quite rightly realize there is little currently that would prevent such a tragedy here.

Before I make any comments on gun control, I should acknowledge a few things about myself that influence my views. I live in the middle of one of the biggest cities in Canada. I’m not a hunter (recreational or otherwise). I do not participate in target shooting as a sport. I was once held up in Los Angeles by an assailant with a handgun. However, I did grow up in rural Alberta. My grandparents were farmers there and I spent a lot of time while growing up on my Aunt and Uncle’s farm outside of Edmonton so I do have some appreciation of the role guns play in rural in Canada.

But I simply do not understand why anyone, other than law enforcement, the military or for other professional reasons, needs to own either a handgun or an automatic or semi automatic weapon in Canada today. I don’t know enough about target shooting or hunting to measure how eliminating those types of guns would affect them but, regardless, whatever limiting of their rights that might result is surely outweighed by the rights of everyone else to live free from fear of being killed or injured by these weapons.

And please don’t drag up the tired old canard that “guns don’t kill people, people do”. Or the argument that banning handguns and semi and automatic weapons will only take guns away from law abiding citizens, leaving the bad guys armed with illegal weapons. Of course weapons will still be smuggled into Canada from the wild west that is America today but at least the mere possession of them will be a crime punishable under law. What’s more, do we really want civilians returning fire when something like the Danforth shooting happens? Who knows how many other people would be killed or injured in the cross fire.

When physicians in Canada spoke out in favour of tougher gun laws the gun lobby here, led by the Canadian little brother of the notorious National Rifle Association in the United States, tried to shut them up by telling them to “stay in their own lane”. While that language is mildly irritating to most Canadians, it’s downright offensive to doctors who are on the front line responding to gun violence in Canada every day and who, if anyone does, own the so called “lane” on gun control. Think of the Emergency Room Doctors at our big city hospitals and how often they respond to victims of gun violence these days, not to mention the Trauma Surgeons as well as their teams of surgical assistants and nurses confronting the grisly consequences of guns.

In response to the criticism from the gun lobby, a group of doctors has formed across Canada to coordinate lobbying for stricter gun control in Canada. Its name is “Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns” and it has scheduled a National Day of Action on April 3. The details for Vancouver are:

“National Day of Action” on April 3 at St. Paul’s Hospital at Burrard and Comox in Vancouver at Twelve Noon.

I’m going to be out of the country when the rallies are held but I urge all of you to show up and support the doctors. It’s your fight too.

Just sayin

G

If you would like to be notified when a new blog is posted just click on the “follow” prompt at the bottom right hand corner of you computer screen.

Please share this blog.

This week I’m offering a smorgasboard with the first piece completing last week’s blog; the second, breaking my vow of silence on the Jodi Wilson-Raybould resignation; and the third, offering some comments on some of the editorial reaction to Justin Trudeau’s speech in the House of Commons in response to the New Zealand mosque massacre.

Part Two: The Tumbrils are Coming

When I wrote last week’s blog I planned to include a section on philanthropy, or at least, what is passing for philanthropy these days, in the context of the college cheating scandal. I soon realized the blog was too long and too complex with that inclusion so philanthropy is a subject of this week’s blog.

The word “philanthropy” has two Greek roots: “philo” meaning loving and “anthropos” meaning mankind, or love of mankind. This love is selfless and unconditional.

One of the accused in the college cheating scandal is David Sidoo, a prominent Vancouver businessman. When describing him his legal counsel refers to him only as a philanthropist, presumably as part of a strategy to create a positive narrative and to either exclude the possibility he could have participated in the cheating scandal or, if he did, position it as a minor aberration in an otherwise comendable life. This reminded me of an itch that needs scratching.

So much of what passes for philanthropy these days is indistinguishable from corporate sponsorship. Donors are rewarded for their “gifts” by having buildings or, in Mr. Sidoo’s case, a football field at UBC, his alma mater, named after them. If not a whole building, a gallery or a space or, at the Metropolitan Museum in New York, a plaza and fountain (named after the Koch family). Other rewards for these “gifts” include status, positive publicity, access to opportunities and contacts, maybe even getting your children into the recipient Colleges and Universities. And, for people in Mr. Sidoo’s circumstances, it provides a public profile that mitigates against future misdeeds.

This reminds me of Indulgences. For those of you not Roman Catholic (“fallen” or otherwise), Indulgences are sort of “get out of jail free” cards used to atone for sins that might otherwise result in eternal damnation or at least an unpleasant stay in Purgatory. Historically they usually took the form of “donations” to churches and/or clergymen. Their abuse by Catholic clergy to enrich themselves was probably the single most important spark igniting the Protestant Reformation (see Martin Luther). You could be a monster who committed terrible crimes and still have access to heaven as long as you made an appropriate donation (generally after confession and some form of penance). For obvious reasons, this option was practically only available to the wealthy.

Although stripped of their escatological aura, the “gifts” made to many public institutions today resemble Indulgences. In the example of Mr. Sidoo, they support the defence argument that, even if he did participate in the cheating scandal, he should be forgiven because he is a good man as demonstrated by his philanthropy. I’m not picking on Mr. Sidoo here. It’s just that he offers the most immediate example. Much wealthier and more prominent people fall into the same class, people like the Sackler family with their role in Purdue Pharmaceuticals and its key part in triggering the current opioid addiction crisis. Their names are emblazoned on many public institutions in America and elsewhere because of their considerable “gifts” to these institutions. This isn’t a discussion of the propriety of accepting some of these gifts, although I note that the British National Portrait Gallery and the Guggenheim Museum in New York just turned down donations from the Sacklers because of the opioid controversy. Presumably the reputational cost was considered too high for the donation or maybe, just maybe, the institutions were showing their revulsion at the source of the money, something other institutions might like to reflect on.

Nor am I arguing these “gifts” are necessarily bad, although as the case of the Secklers suggests, some probably are, at a minimum, tainted, just that they are certainly not philanthropy. Most seem to benefit society whether through contributions to the arts, medicine, education or other worthwhile fields.

I am aware of the argument that these “gifts” wouldn’t be necessary if we had a taxation system that taxed the wealthy fairly in relation to other people, with governments then having enough money to fund all the areas that rely on charity now. I’m not sure that is correct, or that I agree with it as public policy but, in any case, I have no illusions it will happen in my lifetime.

Of course there are real philanthropists out there, people who give generously to all sorts of projects and activities that enrich society but who remain fiercely anonymous. I know some of them. And, to be fair, some of the faux philanthropists are only in that category because of the growth of a fundraising industry over the past few decades that has outposts at virtually every college, university, art gallery, medical institution etc. The people who work in this field need to sell potential donors on contributing and the currency they have is recognition and social status.

And, to be clear, there is a hierarchy of donors between those who crassly exploit the system for their sole benefit and those who are mostly selfless and very generous. In the former category I put Donald Trump and the Trump Foundation that has now been shut down as part of a deal with authorities in New York, and in the latter, the Gates Foundation or the foundation that is to be the principal beneficiary of Warren Buffet’s estate. Most fall in the middle with admirable generosity but with identifiable paybacks for the donor.

My main purpose in this blog is to alert us to not be hoodwinked by people claiming to be philanthropists when, in fact, all they are doing is investing in their own or their family’s brand. These are indistinguishable from corporations paying large sums of money to have their name attached to a stadium or theatre or art gallery. While we may applaud the contribution, we shouldn’t take it as a measure of moral worth. It’s not.

The Jodi and Jane Story (the saga continues; and continues; and continues)

What the hell do they want? Speculating on their motives is clearly a chump’s game with their actions completely contradicting their stated objectives.

This week Dr. Philpott gave an interview to MacLeans magazine that managed, not by accident I suspect, to keep the story of her and Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s resignations alive. Not to be outdone, shortly after, Ms. Wilson-Raybould issued a statement saying she was preparing additional materials to submit to the Common’s Justice Committee further to her testimony. And anyone who doesn’t believe this was coordinated between them really has been drinking the Koolaid.

Their response to suggestions they use their privileges as Members of Parliament to provide whatever further information on the SNC-Lavalin file they wish by speaking in the House is that would be insufficient. Instead they want another full court press with the Justice Committee (actually two I guess), complete with wall to wall press coverage. What then? When Gerald Butts or Michael Wernick ask to respond to their statements are they given another opportunity to speak too? If not, why not ? And then what? More responses?

When asked what their objective is, they glibly use that incredibly shopworn term “transparency”* and a hope the Liberal Party will reform in ways that align with their views of what it should be (whatever the hell that is). They also reiterate that they are Liberals, want to remain Liberals and intend to run for the Liberals in the federal election this fall (or sooner if Justin Trudeau chooses). They say they don’t want to see Andrew Scheer as Prime Minister. And yet…. everything they are doing is weakening the government and increasing the likelihood of the election of Andrew Scheer and his pack of Harper retreads with their hostility to action on climate change; their opposition to physician assisted dying; their enthusiasm for looser gun control in Canada; their hostility to women’s re-productive rights; their oppostion to gay marriage; their oppostion to trans rights; their history of consistently failing on the native rights file and on and on. And the rest of us will have to live with that for the next four years.

So, what are we to make of this? As I said at the outset, trying to fathom their motives is a dead end but measuring the real and tangible effects of their actions is quite straightforward and they have to end. It’s time for the Liberal Whip to give them a choice between supporting the government or resigning from caucus. If they refuse to do either they should be expelled. Then, as independents they can stand in the House of Commons and say whatever they want.

* as an aside to those of you who were on the BCMA Board a number of years ago when “transparency” became the battle cry of a disaffected member…there are chilling similarities here don’t you think?)

If Not Now, When?

In response to the attack on the mosques in New Zealand Prime Minister Trudeau made a strong statement in the House of Commons that challenged all political leaders to step up and condemn the white nationalist hatred that motivated the attack. That statement came after Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer stumbled badly in his initial response to the attack by retreating behind bland generalizations and failing to specify the attack was on Muslims and was by a white nationalist. In light of recent events involving him, it wasn’t a stretch to see his statement as a deliberate attempt to respond without offending so called white nationalists who, presumably, form part of his voter base but may be susceptible to the new political party led by Maxime Bernier. That’s why many observers saw Trudeau’s statement as an attack on Scheer and some columnists descried the polticizing of the tragedy. At least one reached back into Trudeau’s past to note his response to Stephen Harper when he attacked Trudeau for his response to an earlier terrorist attack and to label him a hyprocrite.

I think these criticisms of Trudeau are wrong for any number of reasons. First, on the charge of opportunism by making the statement in direct response to the attacks, if not then, when? If not when the whole world is watching in horror; is seeing the brutal savagery perpetrated in the name of white nationalism and racism; is suddenly aware of the possibilities of such attacks here in Canada; then when? The only positive outcome of a tragedy like this is it creates a golden hour when governments can be spurred to act to lessen the likelihood of future attacks and have broad public support for doing so. The admirable Prime Minister of New Zealand is a fine example of this.

Aside from the timing, what else might be objectionable about Trudeau’s statement? In it he called on all political leaders to step forward and state clearly there is no place for hatred, racism and violence perpetrated by anyone and, specifically because of the current case, by white nationalists. And he couldn’t be more spot on. He didn’t mention Andrew Scheer but if the Oppostion Leader fails to meet that bar, that is hardly Trudeau’s fault. Andrew Scheer did issue a second, more appropriate, statement but only after the blowback from the first one. Let’s wait and see if he’s learned a lesson or that, even if learned, his party has the cojones to stand with the good guys in future no matter the political cost.

Trudeau’s statement was correct in content and tone and if it made those who would rather equivocate for political gain uncomfortable, good.

Just sayin

G

Note: I’m hitting the road next week and will be away for a couple of weeks. When I was last travelling (New York and Key West), I posted two blogs but I found creating them on my phone or tablet very difficult (I can’t text because of arthritis) so I may skip a couple of weeks. If so, I’ll be back in two.

If you would like to receive an e-mail notification when I post a blog, please tap the “follow” button at the botton right hand side of your computer screen.

and

Please share this blog.

This week I’m writing several shorter pieces on politics/current affairs and on two books I have just finished and recommend.

Mob Rule has Infected Canadian Journalism

Like many of you I suspect, I’m suffering from Jody Wilson-Raybould/SNC fatigue so I’m going to keep this first piece short. I’m amazed that almost all Canadian journalists of note are piling on with increasingly dire and hysterical warnings on the JWR/SNC non scandal (although Barbara Yaffe came out of retirement to write an excellent piece in today’s Globe). Their language suggests an imminent apocalypse. Some confess to being ashamed of being a Canadian; others warn the very essence of Canadian law has been undermined; still others, that the government has wrecked our democracy and on and on. No wonder ordinary Canadians are alarmed but, really, what poppycock.

All the while the beatification of JWR continues apace with nary a question of the veracity of her claims or at least the possibility the facts lead to other conclusions. I expect this from the usual suspects (I’m talking about you Conservatives and New Democrats) but from the entire commentariat? They act as if JWR descended from Mount Horeb carrying stone tablets instead of acknowledging that the issues are complex and the various participants almost certainly have legitimately held different impressions of what actually transpired and, most importantly, what it meant.

And of course the letters to the editor and social media posts pick up where the columnists leave off, proferring ever more indignation and fury. Where does this atavistic need to tear down come from? It’s as if there was a pent up wish to destroy the positive image the government has cultivated of Canada over the past four years, an image most Canadians have luxuriated in by the way.

Just to be clear, we haven’t heard everything yet and when we do I suspect it will be much more nuanced than the view being espoused by today’s columnists and their acolytes on social media. But don’t expect any mea culpas.

Which Side are You On?

Several weeks ago I wrote a piece on China and specifically its crude over reaction to the arrest of the Huawei executive on an extradition warrant. At the time I said I would come back to the behaviour of some Chinese new Canadians around this issue.

Let me start by saying I am the son and grandson of immigrants. I support and am proud of Canada’s relatively generous approach to immigration and I welcome new Canadians to this country. Also, I have lived in Vancouver for nearly sixty years and in the downtown core of the city for nearly fifty. Those of you who know Vancouver will know what a culturally and ethnically diverse neighbourhood that is. I’m used to daily interractions with people who are new to Canada. In fact, on those rare occasions I find myself in a community where everyone looks and talks like me I find it unsettling and weird. Over the years I have had great personal and professional relationships with Chinese Canadians and have felt them excellent citizens. I still do.

So, it is hard for me to acknowledge my dismay when I saw protestors who were obviously Chinese new Canadians demanding that Canada bow to Beijing on the extradition dispute and ignore our treaty obligations with the United States. One of the things that makes Canada an attractive place to live is that it is a country where the rule of law is paramount, where our courts are free of political taint. When a person swears a citizenship oath to Canada that should include a commitment to support and uphold the rule of law and its independence in this country.

I’m not saying the protestors don’t have the right to protest. They certainly do and that is a big difference from what their rights would be in the People’s Republic of China, but frankly the optics in this case are terrible. If I was a Chinese Canadian I would be very concerned about the impression they are creating, particularly at a time when a significant number of Canadians are questioning the country’s openness to immigration.  It would be nice to hear other views expressed by Chinese Canadians but I suspect they are fearful of repercussions from the PRC.

There has been some subsequent investigative journalism into the groups behind the protestors and it seems possible their leaders are being directed by Beijing. Even if that isn’t the case, this behaviour should prompt Canada to take a careful look at the system it uses to select new Canadians to ensure to the extent possible their first loyalty will be to Canada and not a foreign power.

The Legacy of Slavery

Julian Castro is running for the Democratic nomination for the 2020 Presidential Election in the U.S. He has opined that it would be useful to discuss the possibility of reparations to the descendents of slaves in America. Other candidates have since joined him with varying degrees of support for the idea. While I get that certain issues must take precedent over political necessity and this may be one, I wonder at the wisdom of the Democrats launching into these perilous waters when the paramount concern must be replacing Donald Trump. Also, most Americans are not descendents of slave owners.

I thought Bernie Sanders gave the best response. He noted that millions of Americans live in poverty for a variety of reasons including the legacy of slavery and that problem should be addressed as a whole. He would have been more effective had he been less curmedgeonly as he said this but it did contain the germ of a better idea.

Slavery is called America’s “original sin” and it has never been effectively expiated. While it is true millions of Americans live in poverty, a response that didn’t focus exclusively on the legacy of slavery would fail to atone for that sin. Many African Americans have a living standard below the rest of society and it’s probably correct to connect that to some degree to the legacy of slavery and its aftermath in the Jim Crow era. However, some descendents of slaves have prospered so I don’t think proposals for a blanket payment to all descendents of slaves would be appropriate or effective. What would be effective is to commit resources to be uniquely available to the descendents of slaves to help them participate fully and successfully in American society. Creating and supporting educational opportunities is one area that could help but I expect there are many others.

Itt would also help if concrete measures were combined with an apology. I often feel Canada’s endless apologies to groups mistreated in the past go overboard but the case of slavery is sufficiently different and acute to be worthy of an apology.

Books I’m Recommending

I’ve recently finished two books that I want to recommend: “February House” and “The Man in the Glass House”.

February House

February House was recommended to me by our guide in the walking tour of Brooklyn I described in an earlier blog, Ron Janoff. It details an extraordinay experiment in communal living in Brooklyn for two years up to the entry of America into the Second World War. What makes it so extraordinay is the list of tenants and visitors who lived in or attended the old Victorian house in Brooklyn Heights: W.H. Auden, Benjamin Britten, Peter Pearce, Gypsy Rose Lee (yes, that Gypsy Rose Lee), Carson McCullers, Paul Bowles, Jane Bowles, Aaron Copland, Truman Capote, Salvador and Gaia Dali, Janet Flanner, Christopher Isherwood, Lincoln Kirstein, Louis McNeice, Erika Mann, Anaiis Nin and Lotte Lenya, amongst so many others. Some were refugees from Nazi dominated Europe, others from the war where the Nazi’s had not yet triumphed.

The house was named “February House” by Anaiis Nin because so many of its inhabitants had birthdays in February. It was torn down to make way for an expressway but old photos show a building distinguishable from its neighbours by a faux Tudor facade. (see the photo at the head of this blog).

There was also an off-Broadway musical based on the story of the house. Apparently it used rhyming couplets. It was at the Public Theatre in New York but doesn’t seem to have achieved much traction with Ben Brantley of the Times reviewing it and saying “When the gang decides to give a party, its constituents sound like Judy and Mickey preparing to put on a show in the barn.” Ouch!

The book, however, is another matter. It doesn’t just record events in the house but places them in the context of a world moving inevitably towards cataclysm as well as providing deep dives into the intellectual development of the main characters.

If you are interested in the intellectual history of the West in the first half of the Twentieth Century this is a must read. Its author is Sherrill Tippins.

Man in the Glass House

The second book I’m commenting on is “The Man in the Glass House” by Mark Lamster. It is the most recent biography of Philip Johnson who was probably the pre-eminent architect in mid twentieth century America. His most famous buildings are what was the Seagram Tower in New York, where he collaborated with Ludwig Mies van der Rohe who was the principal architect and his home in New Canaan Connecticut, described as “The Glass House”. The Glass House is now owned by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and is open to the public. The other great public institution he is associated with is the Museum of Modern Art in New York which he supported and worked at for decades.

As with “February House” this biography provides significant insight into mid century America and Europe. It provides a detailed portrait of Johnson, warts and all. The most startling thing for me was the extent to which Johnson was an anti semite who sympathized with Fascists and, particularly, the Nazi’s. It is even suggested he may have been an agent of Nazi Germany although he was not prosecuted after the war.

And what is even more astonishing is how seemingly easily he was forgiven for his pre-war and wartime trangressions after the war, especially by a number of prominent Jewish people. First amongst these, would be the Canadian Bronfman family who engaged him as an integral part of the Seagram Building project. He worked closely with Phyllis Lambert, the daughter of Samuel Bronfman, on this project and they continued to have a professional and personal relationship until his death at New Canaan in 2005. One of the fun tid bits in the book describes how he tried to work a gay bar into the design for the Seagrams Building. He didn’t succeed. He was also a friend of Shimon Peres after he designed a Synagogue in Israel and the building housing Israel’s nuclear program. He wasn’t paid for either and they were seen as acts of expiation for his earlier heresy.

Delving into his activity in the pre-war and war periods gives the book’s title ambiguity, drawing on the old adage that “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”. I came away from the book with a view of Johnson that was mostly negative but complicated. His legacy lives on in buildings he designed or influenced all over New York (btw he designed the remake of Times Square, something more to hold against him) and around North America. A good read.

Just sayin

A request to readers of this BLOG: Facebook has made it more difficult to automatically circulate the blog using Facebook (not just for me but for all bloggers in case you were wondering). If you enjoy reading the blog I urge you to sign up as a “follower”. All it takes is a couple of clicks on the “follow” button at the end of the blog and you will then receive an automatic notification whenever one is posted, as well as a link to the blog.

Also, if you enjoy the blog, please share it with your friends.

G

This week I’m commenting on two matters that are currently topical in Canada:  the continuing controversy surrounding the resignation of Cabinet member Jody Wilson-Raybould and the sentence received by confessed serial killer Bruce McArther.

Scandal?  What Scandal?

Last week I devoted the entire blog to the controversy over the demotion and resignation of Jody Wilson-Raybould from the federal Cabinet.  At the outset I noted the possibility there may not be a scandal at all.  Even though I’m writing as the events continue to unfold with the mesmerizing titillation of Salome’s dance, including Ms. Wilson-Raybould testifying before the House of Commons Justice Committee, I think we have enough of the facts now to form a reasonable opinion of what happened, particularly in light of the testimony by the Clerk of the Privy Council last week and the new information on another dispute between Ms. Wilson-Raybould and the PMO, this one concerning the process for appointing judges in Canada.

So as not to get distracted, before offering my views on where we are on the initial controversy, I’m going to say a couple of things about the dispute over the appointment process  for judges.  The report in the “Globe and Mail” paints the conflict as between the Minister trying to remove political taint in the appointments and the PMO wanting to defend the current system or at least receive all the information on prospective appointees as it has in the past.  I have no idea whether or to what extent the current process needs to be changed.  On first reading the changes Ms. Wilson-Raybould sought seem good except that I don’t believe there is now, or ever has been, much controversy in Canada around the current system which, on the whole, has produced a judiciary that is fiercely independent and enjoys the confidence of Canadians.  If it needs to be changed then there should be an open debate about whether, to what extent and how.  What I find  most  telling from this information  is not its detail but that the dispute occurred and was ongoing.  For me it is relevant to the controversy on the resignation only as confirmation of my growing suspician there were a number of conflicts between a strong willed Cabinet Minister and the PMO.  In our system of government that can only lead to one conclusion:  the departure of the Cabinet Minister which, by the way, should not be followed by the slow drip, drip, drip of leaks to the press.

What is emerging on the issue of SNC-Lavalin’s push to avoid criminal prosecution boils down to one of differing perceptions of the facts as we now know them.  I fully expect Ms. Wilson-Raybould to testify she felt she was pressured inappropriately to divert the prosecution into the remediation process.  What we heard from the Clerk of  the Privy Council, who has many years experience in the often fraught relationship between the PMO and Ministers, is that, while three discussions did occur, two of which he was a direct party to, they did not constitute undue or improper pressure.  Although I know it’s dangerous ground, I also suspect part of the reason for these different perceptions is the gender of the participants. Drawing from my own professional experience, I have seen instances, some that directly involved me, where women felt that language or body language or attitudes were too aggressive while the men in the interaction simply saw them as appropriate communication for the context.

As I stated last week, I see nothing wrong with our political leaders taking account of the economic consequences of a criminal prosecution, particularly if they involve the loss of jobs and/or economic security for thousands of Canadians.  In fact, they would be derelict if they did not.  If there is ambiguity in the current process that leads to serious misunderstandings or the perception of conflict, then the process should be changed to address that,  perhaps following the British model where the Attorney General is not also the Solicitor General and Minister of Justice (or the British equivalent).  In the meantime we are stuck with the process we  have and I applaud the PMO and the Clerk of the Privy Council for raising the economic considerations .

Now, before some of you jump in and point out SNC-Lavalin has a long history of contributing to the Liberal Party (they have also made contributions to other parties) and so the intervention was obviously tainted, let me just say that anyone who thinks politics doesn’t enter into these decisions regardless of party really has little understanding how our government works.  SNC-Lavalin did have considerable access to the government and it used it to lobby for changes in the prosecution process but that doesn’t change the basic economic facts of the case.  Nor, for that matter, does SNC-Lavalin’s less than stellar record on these types of issues.  And anyway, the process worked.  SNC-Lavalin did not have its prosecution withdrawn.  The Attorney General refused.  By the way, if she felt she was being pressured inappropriately, that was when a resignation on principle was in order.

Her demotion in the subsequent Cabinet shuffle seems related to much more than the SNC-Lavalin case. We know from Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s background that she is used to prevailing and almost certainly believes she was right in all the conflicts with the PMO. That’s her right but in our system of government the Prime Minister has the absolute right to decide who is in Cabinet and in what position.  I certainly question how the PMO handled the controversy, but that is a separate matter.

So, I don’t think we have any real scandal at all here.  Oh, I understand the Conservatives and the NDP want us to think otherwise; the Conservatives now issuing a full throttled hysterical cry (actually, quite  literally if you watched coverage of Question Period) for the RCMP to be called in but that is pure political theatre and a distraction from the more important issues before the country (I even heard a reference to the Gerda Munsinger scandal from the Diefenbaker years…remember “Gerda CaccaTory”?…now that was a real scandal…prostitutes, sex, blackmail, diplomats, lies, spies, cold war adversaries).

Disagreements between strong willed people in government happen.  Our political system works to allow government to move on regardless.  We should let it.

Hang, Draw and Quarter the Bastard (preferably in Nathan Phillips Square)

Those of you in Canada will be familiar with the story of Bruce McArthur, a serial killer who pled guilty to the murder and dismemberment of eight gay men whom he met in Toronto’s “gay village”.  Here’s a bit more background for the benefit of those not from Canada.  Bruce McArthur is, himself, a gay man.  With one exception, all his victims were from marginalized backgrounds including a homeless man and new Canadians from the Middle East and south Asia.  The killings occurred over a number of years and there are complaints the Toronto police failed to investigate the disappearance of these men adequately because they were gay.  There are ongoing inquiries into that and continuing speculation there may be other victims yet to be discovered.

McArthur hid some of the dismembered remains in garden planters.  He ran a small gardening/landscaping business.  He is sixty six years old and appears in photographs to be a normal, late middle aged and friendly looking man.

Months following his arrest he pled guilty to eight murders.  Subsequently he was given a life sentence with no possibility of parole for twenty five years at which time, if he is still alive, he will be ninety two.  The sentence has provoked some in the gay community to complain that it devalues the lives of his victims in that it could have been much longer had the Canadian sentence for first degree murder (life with no possility of parole for twenty five years) been applied consecutively to the eight cases.  Theoretically that could have resulted in a sentence with no possibility of parole for two hundred years.  We routinely see these types of sentences meted out in American courts but they are extremely rare in Canada.

Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976 and made the mandatory sentence for first degree murder life with no possility of parole for twenty five years.  It also included what was described as “the faint hope clause” which allowed for a parole application after fifteen years in exceptional circumstances.  One problem with the faint hope clause was that it forced families of victims to relive the trauma of their loss repeatedly even when there was no reasonable expectation the parole application would be successful.  The previous Conservative government abolished the faint hope clause and amended the mandatory sentence for first degree murder to allow it to be applied consecutively in instances of multiple murders.

Despite being able to apply for parole after fifteen or twenty five years no mass murderer has been paroled in the years since those penalties were enacted.  I should also note that even if a criminal is granted parole that does not mean he/she is free and clear.  In the case of a life sentence they remain on parole for the rest of their lives with the possibility of being returned to custody for violations of the parole.

I have always opposed the death penalty not primarily because of undue sympathy for murderers or because of other legitimate concerns about its unfair application or wrongful convictions but because of what it says about us in whose name it is applied.  I feel the same way about jail sentences that are overwhelmingly about vengeance.  Vengeance has no place in society’s use of punishment.  Vengeance .appeals to our darkest and basest instincts.  Wishing for it is completely understandable from victims and their loved ones but it can’t reflect the values of a modern, compassionate and liberal society.  Society requires  three things of punishment:  a clear message of disapproval or even disgust; ensuring society is safe; and allowing for the possiblity of redemption by the criminal.  This latter is essential if we believe human beings are morally better than less evolved species.

A case like Bruce McArthur’s poses some unique challenges for the rest of us, most of all the acknowledgement that someone who looks indistinguishable from us is capable of such evil.  Faced with that awful reality, the easy way is to dehumanize him; name him a monster; be clear that, despite appearances, he is not of the same species as the rest of us.  And when we do that, we give permission to treat him in ways that aren’t consistent with our collective core values.  But, of course, that is wrong.  He is one of us and that means we are all capable of great evil, just that for most of us, we have been able to smother that impulse under layers of civilization however you want to describe it.

When I first encountered the negative response to his sentence in the gay community my response was “Yeh.  Hang, draw and quarter the bastard in public”.  I was joking of course to the extent I can joke about this topic but I was also trying to underline the fallacy of the complaint.  Bruce McArthur has received a sentence that will separate him from society for the rest of his life.  There is no dispute about that.  Nor is there dispute over society’s repugnance that the sentence reflects.  To suggest he should have received a stiffer sentence (presumably by imposing concurrent sentences) is to ask for special treatment because his victims were gay.  Not only is that wrong it is also inconsistent with decades of work by gays and lesbians in Canada to achieve equality and acceptance.  Bruce McArthur’s sentence should be consistent with the Canadian judicial tradition and should treat him the same as any other mass killer.  It does.

Just sayin.

G

If you would like to make a comment on any of this, please do in the “Comment” space below.  Also, if you would like to receive an automatic notification when I post a blog just click on the “follow” button at the bottom right hand side of your screen (for some it will be a pop up box for others it will be one of the  choices under “…”).  Also, if you would like to share this blog with your friends, please do.

I’m in New York, high above Times Square at the “W Hotel”. It’s not a neighbourhood I much like but a short walk west gets me out of it quickly. The only city in the world I know better than New York is Vancouver. I first visited here in 1973 or 74 and have been back at least a couple of times a year since. I saw Maggie Smith in what I think was her Broadway debut, as Amanda in “Private Lives”, on that trip. At first I found the city intimidating but also intoxicating. Even now, nearly fifty years later, it still challenges and engages me. Speaking of challenging, it’s damn cold here right now. Of course if you live in most of Canada it’s not but I’m from Vancouver where 0 degrees C triggers a state of emergency.

I guess while I’m in the States I should say something about President Trump although I’m tempted to use a variation of Bette Davis’s comment on news of Joan Crawford’s death (“They say not to say anything bad about the dead. She’s dead. Good.”)

It’s hard not to escape Trump down here…even harder than when in Canada but it’s equally hard to find anyone in New York who voted for him which isn’t that strange given that Manhattan voted nearly 90% in favour of Hilary Clinton (Queens, where he was born and raised, wasn’t far behind either) which I guess simply illustrates that New Yorkers knew their boy and knew he would be a disastrous President.

Since the 2016 election I’ve said I didn’t expect him to complete his term. I still believe that although now we’re on the downslope towards 2020 I’m hedging my bets. So much depends on the timing and content of the Mueller Inquiry as well as various Congressional inquiries that are opening up. One of the complications now is the sheer number of investigations underway, not just focussed in Washington but in other states under both federal and state jurisdictions. While it was fairly straightforward to pardon Richard Nixon, getting one for Trump in exchange for his resignation would be far more complex. Why would he resign if he’s going to immediately be the subject of criminal indictments?

Oh well, at least the mills of the gods are grinding infinitely small (with apologies to Plutarch scholars out there). I suspect he didn’t enjoy the spanking Nancy Pelosi gave him last week nearly as much the earlier one from Stormy Daniels.

Enough about politics, I’m in New York City! On Friday I visited the (somewhat) new Whitney Museum which is located on the southwestern edge of Chelsea to take in a wonderful exhibition of Andy Warhol works…well worth the price of admission if you are in the city before it closes. Even if you’re not, the museum is worth a visit if only to view the architecture of the new building, its views and some of its permanent collection. The museum has been plunked down in the middle of what used to be the Meat Packing District. Almost all of the old meat packing plants are gone. That neighbourhood was also where several notorious gay clubs were located, clubs like “The Mineshaft”, “The Anvil”, “J’s”, “Hellfire” (don’t ask how I know this). There were probably similar straight clubs in the area too. One indelible memory of the old neighbourhood was of tranvestite hookers who, in the amber light of the streetlamps of the day, plied their wares on loading docks. At times it was a scene worthy of Dante. Then, of course, there was closing time, just as the sun was rising and the workers were arriving for the meat packing plants. The denizens of the night scurried off before the sun turned them to ashes.

Unfortunately (to me it’s unfortunate) the whole area has been turned into a Ptomkin village of chic shops and expensive restaurants masking the cavernous dark spaces behind and under them with their memories of blood and guts and illicit sex.

After the Whitney I made my way into the West Village to visit my favourite bookstore in the world, “Three Lives”. The name, by the way, is based on a book of the same title that was Gertrude Stein’s first published book. The shop has been around since 1968 and, at an earlier location, was the site of readings by the Beats. It’s tiny and is exactly what a bookshop should be. I never go to New York without visiting (West 10th and Waverly Place) and I always come away with at least one new read.

After my visit to Three Lives I crossed the narrow street to “Julius”. Julius is the oldest continuously operating gay bar in New York City although, until 1968, it’s owners refused to acknowledge it as such. I believe the space itself has operated as a bar since the mid nineteenth century. It’s small, old and friendly. For any of you who read the “New York Times” Sunday edition, the photograph of the new Canadian conductor of the Metropolitan Opera orchestra, Yannick Nezet-Seguin, with his partner was taken in Julius, complete with appropriately tacky Christmas decorations. By the way, you don’t have to be gay to enjoy a drink there and they serve a decent burger.

On Sunday my good friend and lifelong New Yorker, Linda, took me on a tour of Brooklyn, a place I have only been to on two or three previous occasions. It’s a whole different world from Manhattan. Our guide was Ron Janoff, PhD. He led us on a leisurely literary tour of Brooklyn where we passed the previous homes of Truman Capote, Arthur Miller, and Norman Mailer, amongst so many others. It was a great adventure and I would certainly recommend him to anyone who is interested in a similar tour. His email is: chiron.nyc@gmail.com.

I’m heading to the warmth of Key West tomorrow.

I apologize for any grammatical or spelling errors on this blog but I am writing it on my smartphone which is rather challenging.

By the way, for anyone who would like to receive a notification when I post a blog, when you finish reading this blog there should be a small pop up window at the bottom of the screen that says “follow”. If you click on it you will receive an automatic notification in future.

Just sayin

G

I thought for my first real blog I would offer some comments on the Canada/China relationship, something particularly topical two days after the Canadian Ambassador to China was fired.  By the way, he did have to go, not just for his public musings on the Weng case but more importantly for what those musings said about his possible “off the record” chats with Chinese officials.  No government could tolerate that, particularly at such a fraught time in the relationship.  And on that subject, I think the Conservatives are way out of line with their public criticism on this issue.  I heard the Conservative Foreign Affairs Critic, Erin O’toole, on the weekend suggesting that the only reason McCallum was fired was that he got caught…in other words McCallum was voicing the real government position, something that I think is patently wrong.  This will be music to Beijing’s ears and Canadians should remember it when they vote in November.

As to the relationship itself, in the past I have always supported the strategy of getting closer to China right up to and including a comprehensive free trade agreement.  Boy, what a difference a few weeks make!  The best thing to come out of the current dispute for me at least, is the stripping away of the mask that portrayed the People’s Republic of China as just another rules abiding nation.  The face behind that mask is not pretty.  The crude insults from their foreign affairs department, the branding of Canada and Canadians as racists, the dredging up of wrongs committed against China by European colonial powers as somehow justifying its rule breaking behaviour today, the extradordinarily undiplomatic comments of China’s ambassador to Canada, including ad hominem attacks on Canadian leaders and officials and, of course, the seizing of Canadian hostages (yes, that’s the right word) in China, not to mention the ludicrously phony court proceeding resulting in the imposition of the death penalty on a Canadian in a Chinese jail are about as forceful reminders to Canadians that China is not, and never will be, our friend or ally.

I’ve noticed throughout this dispute Canadian Sinophiles asking us to be patient; to try to understand China with its history of suffering under invaders; its Confucian beliefs; its challenges as it relieves the economic hardships of its huge population.  Well, it seems to me this should go two ways and I have seen scant if any evidence that China feels the slightest need to understand Canada; our history; our overarching legal and political system; our support for human rights.  In fact, if there’s one clear message to Canada in China’s behaviour it’s that it doesn’t care at all about any of that except where it fits China’s own long term interests.

Combine all of this with China’s other behaviours stealing intellectual property; ignoring its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization; agressively pursuing territorial expansion in the South China Sea; locking hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of its non ethnic Chinese citizens in re-education/concentration camps and we would have to be remarkably blind (not to mention dumb and deaf) not to raise warning flags.

Canada has no choice but to have a relationship with China; the question is what that relationship should look like.  From my perspective it should not include a comprehensive free trade agreement which China will manipulate and/or ignore to its own advantage and it should most emphatically not include an extradition treaty (see earlier comments on impositon of death penalty on imprisoned Canadian).  Of course there are economic consequences for Canada in this approach.  We may be less wealthy.  But some things are more important than money (really!).

Stay tuned for my future comments on Chinese Canadian citizens who support Beijing in the current dispute…it will likely upset some of you.

Just sayin.

G