Greg Mills: Last week the government introduced C-30. Originally called the “Lawful Access Act”, it was quickly renamed to the “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act” in the wake of Public Safety Minister Vic Toews controversial “stand with us or with the child pornographers” remark.
Condemnation has been widespread among both the mainstream media and the internet. Shortly after Toews’ comments, a twitter feed called Vikileaks began publishing quotes purportedly from Vic Toews’ own divorce files.
Today, Canada’s Least Watched Political Panel will discuss the Lawful Access bill, and the slew of mud-slinging and discourse that’s surrounded it.
Will Murray: The Bill, as it stands, goes too far. I think, somewhere in the absurdity of last week, we were able to reach that consensus. However, as Andrew Coyne noted in an article over the weekend, the hyperventilating over this Bill, certainly doesn’t match the reaction a similar Bill faced in the Martin era. While I do think it’s a rather immaterial point to the debate surrounding the Bill as a whole, it is kind of interesting to see such vociferous reaction this time around. I think there are a couple reasons for this. First, we are a much more “connected” society compared to even just 8 years ago. Social media has allowed people more forms of communication than ever before, the consequences of which are that one’s personal information can be accessed across more platforms than ever before as well. Thus, the concern is going to be much higher now, than it was in 2004 when while we were connected, it wasn’t to the point as it is today. Second, people have had an avenue for their reaction. Twitter and Facebook are massive forms of communication, so big, that they’re used a barometer of public reaction by the mainstream media. These forms of communication are quick, easy, and some would say lazy – ie the notion of one click activism. Regardless, they have an impact and lead to increased awareness and coverage of an issue, even it is coming from inside the echo chamber. Finally, I think Vic Toews probably helped expand coverage of the issues with his asinine ‘child pornographers’ comment. That had the major news networks leading with it, and subsequently more people pointing out the genuine problems with the Bill.
All that being said, the VikiLeaks account was abhorrent. The person behind it was a coward. While the divorce proceedings were public record, I don’t see how any of it has to do with Toews’ job as Minister, let alone to do with internet privacy. I believe Toews’ personal life is utterly irrelevant, and even it WAS relevant, the torpedo sent into it also hit his family members that have nothing to do with setting government policy. The fact the VikiLeaks account seems to have cut and run once the heat was turned up on him by the Ottawa Citizen speaks to the type of person involved. Whoever it is isn’t the first, and won’t be the last, to attacks someone’s character under the cloak of anonymity, but it doesn’t make it any less frustrating. Because of it, the issue shifted to one of journalistic and online ethics, and away from the issue at hand; the Bill.
GM: I can certainly appreciate and readily agree with the sentiment that the Minister’s personal life are obviously not relevant to the policy at hand, but my feelings are mitigated by the circumstances surrounding the bill and his own earlier comments in particular.
I don't like that mudslinging has become a norm in our current discourse, and revenge or retribution is hardly a moral act in this case, but I can’t shake the feeling that a Vikileaks style expose was almost inevitable. Again, this isn’t me saying that it’s the right thing to do, but for the past few weeks the Conservatives have referred to their opposition as Nazis, and Child Porn peddlers. They’ve denied Elizabeth May, an elected member, the right to address Parliament more than once. My point being: They are clearly and consciously playing with a bag of dirty tricks and tasteless moves. Taking the high road is a virtue, but until this Vikileaks posting it seemed like any opponents of the Conservatives were bringing a knife to a gun fight.
I will also confess to reading the Vikileaks reaction and wondering. I mean, given that the bill the Minister introduced almost certainly leaves more personal data vulnerable to accidental public disclosure, I wonder how reaction would have been if Vikileaks had been leaking his private information instead of just the public stuff.
But again: Not the right thing to do, but given the level of discourse that we’ve seen (from all sides, as well. I rag on the CPC as primary offenders, but certainly not the only ones) it’s hardly a surprise. Also unfortunate, as the debate around a terrible bill brought in by an incompetent Public Safety Minister has been hijacked over whether or not it’s right to disclose who he slept with…a consequence we’re somewhat guilty of perpetuating, as well.
John van Weringh: I think, in terms of the sheer volume of the reaction this time around, it’s important to note that, with respect to this bill or the other bills like it, we’re in a majority government situation for the first time. We’re getting back into the swing of things where all of the yelling and posturing in the world won’t change the content of bills or the direction of government. I think we’re seeing a desperate and offended internet constituency scrambling to do anything they possibly can do to avoid the passing of this bill – and this is the result.
The ‘stand with us or with the child pornographers’ comment also harkens back to the rhetorical style of George W. Bush – a style that the internet constituency in particular is very familiar with, and derisive of. Rather than framing the issue in the way that Toews intended (assuming the remark was thought through), it framed him and the government in a particular way, at least among a certain population. Though, there may be many people for whom the remark resonates very effectively… which may be part of what the internet constituency is afraid of: that people who don’t really understand or care what’s at stake will step in and cause significant damage. In this respect, another reason why things got so heated so quickly may be the recent SOPA fiasco and last year’s broadly publicized hacking scandals, such as the PlayStation Network.
WM: To be honest, I’m not sold on the notion that majority versus minority has all that much of an impact here. Even when in a minority, the Conservatives were pretty adamant about sticking to their guns, using over the top rhetoric and generally making Parliamentary democracy cry. The times where there was push back, namely the 2008 budget, were the exception to the rule. I don’t think we’re seeing online activism in response to a majority government, it’s been growing exponentially the last few years as more and more people have access to online forums, petitions and discussions, and through numerous platforms than ever before, so the outrage and growth in that respect is more in line with internet growth patterns than with majority governments. I go back to my point about Toews’ remarks. This worked up the mainstream media, and made the issue the focal point of the news for several days. This got ordinary Canadians more involved in my view – including a large amount of outrage from conservative talk radio. Without it would the Tories have backed down quickly? I’m not so sure they would have.
I agree recent other scandals have played at least a partial role. Anytime you can fit an issue into a pre-existing narrative, it helps. That being said, did anyone outside of PS users really pay all that much attention to the hack? In regards to SOPA, I think those opposed were helped exponentially by the Wikipedia blackout and the involvement of other online sites. It’s funny in that respect, the Bills took similar paths. Highly controversial amongst a certain sector of the population, but pushed to the mainstream by an external factor that wound up getting the public attention. More people learned about C-30 because the news was covering Toews’ outburst, and more people learned about SOPA because they couldn’t find out how many Grammys Michael Jackson won in 1987.
*This point brought to you by the obscure things we attempt to find on Wikipedia.
GM: I’m certain net literacy has had an impact on this particular bill. It’s one of the very few points I found Coyne didn’t cover in his otherwise thorough critique, especially since it accounts for the difference in reactions between the Liberal government’s 2005 bill and today’s. In 2005 social media wasn’t nearly as pervasive and online activity was less diverse. As well, fewer people were downloading (piracy or otherwise), and those of us that were weren’t necessarily as aware of what data could be collected. In 2005, telling the country that you planned on tracking personal data via an IP address, including those attached to mobile devices (the majority of which in 2005 nobody used for serious internet-ing) wouldn’t have provoked the same outrage as today.
The outbursts over Wikileaks (with a ‘W’), SOPA protests or the PS network aren’t substantively related, except that they are both recent high profile examples or campaigns about, specifically, the value of maintaining personal data on the internet. Heck, for those of us with longer memories even the CIBC data leak from a few years back raised our collective awareness (and the media’s) of the full implications of this bill.
I’ll finish this tangent by saying that I also believe Will is right: Were it not for MPs like John Williamson, and a number of rank-and-file Tories (and Conservative donors) standing up to this, a majority government would have simply slammed it through the hole made by the Omnibus crime bill.
JVW: If we’re talking about why the internet went mad over this, we can’t ignore recent perceived successes of the twittersphere in the political arena. I’m not saying that SOPA was won by the hashtag ‘stopSOPA’, but that doesn’t mean that those who tweeted it realize that. People engage in politics in ways that are perceived to be effective, and the government’s reconsideration of C-30 is going to be viewed as another win for the twitterati – fueling the notion that tweeting about issues – and staging twitter protests – can get things done.
WM: I consider Twitter to be an echo chamber. I’m hooked on it, but I certainly don’t think what we see on Twitter is a microcosm of society as a whole. When I say the internet went mad over this, it’s largely because that’s the avenue from which I consumed the information. What’s more important is what the internet madness – namely VikiLeaks and while outside the internet when Toews said – did to mainstream coverage and the ensuing reaction – which included non-internet forms of communications – talk radio etc. Will this win be viewed as a win for Twitter? I actually don’t think so. I think it will be seen as the government backing down due to the pressure overall, rather than from one segment of said pressure.
GM: It looks like the bill will probably be heavily amended in committee. At least, that’s the direction the Conservatives indicated they were willing to take after discovering the libertarian wing of their own party was backing off.
So a few questions for you two, then: Correct me if I’m wrong, but we seem to be in agreement that in its current form, the proposed law is unnecessary and ham-handed. Can it be amended in such a way as to be rendered inoffensive?
We also seem to agree that the bill would not have been amended at all, were it not for both outcry from within the Conservative party and the tactless public shaming of Minister Toews. Does this motivation (as opposed to say, letting the bill be amended because that’s a decent way to run a parliament, or introducing a better bill in the first place) matter in the long run?
JVW: It can be amended in such a way as to be rendered irrelevant, certainly. Removing provisions for warrantless access is essential (or at least, very, very specific circumstances must be laid out for when procuring a warrant is too onerous); a real consideration for the security of any data that is collected (and how and when it would be disposed of), as well as who will pay for this collection of data would be nice too (the answer is consumers). But bottom line, it doesn’t sound like anybody has really be clamoring for these new powers, much in the way that nobody was particularly upset at having to fill out the long-form census.
That said, I don’t think this bill was just a big mistake that the government would have noticed if they’d just listened to their oh-so-clear-headed opponents from across the aisle. I think they wanted to pass it, in the form it was in, though I’m at a loss to explain why. I also don’t think the opposition parties fought this bill simply because they didn’t like what was in it. Political parties seem never to like what is in any bill any other party suggests, and in this respect I don’t think one can argue that the Conservatives should have listened to their opponents out of decency. It may have been smart to do so this time, but I think we’re way past decency, as unfortunate as that may be.
GM: Apparently the Vancouver Police came out in support of C-30, which probably isn’t that surprising. What will be entertaining is if the government uses ‘the police say they need it’ as an excuse to try and pass it, when police officials also said they needed the gun registry.
WM: Sorry, but (Conservative MP) Shelly Glover is a cop, and she says they don’t need it. Game. Set. Match.
GM: Apparently!
Sometimes trying to rectify the big government/small government that seem to simultaneously co-exist in the federal Conservative party gives me a headache.
February 24, 2012
February 8, 2012
What To Do About Honour Killing
Gregory Mills: As anyone even moderately in touch with recent news is aware, the Shafia killings, trial, and subsequent guilty verdict have been making headlines all around the world. They’ve also touched off significant national debate – over whether or not more needs to be done to prevent such violence, what measures might be taken, and if this symbolizes a broader cultural clash in our proudly multicultural society.
Join Canada’s Least Watched Political Panel for a more in-depth discussion of some of these issues.
William Murray: I really do go back and forth on this issue and what can be done to realistically prevent situations like this.
Many of the “solutions” surround further integrating ethnic communities into the Canadian mainstream. Frankly, I think the best way this can be done is through the education system and to ensure, as much as possible, all children are going to the same school. I doubt there’d be any appetite for this amongst provincial governments, but it seems to me to potentially be the best way forward.
When it comes to specific cases like the Shafia trial, tragic as it is, it’s tough to see how one could have prevented it, at least in a manner that’s consistent with appropriate state action. If I recall correctly, while there were complaints to friends and teachers, all formal investigations led to complaints being withdrawn. It’s incredibly tragic what happened, but are we going to have the state just walk in on any family it wants without a formal complaint? I’ll also add that suggestions such as burka/niqab bans are empty gestures that are unlikely to solve any of the problems. In the end, I do think that ensuring a consistent education system is probably the most practical and achievable way to help improve the situation.
Additionally, it’s an absolute necessity that everyone, regardless of their religious or cultural background are subject to the same laws as everyone else.
GM: Agreed. I think what probably strikes me most about the case is not just there is no obvious singular solution to this kind of violence. There really isn’t any obvious new crime or act we can ban or make illegal– these girls were murdered, and murder’s been illegal for quite some time.
Yet I feel this crime was probably preventable, not through new legislation, but through better enforcement of the existing laws. We know that police and children protective services were contacted multiple times (by both the girls’ teachers and the victims) but that little to no action was ever taken by authorities. Admittedly not being an expert, I hesitate to speak concretely on the subject, but I suspect we need a much more comprehensive analysis of why the system (dys)functioned as it did in this case, before we build a whole new social program or pass sweeping criminal legislation on the matter.
And while you’re probably right – a universal and consistent education system is a major key to promoting cross-cultural understanding and ultimately reinforcing what pundits might be tempted to call ‘Canadian Values’ to reduce these kinds of conflicts in future generations, but the big issue here was not the children but the adults who have never had to attend a Canadian public school. How do we deal with first-generation newcomers who have children quickly and easily assimilating into a different culture than their parents, who then react with fear and violence?
John van Weringh: Not only are we talking about a crime that is in effect already a crime - murder is murder, regardless of motivations - we're talking about something that is not unknown in the Western world. Spouses kill each other over infidelity, gang members kill each other over slights: these are, in a word, "honour" killings, but we don't think of them that way. We call them domestic violence and gang violence. I think we're looking at a problem that is particularly rooted in the parent/child dynamic, at least in terms of our society's abject moral horror with respect to this case. In this respect, further drawing children into Canadian culture through schooling may exacerbate the problem if we don't address parents' lack of integration, and provide appropriate supports (whatever that happens to be, assuming there's really anything at all).
From the perspective of "multiculturalism" - either the failure of, or it running amok - we're at a disadvantage because of the two primary ways that Canadians come at the idea. To many, multiculturalism is about a lack of hierarchy between cultural beliefs and values. This is inherently wrongheaded, as is the phrase "Canadian values". We're not talking about values, we're talking about firmly held moral beliefs. We need to be willing to say that honour killings aren't just wrong when you're in our society with our particular values; we need to be willing to say that we believe honour killings to be abhorrent everywhere, always. To others, multiculturalism is about tolerance of other societies. This also misses the point: we're not discussing letting other societies or cultures exist within our own; we're talking about building upon a tradition of ambivalence to culture, to race, and to religion within a society that can encompass any and all, as long as they respect this fundamental ambivalence, and the individual rights of others.
That said, ironically, I think the best chance at an answer to integration among adults comes from within the Muslim-Canadian community: the leaders of this community need to - as they seem to be starting to - formally and strongly denounce this practice, in public, because when white, Christian Canadians do, it's far too easy to dismiss as a competition between values.
WM: What we do about first generation immigrants is certainly a more complex question, but also speaks to the reality that solving this with one policy today is impossible. Going out and banning burkas doesn't solve the problem at all, and regardless, it's a fairly obvious infringement on Charter rights. I'll also add that honour killings are no more an epidemic in Canada than any other form of inter-family violence. That doesn't mean the root causes of it should be ignored, but asking what we can do about people like Mohammad Shafia, is asking what we can do about all violence from a preventative point of view. While it's easy to say we should look for more rigorous children’s aid investigations and a more involved government policy on what is and isn't acceptable in the family home, it's pretty hard to envision a way where the line between acceptable and unacceptable is drawn.
GM: That’s a fair point, but I do think in the context of our increasingly multicultural society we need to see if there are flaws or blind spots in the way we investigate these allegations. While I think the idea that ‘honor’ violence and other forms of domestic violence are not substantially different is a valid argument, it could be argued (although perhaps not terribly well by me) that more ‘mainstream’ (read: Expected in a ‘typical white Canadian household’) signs and flags of abuse do not necessary present the same way in all subsets.
Consider how many times social workers concluded that there ‘may’ have been some trouble at the Shafia household, but the denials of the other (read: Male) children, or the recantations from the girls themselves, combined with the lack of signs of physical abuse and the relative appearance of the girls (well dressed, well fed, wearing jewelry) ended the investigations. I don’t want to get overly critical on the child welfare service: With no understanding of the potential for such violence to erupt over things like ‘dating boys’ or ‘wearing revealing clothing’ (let alone that such violence would be undertaken by the rest of the family, in a conspiracy), they’d have had no idea what kind of danger the girls were in… it’s easy to rationalize it as teenagers whose father was just a grouch who didn’t want his children dating at a time when teenagers and their parents never get along. No flags, no follow ups, and no legal power to act.
This has been a bit of a ramble: My point is that yes, deciding whether or not to move the line on when government or the courts intervene in a family situation is a messy can of worms, but continuing to run the system like everyone in the country is a white, middle-class catholic and abuse means having a black eye and tattered clothing is going to leave huge gaps that prevent victims from seeking and receiving protection. For that reason, I think it’s worth looking into at least some level of cultural-specific training (a change which has helped in places like the UK and Sweden, where ‘honor’ violence has been more prominent).
JVW: I'm certainly in favour of the idea of getting better at identifying emerging types of family crisis or violence, but two things worry me: I'm concerned that this could just collapse into effectively racist targeting of Muslim families for enhanced scrutiny, and I'm not sure how useful proactivity will be in this sort of case. It seems to me that we need to assure Canadians that if their family is not a safe place, then we can help you, and we can protect you. If your family is being dominated by a madman, you do have a recourse. This may be a distinction without a difference, but rather than moving in the direction of investigating malfeasance, we may need to move in the direction of providing opportunity.
GM: It’s unfortunate that the recent high profile case draws attention to on specific type of relatively-new-to-the-Canadian-system family, I sympathize with your concern that it would simply become a bigoted targeting, especially as focusing exclusively on ‘recently immigrated Muslims’ would damage the capacity to handle and better understand yet further types of previously under-estimated forms of violence (domestic violence against men, in the LGBT community, or in other ethnic enclaves for example).
I worry, however, that focusing merely on ‘providing opportunities’ to accessing resources is still a limited response: Almost certainly the Shafia girls had access to emergency shelters, social workers, and the police. Whether they didn’t use them due to a lack of awareness (a solvable obstacle), because they felt they couldn’t trust or rely on those authorities (which is also solvable through dedicated community action) or because those services were unavailable to them for use (unlikely, but not impossible), they almost certainly had at least some opportunity.
Granted, I’m not sure what pre-emptive or proactive action would really look like, but I’m not entirely sold on the ‘we just need to make it easier to call a 1-800 hotline’ solution.
WM: It’s depressing to say, but bad things happen. And while we should do all we can to limit the chances of it happening, finding an all-encompassing solution to this problem is impossible. I’ll go back to my point about a need to ensure we’re targeting this problem at the earliest possible time, namely through the educational system. More than just telling children about the importance of gender equality and respect for human rights, the important thing is for them to be interacting with one another. Culture and identity are critical to all peoples, but we need to find a balance between protecting this culture and identity and ensuring we don’t have situations like the Shafias which amounted to not just domestic violence, but what looks to have amounted to a mini-ethnic enclave, both physically and emotionally. I’ll also add that while the Shafia situation seems to be the jumping off point and context to us having this discussion today, the same applies for people living in houses where there’s targeted intolerance to any other ethnic community.
JVW: I think that a key point here is that we cannot be deferential to the fear of causing offense. As Stephen Fry once put it very bluntly: when people say they have been offended by something, it is "actually nothing more than a whine". I don't mean that we should go out of our way to offend people or groups - we should avoid condescension or pejorative language: nobody needs to be called barbaric. But we do need to make it plainly clear that in Canadian society, individual rights trump any traditional cultural bounds or hierarchies. We do not agree that any human should have innate power over any other, and any cultural or religious practices that contravene this have no place in our society.
Join Canada’s Least Watched Political Panel for a more in-depth discussion of some of these issues.
William Murray: I really do go back and forth on this issue and what can be done to realistically prevent situations like this.
Many of the “solutions” surround further integrating ethnic communities into the Canadian mainstream. Frankly, I think the best way this can be done is through the education system and to ensure, as much as possible, all children are going to the same school. I doubt there’d be any appetite for this amongst provincial governments, but it seems to me to potentially be the best way forward.
When it comes to specific cases like the Shafia trial, tragic as it is, it’s tough to see how one could have prevented it, at least in a manner that’s consistent with appropriate state action. If I recall correctly, while there were complaints to friends and teachers, all formal investigations led to complaints being withdrawn. It’s incredibly tragic what happened, but are we going to have the state just walk in on any family it wants without a formal complaint? I’ll also add that suggestions such as burka/niqab bans are empty gestures that are unlikely to solve any of the problems. In the end, I do think that ensuring a consistent education system is probably the most practical and achievable way to help improve the situation.
Additionally, it’s an absolute necessity that everyone, regardless of their religious or cultural background are subject to the same laws as everyone else.
GM: Agreed. I think what probably strikes me most about the case is not just there is no obvious singular solution to this kind of violence. There really isn’t any obvious new crime or act we can ban or make illegal– these girls were murdered, and murder’s been illegal for quite some time.
Yet I feel this crime was probably preventable, not through new legislation, but through better enforcement of the existing laws. We know that police and children protective services were contacted multiple times (by both the girls’ teachers and the victims) but that little to no action was ever taken by authorities. Admittedly not being an expert, I hesitate to speak concretely on the subject, but I suspect we need a much more comprehensive analysis of why the system (dys)functioned as it did in this case, before we build a whole new social program or pass sweeping criminal legislation on the matter.
And while you’re probably right – a universal and consistent education system is a major key to promoting cross-cultural understanding and ultimately reinforcing what pundits might be tempted to call ‘Canadian Values’ to reduce these kinds of conflicts in future generations, but the big issue here was not the children but the adults who have never had to attend a Canadian public school. How do we deal with first-generation newcomers who have children quickly and easily assimilating into a different culture than their parents, who then react with fear and violence?
John van Weringh: Not only are we talking about a crime that is in effect already a crime - murder is murder, regardless of motivations - we're talking about something that is not unknown in the Western world. Spouses kill each other over infidelity, gang members kill each other over slights: these are, in a word, "honour" killings, but we don't think of them that way. We call them domestic violence and gang violence. I think we're looking at a problem that is particularly rooted in the parent/child dynamic, at least in terms of our society's abject moral horror with respect to this case. In this respect, further drawing children into Canadian culture through schooling may exacerbate the problem if we don't address parents' lack of integration, and provide appropriate supports (whatever that happens to be, assuming there's really anything at all).
From the perspective of "multiculturalism" - either the failure of, or it running amok - we're at a disadvantage because of the two primary ways that Canadians come at the idea. To many, multiculturalism is about a lack of hierarchy between cultural beliefs and values. This is inherently wrongheaded, as is the phrase "Canadian values". We're not talking about values, we're talking about firmly held moral beliefs. We need to be willing to say that honour killings aren't just wrong when you're in our society with our particular values; we need to be willing to say that we believe honour killings to be abhorrent everywhere, always. To others, multiculturalism is about tolerance of other societies. This also misses the point: we're not discussing letting other societies or cultures exist within our own; we're talking about building upon a tradition of ambivalence to culture, to race, and to religion within a society that can encompass any and all, as long as they respect this fundamental ambivalence, and the individual rights of others.
That said, ironically, I think the best chance at an answer to integration among adults comes from within the Muslim-Canadian community: the leaders of this community need to - as they seem to be starting to - formally and strongly denounce this practice, in public, because when white, Christian Canadians do, it's far too easy to dismiss as a competition between values.
WM: What we do about first generation immigrants is certainly a more complex question, but also speaks to the reality that solving this with one policy today is impossible. Going out and banning burkas doesn't solve the problem at all, and regardless, it's a fairly obvious infringement on Charter rights. I'll also add that honour killings are no more an epidemic in Canada than any other form of inter-family violence. That doesn't mean the root causes of it should be ignored, but asking what we can do about people like Mohammad Shafia, is asking what we can do about all violence from a preventative point of view. While it's easy to say we should look for more rigorous children’s aid investigations and a more involved government policy on what is and isn't acceptable in the family home, it's pretty hard to envision a way where the line between acceptable and unacceptable is drawn.
GM: That’s a fair point, but I do think in the context of our increasingly multicultural society we need to see if there are flaws or blind spots in the way we investigate these allegations. While I think the idea that ‘honor’ violence and other forms of domestic violence are not substantially different is a valid argument, it could be argued (although perhaps not terribly well by me) that more ‘mainstream’ (read: Expected in a ‘typical white Canadian household’) signs and flags of abuse do not necessary present the same way in all subsets.
Consider how many times social workers concluded that there ‘may’ have been some trouble at the Shafia household, but the denials of the other (read: Male) children, or the recantations from the girls themselves, combined with the lack of signs of physical abuse and the relative appearance of the girls (well dressed, well fed, wearing jewelry) ended the investigations. I don’t want to get overly critical on the child welfare service: With no understanding of the potential for such violence to erupt over things like ‘dating boys’ or ‘wearing revealing clothing’ (let alone that such violence would be undertaken by the rest of the family, in a conspiracy), they’d have had no idea what kind of danger the girls were in… it’s easy to rationalize it as teenagers whose father was just a grouch who didn’t want his children dating at a time when teenagers and their parents never get along. No flags, no follow ups, and no legal power to act.
This has been a bit of a ramble: My point is that yes, deciding whether or not to move the line on when government or the courts intervene in a family situation is a messy can of worms, but continuing to run the system like everyone in the country is a white, middle-class catholic and abuse means having a black eye and tattered clothing is going to leave huge gaps that prevent victims from seeking and receiving protection. For that reason, I think it’s worth looking into at least some level of cultural-specific training (a change which has helped in places like the UK and Sweden, where ‘honor’ violence has been more prominent).
JVW: I'm certainly in favour of the idea of getting better at identifying emerging types of family crisis or violence, but two things worry me: I'm concerned that this could just collapse into effectively racist targeting of Muslim families for enhanced scrutiny, and I'm not sure how useful proactivity will be in this sort of case. It seems to me that we need to assure Canadians that if their family is not a safe place, then we can help you, and we can protect you. If your family is being dominated by a madman, you do have a recourse. This may be a distinction without a difference, but rather than moving in the direction of investigating malfeasance, we may need to move in the direction of providing opportunity.
GM: It’s unfortunate that the recent high profile case draws attention to on specific type of relatively-new-to-the-Canadian-system family, I sympathize with your concern that it would simply become a bigoted targeting, especially as focusing exclusively on ‘recently immigrated Muslims’ would damage the capacity to handle and better understand yet further types of previously under-estimated forms of violence (domestic violence against men, in the LGBT community, or in other ethnic enclaves for example).
I worry, however, that focusing merely on ‘providing opportunities’ to accessing resources is still a limited response: Almost certainly the Shafia girls had access to emergency shelters, social workers, and the police. Whether they didn’t use them due to a lack of awareness (a solvable obstacle), because they felt they couldn’t trust or rely on those authorities (which is also solvable through dedicated community action) or because those services were unavailable to them for use (unlikely, but not impossible), they almost certainly had at least some opportunity.
Granted, I’m not sure what pre-emptive or proactive action would really look like, but I’m not entirely sold on the ‘we just need to make it easier to call a 1-800 hotline’ solution.
WM: It’s depressing to say, but bad things happen. And while we should do all we can to limit the chances of it happening, finding an all-encompassing solution to this problem is impossible. I’ll go back to my point about a need to ensure we’re targeting this problem at the earliest possible time, namely through the educational system. More than just telling children about the importance of gender equality and respect for human rights, the important thing is for them to be interacting with one another. Culture and identity are critical to all peoples, but we need to find a balance between protecting this culture and identity and ensuring we don’t have situations like the Shafias which amounted to not just domestic violence, but what looks to have amounted to a mini-ethnic enclave, both physically and emotionally. I’ll also add that while the Shafia situation seems to be the jumping off point and context to us having this discussion today, the same applies for people living in houses where there’s targeted intolerance to any other ethnic community.
JVW: I think that a key point here is that we cannot be deferential to the fear of causing offense. As Stephen Fry once put it very bluntly: when people say they have been offended by something, it is "actually nothing more than a whine". I don't mean that we should go out of our way to offend people or groups - we should avoid condescension or pejorative language: nobody needs to be called barbaric. But we do need to make it plainly clear that in Canadian society, individual rights trump any traditional cultural bounds or hierarchies. We do not agree that any human should have innate power over any other, and any cultural or religious practices that contravene this have no place in our society.
February 2, 2012
Liberal Leadership Contenders
John van Weringh: Hello and welcome to the very first episode of Canada’s Least Watched Political Panel. To kick things off, here’s Greg Mills to elaborate upon our inaugural topic: Liberal leadership contenders.
Greg Mills: The 3200 delegates at the 2012 Liberal biennial convention was an impressive turnout for a third-place party (more than the Conservative and NDP conventions), and even more so considering it was not even a leadership convention.
But that doesn’t stop people from talking about the party’s leadership potentials. The media has been increasingly buzzing over the possibility that current Interim-Leader Bob Rae will drop the first word from his title and seek the job full time - a trend that wasn’t helped by Rae’s own lack of comment on his commitment one way or the other. I suspect his strong performance in the last parliamentary session is cause for consideration as well. Since becoming the effective leader of the opposition, he’s been polling well among Canadians and is broadly considered a significant force, which has to make him wonder how far he can go.
But anyway, rumors abounded that other senior Liberal MPs have started to explore the possibility, including David McGuinty, Marc Garneau, and Dominic LeBlanc. And after a barn burning speech the first night of the convention, it would be absurd if the possibility of making the switch to federal politics isn’t somewhere in Premier Dalton McGuinty’s mind.
The Liberals still have a fair amount of time ahead before their leadership race will begin in earnest. Who decides to run, and who eventually wins, will almost certainly decide the future of the party during this fragile time for them.
Will Murray: While some tried to push the notion of Dalton McGuinty moving over to federal politics, I just don’t see it happening. First, he’s currently running a minority government in Ontario. Tough to see a Premier leaving his party in the lurch like that. Second, he says he’s not interested, and I tend to believe him. Third, no Premier has ever gone on to become Prime Minister. Fourth, Mr. McGuinty has been in politics for 21 years, 14 of them as leader of the Liberals. While 56 isn’t too old to be federal leader right now, you have to wonder whether Mr. McGuinty is interested in another long-term rebuild. He knows what it’s like to do it in Ontario, and while his knowledge and experience could be invaluable, he may not want to be the one to be front and centre making that commitment. Finally, while I don’t suggest to know the McGuinty family, we’ve had one brother (Dalton) express no interest in the job, and another (David) seriously considering a run. In my view, a McGuinty runs, but it won’t be Dalton.
GM: I think ultimately, I must agree with you, Will.
What the Liberal Party needs, perhaps more than anything else, is a leader who can stay around for at least one more election than 2015. This habit of taking leaders who don’t win out back and shooting them doesn’t help them build long term success - it damages consistency and pushes the party from center-right to center-left and back again rapidly. The end result is that nobody knows what the party stands for.
Jack Layton technically ‘lost’ repeatedly before he became the opposition leader. The success the NDP currently enjoys is in large part thanks to his ability to remain consistent and produce a clear message over the long term.
If there is one argument against a Rae leadership, it is that one: Even if he doubled, or tripled, the Liberal seat count and became the leader of the opposition, he is less likely to be able to stay in politics long enough to try for the summit.
WM: Ironically, they need to approach things the way Dalton did… in 1997.
JVW: The first thing the Liberals need to deal with is the Rae question. I think, despite the possible flip-flop, that keeping their options open with respect to his candidacy is very smart. Firstly, it means they can field test him. They can find out what Canadians think of him (cautiously optimistic, according to Frank Graves), and how their opponents will come after him (sideways, very predictably, and featuring the music of Daft Punk). While the NDP needs a new, permanent public face as soon as possible, the Liberals have the Parliamentarian of the Year as the consensus interim leader. This consensus may collapse if he starts to look too hungry for the permanent post, but for now, they’re in a good spot to bide their time.
Second, even if Rae were entirely serious about not running for leader, the Liberals have no guarantee that a consensus candidate – or even a particularly good candidate – will emerge. I agree that the aim here has to be a leader who can stick with (and maintain the confidence of) the party for several elections to come, but while the argument that Rae isn’t going to be able to fight another two or three elections is likely accurate, it assumes the emergence of somebody who is young enough, dedicated enough, skilled enough, and popular enough to be able to fight these elections in his stead. It may be that biding their time until after 2015 is a risk they’ll have to take.
GM: I see three different possible answers to the Rae question to mention:
First, Bob Rae is absolutely not planning on running to be the permanent leader and by being coy about it, he keeps the media attention focused on him and the party, raises both his own profile but also that of the brand and the rebuilding work that’s taken place, and when he turns command over to someone else the party has already been largely rebuilt and optimized, and considered a serious contender in 2015 thanks to his efforts.
Second, Bob Rae is absolutely planning on running to be permanent leader and is being coy about it because as soon as he announces his intention he’ll have to step down and his shelf life (as well as the focus on the Party’s rebuilding efforts) diminishes substantially as part of a regular leadership campaign gimmick.
Thirdly, Bob Rae hasn’t made up his mind yet, but will eventually go for one of the first two above. Interestingly enough, in all three choices I think he can easily carve out a legacy as The Great Rebuilder who put aside his personal ambitions (either by not campaigning, or by waiting for a long time to announce) to save the Party. The fact of the matter is that as long as he’s ‘interim’ leader he’s got a huge advantage when it comes to deflecting external attacks while still getting to tinker with the operations of the party and speak authoritatively in the Commons.
As for McGuinty, I suspect part of the appeal of a Dalton leadership contest really doesn’t necessarily have to have much to do with Dalton himself. If I was asked to establish the criteria for a perfect leadership candidate for the current liberal party, I would reply:
To that end, I think there are some strong contenders we haven’t really considered in former MPs like Gerard Kennedy (one of my personal preferences), but also municipal politicians like Vancouver’s Gregor Robertson or Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi (can you imagine a Liberal leader in Alberta?) or Ottawa’s own Jim Watson.
WM: The difficulty of course for the Liberals is the candidate with the talents to win an election in 2019, might not have those talents in 2013. Dalton McGuinty got slammed in 1999 as 'not being up to the job'. Jack Layton was able to get the NDP an extra six seats in his first election. Stephen Harper should have won the 2004 election, and lost. All three, and many others learned on the job, and for better or worse, grew into the leader they become. I know this makes things doubly difficult for the Liberals, but maybe as part of a longer view they have to look for someone who actually ISN'T ready to be Prime Minister in 2015. I'd exclude that last part in the campaign literature though.
JVW: Agreed. The Liberals have to come to the realization that they are going to lose the next election, and recognize that that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
WM: I think we’ve dealt fairly well with the Rae and McGuinty question. How about other rumoured names – David McGuinty? Dominc Leblanc? Geoff Regan? Gerard Kennedy? Martha Hall-Findlay? Martin Cauchon? Marc Garneau?
JVW: Well, as ever, I will be throwing my lot in with the only parliamentarian who has ever been to space. If ‘having gone to space’ isn’t one of the top three qualifications to be the leader of this country, it certainly should be.
WM: I wonder about Garneau. Yes, he’s an astronaut. Yes, he’s awesome. He’s also as old as Rae and only has three years of political experience. Of the names below, Leblanc and Kennedy make the most sense on the surface to me. That being said, until we start seeing names jump into the race, we’re going off what are fairly arbitrary perceptions.
GM: No kidding, John. How often have you and I talked about how hard it would be for the Harper Conservatives to brand the First Canadian in Space? Plus he’s actually a heck of a nice guy. He’s also free of the stench of internal conflict, and could be a good uniting figure. Plus he’s from Quebec, which keeps the Liberals from having to break their alternating Anglophone/Francophone tradition. But again I’m finding myself in agreement with Will, his age and relative inexperience are liabilities at this particular juncture. I’ve already mentioned Kennedy as a personal favorite (surprisingly enough, for more than just the name).
I also kind of want Lise St. Denis to run. Not only to watch the Liberals and NDP squabble like errant children over it, but because her campaign chant could be “L-S-D!” and that’s a motif I can get behind, especially since they’ve already decided to support legalizing pot.
I also remember Scott Brison ruling out a run shortly after the devastating election result, but depending on how the party’s fortunes look over the next few months I wonder if it might give him cause to reconsider. A charming guy from the east coast with LGBT credibility and a history with the former Progressive Conservative party would arguably make him a strong contender for a national campaign to widen the political center again.
A really exciting element of the Liberals being in third place and sort of desperate, however, is that this could really kind of makes it anyone’s race. Until we have some declared intentions, it’s anybody’s guess.
WM: As I said, we don’t know a ton about the contenders not named Bob Rae. It will be interesting to see who emerges as a regular pundit in the months ahead and who starts pushing their pet issues. Some of those outside caucus – Hall Findlay, Kennedy and Cauchon may start appearing more, and could, in theory, have a bit of a leg up by talking about issues without worrying about the Leader’s office and the whip losing their minds. If I had to choose now, I’d probably look to Dominic Leblanc as the most sensible selection. Young, a lifelong political pedigree, 10+ years as an MP, and a French speaking Acadian who expresses himself quite well in both languages. A lot can happen between now and the launch of the leadership race. It’s all going to be quite interesting to watch. As an aside, a name that didn’t come up? Justin Trudeau.
That can be a discussion for another day.
Greg Mills: The 3200 delegates at the 2012 Liberal biennial convention was an impressive turnout for a third-place party (more than the Conservative and NDP conventions), and even more so considering it was not even a leadership convention.
But that doesn’t stop people from talking about the party’s leadership potentials. The media has been increasingly buzzing over the possibility that current Interim-Leader Bob Rae will drop the first word from his title and seek the job full time - a trend that wasn’t helped by Rae’s own lack of comment on his commitment one way or the other. I suspect his strong performance in the last parliamentary session is cause for consideration as well. Since becoming the effective leader of the opposition, he’s been polling well among Canadians and is broadly considered a significant force, which has to make him wonder how far he can go.
But anyway, rumors abounded that other senior Liberal MPs have started to explore the possibility, including David McGuinty, Marc Garneau, and Dominic LeBlanc. And after a barn burning speech the first night of the convention, it would be absurd if the possibility of making the switch to federal politics isn’t somewhere in Premier Dalton McGuinty’s mind.
The Liberals still have a fair amount of time ahead before their leadership race will begin in earnest. Who decides to run, and who eventually wins, will almost certainly decide the future of the party during this fragile time for them.
Will Murray: While some tried to push the notion of Dalton McGuinty moving over to federal politics, I just don’t see it happening. First, he’s currently running a minority government in Ontario. Tough to see a Premier leaving his party in the lurch like that. Second, he says he’s not interested, and I tend to believe him. Third, no Premier has ever gone on to become Prime Minister. Fourth, Mr. McGuinty has been in politics for 21 years, 14 of them as leader of the Liberals. While 56 isn’t too old to be federal leader right now, you have to wonder whether Mr. McGuinty is interested in another long-term rebuild. He knows what it’s like to do it in Ontario, and while his knowledge and experience could be invaluable, he may not want to be the one to be front and centre making that commitment. Finally, while I don’t suggest to know the McGuinty family, we’ve had one brother (Dalton) express no interest in the job, and another (David) seriously considering a run. In my view, a McGuinty runs, but it won’t be Dalton.
GM: I think ultimately, I must agree with you, Will.
What the Liberal Party needs, perhaps more than anything else, is a leader who can stay around for at least one more election than 2015. This habit of taking leaders who don’t win out back and shooting them doesn’t help them build long term success - it damages consistency and pushes the party from center-right to center-left and back again rapidly. The end result is that nobody knows what the party stands for.
Jack Layton technically ‘lost’ repeatedly before he became the opposition leader. The success the NDP currently enjoys is in large part thanks to his ability to remain consistent and produce a clear message over the long term.
If there is one argument against a Rae leadership, it is that one: Even if he doubled, or tripled, the Liberal seat count and became the leader of the opposition, he is less likely to be able to stay in politics long enough to try for the summit.
WM: Ironically, they need to approach things the way Dalton did… in 1997.
JVW: The first thing the Liberals need to deal with is the Rae question. I think, despite the possible flip-flop, that keeping their options open with respect to his candidacy is very smart. Firstly, it means they can field test him. They can find out what Canadians think of him (cautiously optimistic, according to Frank Graves), and how their opponents will come after him (sideways, very predictably, and featuring the music of Daft Punk). While the NDP needs a new, permanent public face as soon as possible, the Liberals have the Parliamentarian of the Year as the consensus interim leader. This consensus may collapse if he starts to look too hungry for the permanent post, but for now, they’re in a good spot to bide their time.
Second, even if Rae were entirely serious about not running for leader, the Liberals have no guarantee that a consensus candidate – or even a particularly good candidate – will emerge. I agree that the aim here has to be a leader who can stick with (and maintain the confidence of) the party for several elections to come, but while the argument that Rae isn’t going to be able to fight another two or three elections is likely accurate, it assumes the emergence of somebody who is young enough, dedicated enough, skilled enough, and popular enough to be able to fight these elections in his stead. It may be that biding their time until after 2015 is a risk they’ll have to take.
GM: I see three different possible answers to the Rae question to mention:
First, Bob Rae is absolutely not planning on running to be the permanent leader and by being coy about it, he keeps the media attention focused on him and the party, raises both his own profile but also that of the brand and the rebuilding work that’s taken place, and when he turns command over to someone else the party has already been largely rebuilt and optimized, and considered a serious contender in 2015 thanks to his efforts.
Second, Bob Rae is absolutely planning on running to be permanent leader and is being coy about it because as soon as he announces his intention he’ll have to step down and his shelf life (as well as the focus on the Party’s rebuilding efforts) diminishes substantially as part of a regular leadership campaign gimmick.
Thirdly, Bob Rae hasn’t made up his mind yet, but will eventually go for one of the first two above. Interestingly enough, in all three choices I think he can easily carve out a legacy as The Great Rebuilder who put aside his personal ambitions (either by not campaigning, or by waiting for a long time to announce) to save the Party. The fact of the matter is that as long as he’s ‘interim’ leader he’s got a huge advantage when it comes to deflecting external attacks while still getting to tinker with the operations of the party and speak authoritatively in the Commons.
As for McGuinty, I suspect part of the appeal of a Dalton leadership contest really doesn’t necessarily have to have much to do with Dalton himself. If I was asked to establish the criteria for a perfect leadership candidate for the current liberal party, I would reply:
- Longevity (read: age)
- Ability to create generational change (not an old war horse with Chretien/Martin baggage) which may mean looking strongly outside of the current, limiting caucus
To that end, I think there are some strong contenders we haven’t really considered in former MPs like Gerard Kennedy (one of my personal preferences), but also municipal politicians like Vancouver’s Gregor Robertson or Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi (can you imagine a Liberal leader in Alberta?) or Ottawa’s own Jim Watson.
WM: The difficulty of course for the Liberals is the candidate with the talents to win an election in 2019, might not have those talents in 2013. Dalton McGuinty got slammed in 1999 as 'not being up to the job'. Jack Layton was able to get the NDP an extra six seats in his first election. Stephen Harper should have won the 2004 election, and lost. All three, and many others learned on the job, and for better or worse, grew into the leader they become. I know this makes things doubly difficult for the Liberals, but maybe as part of a longer view they have to look for someone who actually ISN'T ready to be Prime Minister in 2015. I'd exclude that last part in the campaign literature though.
JVW: Agreed. The Liberals have to come to the realization that they are going to lose the next election, and recognize that that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
WM: I think we’ve dealt fairly well with the Rae and McGuinty question. How about other rumoured names – David McGuinty? Dominc Leblanc? Geoff Regan? Gerard Kennedy? Martha Hall-Findlay? Martin Cauchon? Marc Garneau?
JVW: Well, as ever, I will be throwing my lot in with the only parliamentarian who has ever been to space. If ‘having gone to space’ isn’t one of the top three qualifications to be the leader of this country, it certainly should be.
WM: I wonder about Garneau. Yes, he’s an astronaut. Yes, he’s awesome. He’s also as old as Rae and only has three years of political experience. Of the names below, Leblanc and Kennedy make the most sense on the surface to me. That being said, until we start seeing names jump into the race, we’re going off what are fairly arbitrary perceptions.
GM: No kidding, John. How often have you and I talked about how hard it would be for the Harper Conservatives to brand the First Canadian in Space? Plus he’s actually a heck of a nice guy. He’s also free of the stench of internal conflict, and could be a good uniting figure. Plus he’s from Quebec, which keeps the Liberals from having to break their alternating Anglophone/Francophone tradition. But again I’m finding myself in agreement with Will, his age and relative inexperience are liabilities at this particular juncture. I’ve already mentioned Kennedy as a personal favorite (surprisingly enough, for more than just the name).
I also kind of want Lise St. Denis to run. Not only to watch the Liberals and NDP squabble like errant children over it, but because her campaign chant could be “L-S-D!” and that’s a motif I can get behind, especially since they’ve already decided to support legalizing pot.
I also remember Scott Brison ruling out a run shortly after the devastating election result, but depending on how the party’s fortunes look over the next few months I wonder if it might give him cause to reconsider. A charming guy from the east coast with LGBT credibility and a history with the former Progressive Conservative party would arguably make him a strong contender for a national campaign to widen the political center again.
A really exciting element of the Liberals being in third place and sort of desperate, however, is that this could really kind of makes it anyone’s race. Until we have some declared intentions, it’s anybody’s guess.
WM: As I said, we don’t know a ton about the contenders not named Bob Rae. It will be interesting to see who emerges as a regular pundit in the months ahead and who starts pushing their pet issues. Some of those outside caucus – Hall Findlay, Kennedy and Cauchon may start appearing more, and could, in theory, have a bit of a leg up by talking about issues without worrying about the Leader’s office and the whip losing their minds. If I had to choose now, I’d probably look to Dominic Leblanc as the most sensible selection. Young, a lifelong political pedigree, 10+ years as an MP, and a French speaking Acadian who expresses himself quite well in both languages. A lot can happen between now and the launch of the leadership race. It’s all going to be quite interesting to watch. As an aside, a name that didn’t come up? Justin Trudeau.
That can be a discussion for another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)