You might think that even after virtually every scientist with expertise in the discipline agrees that human-induced climate change is not only real but a dire threat to the stability of our civilization and our environment; that after virtually every scientific academy on the planet concurs with this view; that after the phenomenal work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, arguably the most thorough and extensive international scientific enterprise of all time) has definitively established the causes and consequences of this danger; that after 174 countries on the planet put their signatures to the Paris Agreement at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference to undertake immediate action to try and halt this phenomenon; that after over a century of increasing global temperatures, and in recent years, record monthly and annual temperatures records; that after an increase in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide by 42 per cent (from 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to over 400 ppm currently); that after a multitude of environmental impacts consistent with climate change; that there would exist no sane human being on the planet who would not only understand the reality of climate change, but also be highly concerned about it. You might think that.
And you would be wrong.
Climate change denial in our midst
Climate change denial is alive and well and living in Canada. It is useful to examine this phenomenon, how it is conducted and promulgated, what its effects are, and what we need to do about it.
A recent Canadian example is Lawrence Solomon's article "Finally it's safe for the whistleblowers of corrupted climate science to speak out" published on February 16, 2017 in the Financial Post. This opinion piece is a litany of untruths, unsupported assertions, red herrings, and concatenated nonsense. I won't subject readers to a tedious rebuttal of every error it promulgates. To illustrate the point let's simply look at one sentence in which Solomon claims:
"The Arctic ice cap hasn't disappeared, polar bear populations haven’t declined, hurricanes haven't become more common, malaria hasn’t spread, temperatures haven’t continued to climb."
Fact-checking Solomon's claims
• Solomon claims: "The Arctic ice cap hasn’t disappeared."
The facts are: Temperatures in the Arctic are at their warmest levels in at least the last 40,000 years. In January 2016 the extent of Arctic sea ice was at the lowest level for January since record keeping began in 1979.
The PIOMAS (Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System) data shows that for every single month of the year from 1979 until the present there is a death spiral that in the very near future will lead to an almost complete seasonal disappearance of Arctic sea ice. [Figure 1]
For example, in September (the lowest seasonal ebb) of 2015, arctic sea ice volume had decreased to 5,000 square kilometers, a 70 per cent decline from 1979 levels in a mere 36 years.
To call this an enormous and precipitous decline would be massive understatement. NASA data [Figure 2] show a continuous decline since 1953. From year to year successive studies have almost invariably found that the decline in Artic sea ice is taking place even faster than originally forecast. To call this highly alarming would, again, be a significant understatement.
• Solomon claims: "Polar bear populations haven’t declined."
The facts are: A 2015 study by Jeffrey Bromaghin et al. in northeastern Alaska and the Northwest Territories of Canada shows that Polar Bear populations there declined by 40 per cent between 2001 and 2010 -- a staggering loss in less than a decade.
The Western Hudson's Bay population of Polar Bears has decline by 22 per cent since the early 1980's. Polar Bears International forecasts that without action on climate change, two-thirds of polar bears could be gone by the middle of the century and the species could be extinct by the end of the century.
• Solomon claims: "Hurricanes haven’t become more common."
The facts are: In the North Atlantic the number of tropical storms has increased from 1966-2000 when they averaged 11 per year (about half of these reached hurricane intensity). More recently (2000 - 2013) that average has increased to 16 tropical storms per year (again, about half of these reach hurricane force). This is a 45 per cent increase. [These data are from the National Hurricane Centre of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.]
That said, climate models vary in terms of their projections of what the impact of climate change will be on hurricanes. Some models project little or no increase in frequency; others predict an increase. There is a complex tradeoff between intensity and frequency; i.e. there may be little change in the number of hurricanes each season, but they may be more intense.
Recent models developed by the U.S. National Climate Assessment and Development Committee forecast a 75 per cent increase in the number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes (the most intense ones) in the future as a result of climate change.
• Solomon claims: "Malaria hasn't spread."
The facts are: Malaria has not spread in recent years, however, this has nothing at all to do with climate change. Rather, what it has to do with are massive efforts during the past decade by groups like Malaria No More (which has conducted enormous anti-malaria campaigns in Senegal, Cameroon, Zambia, South Africa, Kenya, Chad and elsewhere distributing medicines, diagnostic tests, mosquito nets, and conducting education programs).
The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria has distributed 713 million insecticide-treated nets intended to stop mosquito-borne transmission of malaria, The Malaria Atlas Project at the University of Oxford has mapped weather and climate information relevant to the spread of malaria. The Malaria Policy Advisory Committee of the WHO (World Health Organization) is coordinating global efforts to eliminate the disease. And these are only some of the initiatives.
It's very clear that as climate change leads to warmer temperatures in tropical regions, a much larger region of the planet could become suitable habitat for the anopheline mosquitos that transmit Plasmodium falciparum, the microorganism responsible for malaria.
Can the various efforts now underway (eradication of mosquitoes, medical treatment, prevention of transmission (through mosquito nets), and education stem the tide? Only time will tell. [Figure 3: The yellow zone marks the current extent of malaria distribution in the world. The red areas show where malaria will be able to thrive by 2050 if climate change continues. Modeling by the UK's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.]
What is clear is that Solomon's claim that "Malaria hasn’t spread" is no indicator whatsoever of the progress of climate change, but rather of a extraordinary effort on the part of many NGOs and the WHO to address this disease.
• Solomon claims: "Temperatures haven’t continued to climb."
The facts are: NOAA (the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) data clearly show that in the last 116 years, temperatures have increased at an average of 0.07 C per decade. Since 1979 the increase has been much faster 0.25 C per decade. [Figure 4]
Worldwide, the decade 2006 - 2015 was the warmest on record since thermometer-based observations began in 1880. And in 2016 the trend continues. Higher-than average temperature anomalies occurred across the vast majority of the globe with the annually averaged global temperature at 0.94 C above 20th the century average. This is enormously concerning, particularly given that under the Paris Climate Change Accords the aspirational target limit of climate change by the year 2100 is 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels. We are already two-thirds of the way there.
The scientific consensus on climate change
Finally, let's examine one further nonsensical claim made by Solomon who says (without providing a source) that:
"Likewise, a much heralded claim that 97 per cent of scientists believed the planet was overheating came from a 2008 master’s thesis by a student at the University of Illinois who obtained her results by conducting a survey of 10,257 earth scientists, then discarding the views of all but 77 of them. Of those 77 scientists, 75 thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produced the 97-per-cent figure that global warming activists then touted."
Without a source cited who knows what he's referring to. Whatever it may be, it's clearly another straw man erected by Solomon: "alternate facts" that he hopes will make a non-existent case.
One much-heralded study (Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature) published in 2013 in Environmental Research Letters by nine scientists from different universities and research institutes (none of whom are from the University of Illinois) in Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, examined abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed scientific studies related to climate change published between 1991-2011 and found that 97.2 per cent "endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." [Figure 5: Note AGW = Anthropogenic (i.e., human-caused) Global Warming.]
A second meta-study (i.e. a study synthesizing the research of other studies), Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming by 15 researchers in 2016 found that depending on the exact question asked, its timing and the survey's methodology, between 90 and 100 per cent of scientists support "the consensus that humans are causing recent global warming." [This meta-study examined 14 other separate peer-reviewed scientific studies conducted by investigators around the world.]
Dr. James Lawrence Powell, an illustrious geochemist, former college president member of the U.S. National Science Board, and author of 11 books examined all peer-reviewed scientific papers published between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012 that pertained to global warming and climate change. His research found 13,950 studies (authored by 33,690 individual authors). Of these only 24 (i.e., 0.17 per cent) rejected global warming/climate change. [Figure 6]
Powell then followed this up with a second study that spanned the interval November 12, 2012 to December 31, 2013 finding that of 2,258 peer-reviewed scientific papers. Of these, only one (i.e., 0.04 per cent) rejected global warming/climate change. [Figure 7]
As of 2016, 198 of the world's scientific academies from Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, EU, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kirgizia, Latvia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Palestine, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, Zambia, and Zimbabwe have all supported the consensus position that climate change is caused by human activity.
Independent data compiled by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in the U.K., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climate Data Centre in the U.S., and the Japanese Meteorological Agency spanning the time frame of 1880 to 2016 all show, with an extremely high degree of correspondence, a temperature anomaly (i.e. a warming trend) of circa 1.0 C. [Figure 8]
It is almost impossible to imagine a scientific consensus that is so enormous, that encompasses so many researchers, so many studies, from some many scientific and academic institutions, that span the entire globe, and that is based on such enormous amounts of data from some many different sources is that surrounding climate change.
If we know anything with near certainty it is that climate change caused by human activity is occurring. And we know with ever-greater detail what the effects of this are and will be. And we know very clearly what the policy, regulatory, and technological solutions are to address this enormous threat to our planet. And, in the Paris Climate Change Agreement, we have a global framework within which to address this. The only remaining question is -- will humanity rise to the challenge and actually adequately address this dire threat?
Not if the Financial Post and Lawrence Solomon have their way.
Nonsense, baloney, twaddle, and claptrap
While based on nonsense, baloney, twaddle, and claptrap, Solomon's article makes every kind on nonsensical and hyperbolic claim imaginable, for instance that, "None of the billions spent on research amounted to anything -- none of the models proved reliable, none of the predictions were borne out, none of the expected effects materialized." He calls the work of the IPCC a "mega-fraud," accuses the NOAA "and other corrupted agencies" of generating a "blizzard of lies" concluding that, "The greatest scientific fraud of the century will thus be laid bare, along with its craven and corrupt enablers in government, academia, industry and the media."
Virtually every claim made by Solomon in this "opinion" piece is wrong, flawed, misdirected, hyperbolic, or irrelevant -- sometimes all at once. To call it poppycock would be a kindness.
Which begs the question, what is such an article doing in print in any media outlet at all? What possible public interest could be served by publishing falsehoods? What media organization would possibly contemplate publishing such material?
The climate change denial movement
It's important to be clear as to what Solomon's initiative is a part of, namely climate change denial. This is a pernicious anti-science, anti-knowledge initiative every bit as dangerous as Holocaust-denial, the campaign that denied that tobacco smoke caused lung-cancer, evolution denial, and other campaigns that have attempted to convince citizens that black is white.
Climate-change denial is the most recent of these campaigns, extensively documented in publications such as Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything and elsewhere. A full discussion of this movement is beyond the scope of this article but the salient outlines are simple and clear. It is promulgated by fossil fuel interests (Exxon and the Koch family foundations have been particularly prominent, but there are many others) who -- correctly -- understand that adequately addressing the climate change crisis means a phasing-out of fossil fuels, and hence an end to the enormous profits and power of this sector.
Exxon, Koch's et al. have poured millions of dollars into an orchestrated movement to counter the threat to the fossil fuel industry that shifting to more sustainable and renewable energy scenarios and technologies would lead to. This has resulted not only in aggressive lobbying and strident propaganda, but also to the creation of various institutes and think tanks (e.g., The Heartland Institute, Americans for Prosperity, the now-defunct Global Climate Coalition; in Canada groups like the Friends of Science that get funding from the petroleum industry and argue that the sun, rather than human activity, is responsible for climate change) to promulgate these views.
The tactics of these efforts borrow heavily in some instances from the long and concerted campaign by the tobacco industry to attempt to deny the linkages between the use of tobacco products and lung cancer (in some instances employing the same public relations firms and even rebranding purported "experts" on tobacco use into climate change "experts."
It's important to note that in addition to the extensive lobbying that such organizations have conducted to advance the fossil-fuel agenda, their media-relation efforts have been two-fold.
In part, in the classic tradition of disinformation and propaganda, this has been to convince the credulous (particularly those with meager critical abilities and/or inclined to conspiracy-theory thinking) that evidence for climate change is meager to non-existent and that all the efforts to understand the causative factors and consequences of climate change, and how to address it through regulatory and technological approaches -- from the massive studies and reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the twenty-year initiative under the aegis of the United Nations Framework Conventions on Climate Change -- have all been a gigantic con.
Nothing more than machinations by "elite" scientists solely concerned with promoting their own careers, coupled with deep, dark conspiracies of world government promulgated by hordes of United Nations minions intent on "world government." Solomon's article falls squarely within this tradition. And, given that one can fool some of the people all of the time … it does.
This doesn't, of course, penetrate to the large majority of people, nor do climate change deniers imagine that it will. The more modest, but politically effective, goal is simply to create doubt.
By casting up a smokescreen of bogus science, unsupported assertions, red herrings, discredited ideas, and abject nonsense -- presented however, with a pseudoscientific veneer -- it gives the impression that uncertainty exists in the scientific community about the reality of climate change and/or its causes and/or its consequences. That experts differ. That doubt remains. That conclusions are premature. That the jury is still out.
In other words, to attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of ordinary citizens conveying the impression that this is still an area where experts disagree and on which more study is required. The ultimate objective is to neutralize political action. If, deniers reason, you can sufficiently confuse people about climate change and its causes then they will not press their political representatives to act on it.
For some two decades, this has been the program. It's ultimately a losing strategy because it is impossible to hide the accelerating impacts of climate change even now, but the climate-change-denial industry (and its fossil fuel backers) are seemingly greedy even for short-term profit, as well as being utterly ethically bereft in their disregard of what runaway climate change would do to this planet and all of its inhabitants. It seems extraordinary to even speak of such things, but from the Nazi Holocaust to ideas of a "winnable" nuclear war, the world has never wanted for people who are morally bankrupt. We have to recognize that this is so and adapt our politics to the periodic emergence of such phenomena.
However incorrect, unsupported, and misguided Lawrence Solomon certainly has the right to hold and express his views. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section 2a) guarantees every Canadian "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." Similarly, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (to which Canada is a signatory) (Article 19) guarantees every person "the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Likewise, the Financial Post certainly has the right to publish whatever it deems fit.
However, should the Financial Post publish such material?
The Fourth Estate
The Fourth Estate (i.e., the media) is a key democratic institution. Without a free press and the guarantees of freedom of expression, a vital check on potential abuse -- by anyone including governments, corporations, the police, the justice system, political parties, organizations, and even private individuals -- would be lacking. Who would watch the watchers themselves? An independent and critical media that can not only expose wrongdoing, inform citizens, champion issues, and expose shortcomings, but also help create coherent communities is an indispensable social institution. In a study entitled Dead Newspapers and Citizens' Civic Engagement, Portland State University professor Lee Shaker found a substantial decrease in civic engagement in two cities (Seattle and Denver) that both saw the closure of longstanding daily newspapers. Good media organizations not only reflect the communities they serve, they help build them. And -- critically -- they have a responsibility to them.
In the context of reportage, media frequently understand themselves as impartial conveyors of information, classically by presenting both sides of a story (assuming that there are only two) and then letting the reader, listener, or viewer form their own conclusions. In editorial or opinion pieces, editors, journalists, or guests move beyond impartiality to offer their own views.
It's important that media engage with controversial issues, however -- and this is the critical caveat -- these must be issues that based on fact and evidence. Not on rumor, innuendo, fantasy, or fabrication. A media organization that presents falsehoods, disinformation, or propaganda disguised as truth, betrays its audience, its journalistic legitimacy, and its responsibility to society -- a very grave transgression.
It's worth noting that some responsible media have already adopted policies that frame the understanding that climate change denial is a bogus enterprise. For instance, when reporting on Donald Trump's claims that global warming is a hoax, The Washington Post pointed out that, "There is a scientific consensus that humans are causing the planet to warm." The BBC has also wrestled with the issue of its coverage giving what it calls a "false balance" to the climate change denial movement and "undue attention to marginal opinion." It has opted to instruct its producers to "severely limit the amount of air time climate deniers are given." In order to draw attention to this issue The Guardian has titled a major subsection of its Environment coverage "Climate Consensus -- the 97%" making explicit the fact that 97 per cent of climate scientists support the consensus position of climate change. The media landscape in this regard is still changing slowly, however, it is changing. [Figure 9]
Legal theorists such as the University of Bergen's philosopher Tryve Lavik (See: Climate change denial, freedom of speech and global justice) are making the jurisprudential case that climate change denial should be made illegal.
"The main arguments are: Climate denialism is not beneficial because its main goal is to produce doubt, and not truth. Climate denialism is not sincerely meant, which is a necessary condition for John Stuart Mill to accept utterances. Climate denialists bring harm, by blocking necessary action on climate change. Primarily they harm future generations and people in developing countries. Hence the case can be made in terms of global justice."
While the purveyors of journalism are not formally bound by a Hippocratic Oath like that of physicians, Walter Williams' Journalist's Creed written in 1914 has been translated into over 100 languages. It says (in part):
• I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is betrayal of this trust.
• I believe that clear thinking and clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism.
• I believe that a journalist should write only what he holds in his heart to be true.
I underscore this in making the point that climate change denial is not based on fact or evidence; rather it is a denial of fact and evidence; an attempt to replace truth with demonstrable falsehoods, disinformation, unsupported assertions, discredited ideas, innuendo, and conspiracy theory. And this is done the service of nakedly political objectives that are antithetical to the continued well-being of the planet and all its denizens, human and non-human alike. In Canada, we do not have a law such as the one in Bolivia that gives Mother Earth rights and personhood, but if we did, climate change denial will surely be at the top of the list of sanctioned activities.
Just as we consider it abhorrent to deny the Holocaust or to believe in the veracity of documents like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; to refute the causative relationship between tobacco use and lung cancer; to deny the reality of evolution and the fossil record -- so too must climate change denial be understood as abhorrent. Media that continue to publish what are demonstrable falsehoods are abrogating their core responsibility to those who read, listen and watch their work.
This is precisely the point where the Orwellian nightmare of "newspeak" and "doublethink," enters the picture. In Fact or fiction: Are we living in an Orwellian era? published in The Globe and Mail, Brock University academic Tim Conley draws attention to the processes of disinformation. It's bad enough:
"When state leaders and spokespersons can invent crimes and massacres, denounce the media for departing even slightly from the official party line and dismiss scientific findings, citizens have to decide whether they will likewise engage in doublethink, learn the newspeak and concede that two plus two is whatever these authorities say it is."
But when media collude with the promulgation of "doublethink" (in this instance directed by the corporate state) this is a complete abomination. It is time we called this what it is -- lies. Harmful lies. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts." And when such "opinions" are demonstrably false, and will result in demonstrable harm, the media have an ethical responsibility not to promulgate them in a way that makes them appear as if they were otherwise. It's time Canadian media like the Financial Post started acting responsibly.Climate Changeglobal warmingclimate change denialcanadamediajournalismLawrence Solomon
Over the past few years, populist politics have been on the rise across the western world. Few, however, have noticed the rise of populist feminism, a mainstream feminism that espouses to speak for and on behalf of all women, but essentially speaks for and on behalf of white, middle-class, cis-gendered and able-bodied women.
As a feminist, critical race media scholar, populist feminism is, in my opinion, more detrimental to women than patriarchy. Where patriarchy, in a structural sense, is often defined in terms of (white) male domination, feminism is supposed to be geared toward the political, economic, cultural advancement of, and personal and social rights for, women. Populist feminism, however, tries to achieve this by either neutralizing any and all differences among and between women, or tries to speak for all women on matters related to their bodies, especially motherhood.
When Iqra Khalid, a Liberal MP stood up in the House of Commons on February 16, telling the country's elected officials that she had received more than 50,000 emails most of which were death threats and insults in response to M-103, an Anti-Islamophobia Motion that was tabled by the Liberal Party, the media was quick to insert white women such as Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly, Alberta Conservative MP Michelle Rempel and Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne into Khalid's story because they, too, have received "hateful," mostly sexist messages.
While it is important to shed light on the challenges facing women in public office, the idea that Khalid, as a Pakistani-Muslim Canadian woman, would have similar experiences to her white colleagues and that her life story would and could be measured against theirs is the very definition of populist feminism.
Instead of acknowledging her positionality as a racialized and visibly marked woman in a majority white federal government, her body, literally and figuratively, was whitewashed -- as though the threats she faces are of no greater or lesser significance than her white woman counterparts. This is disingenuous at best, insulting at worst.
The recent uproar over Beyoncé's pregnancy photographs and Grammy performance is also an example of how populist feminists believe that they are the arbiters and gatekeepers of "proper" public displays of "true" womanhood.
On February 2, Rosie Millard, writing for the online British newspaper Independent proclaimed, "Hey Beyonce, as a mum of four let me tell you this isn't what pregnancy looks like." In a February 18 article in the New York Post, Naomi Schaefer Riley also argued that in Beyoncé's case, having a baby "isn't a miracle." She then asked the question, "Why is it that in an era when women are constantly insisting that they should not be defined by their traditional, biological roles, we have fetishized motherhood to such an extent?"
These comments remind me of Linda Alcoff's 1991-1992 article, "The Problem of Speaking for Others," in which she wrote, "not only is location epistemically salient, but certain privileged locations are discursively dangerous."
In other words, when privileged women speak for or on behalf of the less privileged, it has the result of increasing or reinforcing the oppression of the group spoken for. While Beyoncé is certainly not an "oppressed" woman in terms of her socioeconomic class, racially, there are very few, if any, arenas in the public sphere of western culture where Black women's bodies are exalted, celebrated or idealized. The "we" in Riley's piece, therefore, reflects a desire to protect the parameters of (white) motherhood. It is not a neutral and fair critique of Beyoncé as a performer.
In 1991, when Demi Moore appeared nude and seven-months pregnant on the cover of Vanity Fair in an Annie Leibovitz photograph; and in 2012, when Jessica Simpson reprised this motif on the cover of Elle, people may have thought both images were distasteful, but there were no attacks on motherhood. When a black woman does the same thing -- minus the nudity -- populist feminists are outraged because it challenges the "we" and "us" of speaking for others.
Many of my students at the University of Toronto Mississauga who are racialized, queer, Muslim, and in some cases all of the above, often feel disconnected from today's feminism. They are tired of the lens for which populist feminists use to critique the actions and bodies of the non-white; they are also frustrated by the lack of intersectionality.
In 1995, Kimberlé Crenshaw argued that an intersectional approach to feminism is necessary if we are to account for the multiple identities that shape how the world is constructed. Similarly, in her book Body as Evidence, Janelle Hobson notes that if we are to dismantle the hegemonic discourses of race, class, gender and nation that frame our perceptions of feminism and seek to define what might constitute a feminist agenda, we will then be one step closer to building a global feminism.
If feminists continue to speak for all without recognizing the varying structures of oppression and cultural nuances that are interrelated, overlapping and inseparable, feminism as we know it will continue to silence the increasing numbers of women worldwide who are not white, middle class, cis-gendered and able bodied.
Zora Neale Hurston, the African-American writer best known for her 1937 novel Their Eyes Were Watching God once said, "Sometimes, I feel discriminated against, but it does not make me angry. It merely astonishes me. How can anyone deny themselves the pleasure of my company? It's beyond me."
Why so many feminists still continue to deny themselves the pleasure of the company of all women is, too, beyond me.
Cheryl Thompson has a PhD from McGill University. She is the 2015-2016 Recipient of the Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship which she holds at the University of Toronto. She also teaches courses in Black Canadian Studies, Visual Culture, Media and Identity, and Transnational Feminism. She can be found on Twitter @DrCherylT.
Image: Facebook/Iqra KhalidfeminismintersectionalityIqra KhalidracismCA
On February 17, 2017, I was at work in downtown Toronto when I heard yelling coming from Dundas street. When I looked out the window to see who was making this noise, I was told that there was an anti-Muslim rally at the Masjid mosque.
I quickly got my jacket and a sign from a Muslim friend that was made for the #MuslimBan protests. These protests were only two weeks earlier at the American consulate, a few blocks away on University Avenue.
In the past few weeks, there has been an onslaught of attacks against Muslim people. We've seen this with the ban on people from seven Muslim-majority Middle Eastern countries from entering the U.S., the attack on the Quebec Mosque resulting in six men's deaths and with this recent anti-Muslim protest that happened in Toronto. These events directly affect my Muslim friends -- but they also affect us all.
Having witnessed these events, I've found myself thinking often of the famous quote by human-rights lawyer Alan Borovoy: "the freedom of no one is safe unless the freedom of everyone is safe."
I don't see myself as being safe unless my Muslim friends are also safe and able to freely practice their faith without fear. I'm not Muslim, but I want to live in a world where my Muslim friends are able to walk down the street and feel safe that they aren't going to be targeted because they may be wearing a hijab.
When I heard that there was an anti-Muslim protest happening, my heart hardened and I couldn't sit idly by and let this happen. I had to stand up against this vitriolic hate. I then took the sign and went downstairs to the mosque, but the protesters had already left. Within only a few minutes, this religiously targeted protest had dissipated.
I was left standing on the street with a poster that read "Peace Muslim. Humbled by the heart of the majority." In my brief time standing on the corner, a few people came to thank me for showing my solidarity with Muslims. I was touched by a random stranger who thanked me. In that moment, I felt a love and a kinship and intrinsically knew that there's a strong love for our community of Toronto.
In the past few weeks, we've seen the incredible amount of love from ordinary citizens who have taken to the streets, courts, airports, and mosques to shout our solidarity with each other for our inalienable human rights. As demonstrated, there's an imperative need to continue to raise our voices, be present, and stand up for our rights to be free, equal, and inclusive of all people regardless of faith, race, or ethnic origin.
Let's keep at it because we need to keep our hope alive, without it, we've given up and we can't let that happen.
Christina Gray is an Indigenous (Tsimshian, Dene, Métis) lawyer who is called to the bar in Ontario. Follow her on Twitter at @stina_gray.
This article originally appeared on Christina's blog.
Image: Christina GrayTorontomuslimmosquehuman rightsdemocracyCA
As I write this column, I am waiting for new census information to learn more about the current farming scene in Canada. The federal government is also cobbling together a budget that they have promised will include strong action on agriculture and food. I'm waiting for that as well.
I am hopeful (maybe I shouldn't be), but I also sense urgency.
As of the last census in 2011, there were fewer than 205,730 farms in Canada. In 1956 there were close to 600,000. Less than 1 per cent of the Canadian population operates farms. In the last 60 years, Canada has lost more than 66 per cent of its farmers. Each decade since 1941 has shown dramatic declines in the number of Canadian farms and farmers, as an industrialized model of agriculture has encouraged capitalization, land concentration, monoculture and specialization.
Prime agricultural land is disappearing as cities expand, and the debt load that farms carry is astonishing. The most recent stats show that well over half of Canadian farmers are over the age of 55 and less than 10 per cent are under 40.
Within the next decade it is estimated that 75 per cent of Canadian farmland will change hands.
Our farming future
The question is, who will farm? In a crunch, how would we even begin to feed ourselves, let alone anyone else?
Climate change may well be the coming crunch and it's already impacting food production in many parts of the world. As I think of the coming budget, I sense a need to reinforce some of the work and repeat some of the solutions that have been presented to the federal government. Will they get it?
Firstly, there are young people who do want to farm. In fact there have always been young people who want to farm. What we've been missing are solid federal policies that encourage new farmers and help retiring farmers transition their farms to a new generation.
So how do we go about doing that?
All farmers will tell you that new farmers need access to land, financing, training and knowledge, and markets. There are a lot of layers to farming, but there are plenty of farmers who know what is required. And they have been trying to get the message across for a long, long time.
It's not rocket science and there are visionary programs leading the way that deserve support. Like family farms, some of these programs are beginning to disappear because they do not have sustainable funding.
Programs need funding
One of these is FarmStart, a flagship non-profit that for more than 10 years has helped many, many new farmers. I was saddened when I went to its website last week, and began reading text written in the past tense. Turns out, I happened on the homepage the same day the text was re-written.
Here is an excerpt:
"FarmStart developed and offered flexible programs and services that provided new farmers with the resources, tools, and support necessary to get their businesses off the ground and to thrive. However, after 10 years, FarmStart is no longer able to offer our programs and services due to the lack of core or sustained funding."
Wow. That's clear. If you visit the FarmStart website, you will immediately note that this was a well thought out, respected, award-winning program, and it still could not get operational funding. It also pushed hard for the implementation of solid federal agricultural policies.
FarmStart also created an innovative program called Farmlink, an online platform that helps to link retiring family farmers with young farmers trying to get started. Farmlink will continue to operate for now, helping to match farmers and facilitate access to land for the next generation.
Christine Young, the founder and Executive Director of FarmStart explained in a recent conversation:
"We are closing and this is very much due to the lack of any kind of core or sustained funding -- in particular, any level of priority for farm renewal at the federal level. There are some provincial initiatives, particularly in the eastern provinces, but without a federal pillar or some level of investment, there will continue to be little or no capacity in the sector."
"There just isn't any clear recognition [by the federal government] of the need for farm renewal programs."
In the course of more than a decade, FarmStart touched more than 6,000 people, providing training programs, online platforms to connect farmers, and startup or "incubator" farm projects. It helped more than 60 new farmers get started, registered more than 3,500 people on Farmlink, and built a solid audience of people interested in pursuing agriculture.
While there was money to run the programs, there was never enough money to pay staff, cover rent, buy computers, or basically keep the lights on. Those costs are considered operating costs covered by core funding. And funders just don't do core funding these days. Go figure! When I spoke with Young last week, her passion for farm issues had not wavered. She immediately sent me a policy paper entitled "National Farm Renewal Initiative" that had been presented to the federal government and includes practical and necessary recommendations.
Non-profit models of support
As Young noted, there are some provincial programs helping small farmers get started, particularly in the eastern provinces. Nova Scotia, for example, has FarmNEXT, a new farmer loan program. And Québec has FIRA -- Fonds d'investissement pour la relève agricole as well as Banques de Terres, a government-funded agency providing new and retiring farmers with options for land transfer.
Across the country there are other small non-profits that serve as models of how to support new farmers and help retiring farmers transition their land. And there are also various organizations across the country that support knowledge-sharing and know-how, and also provide some access to land.
There are other land-linking organizations as well, such as a land-matching organization in British Columbia called Land Linking And Farmers.
In Ontario, Everdale has a farm-based program to encourage new entrants. The Black Creek Community Farm run by Everdale, north of Brampton, has a training school and production program that supports learning, producing and marketing.
As well, organizations such as Just Food in Ottawa, and other non-profits that encourage incubator farm projects such as Le Plateforme Agricole in L'Ange Gardien, Quebec, are a few examples of supports for small farmers.
And, peppered across the country, are small marketing cooperatives where producers have banded together to try and ensure they can connect with consumers and small businesses seeking quality, local food. One of these cooperatives is CAPE in Quebec, but there are others, including on the Prairies, where farms are larger and distances to cities much further.
A solid federal pillar
While these are important efforts that need support, much more needs to be done. The federal government needs to get with the program and recognize the importance of small and family farmers in this country. Low-interest loans, support for community land trusts, support for cooperatives and farmer-owned marketing structures, training and knowledge-sharing, decent prices for production: these are all required.
Without the solid federal pillar that FarmStart's Christie Young emphasizes -- to provide support and strong policies to sustain organizations and create federal agencies that invest in farm-renewal programs -- it all fills a bit like plugging a dike with your thumb.
There is no pension plan for retiring farmers, other than the sale of their land. Farm loans are almost impossible to get for new farmers wanting to start out in Canada. There are few financial organizations -- even credit unions which originally started to provide loans to farmers on the Prairies -- that want to risk loaning to new farmers. There is no solid program to support cooperatives, or the formation of land trusts to encourage stewardship and community farming.
Right now, there is no innovation or thinking outside of the box -- nothing beyond the usual land concentration, rural depopulation and the speculative "bigger is better" mentality.
The census data is on the horizon, and so is the federal budget. They will point to feast or famine.
Lois Ross is a communications specialist, writer, and editor, living in Ottawa. Her column "At the farm gate" discusses issues that are key to food production here in Canada as well as internationally.
Photo: Ian Muttoo/flickrsustainable foodAgriculture Policyfarming policyagriculture industryCanadian FarmersAt the farm gateLois RossFebruary 21, 2017Agriculture is part of the climate change solutionAgriculture can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it is going to mean putting stewardship and food production ahead of profit and expansion. It is possible.Hungering for commitments on a new Canadian food policyLois Ross is a communications specialist, writer, and editor, living in Ottawa. Her column "At the farm gate" discusses issues that are key to food production here in Canada as well as internationally.Need for national food policy intensifies as costs soar and food insecurity remainsThere should be no one suffering from food insecurity in a country as rich as Canada, yet this is a big issue. Here is why we need a national food policy that focuses on sustainability.
When the Canada-Europe trade deal known as CETA came up for vote in the European parliament February 15, the Progressive Alliance Group opposed it: 254 members of the European parliament voted no; 33 abstained; and 408 voted yes.
While in Europe championing CETA, a deal fostered by Stephen Harper, Trudeau lined up with the conservative Christian Democrats -- not the Democrats, or Socialists, or Green Party members. On key issues such as Indigenous rights, climate change, and protection of the marine environment from fuel spills, Justin Trudeau has his party moving right, taking positions defended by the Conservatives. Why is he putting his progressive image at risk?
The Canadian parliamentary system encourages it. In any era the government of the day responds to the Official Opposition by taking its language and using it against them. With the language come policy ideas and sometimes ideology as well.
When Trudeau abandoned his priorities to focus on Canada-U.S. relations he lined up with Conservatives. Both parties are intent on cozying up to Donald Trump in order to preserve Canada's valued free trade relationship with the U.S.
The Liberals are giving credence to myth. Canada never got a free trade agreement with the U.S. Not in the so-called 1988 bilateral FTA, nor in 1994 with NAFTA.
In both deals American protectionist legislation still applied. Under NAFTA protectionist law was privatized. Investor-state rules allowed private companies to sue governments for breaches of the deal.
Say hello to Canada, the most sued country in world trade history.
The Liberal party once knew what was wrong with the Mulroney trade deals: they provided security of investment for U.S. absentee owners of Canadian resources, monopoly rights for patent holders, and entrenched restrictions on Parliament. Pierre Elliott Trudeau labelled the 1988 bilateral accord "a monstrous swindle."
Now his son has engaged the perpetrator of the swindle as his counsel on dealing with the U.S.
Mulroney has responded by singing "When Irish eyes are smiling" for Trump, as he did for Reagan in 1985, initiating the "make friends with the White House" foreign policy era.
Unfortunately for the make-nice-with-Donald strategy, the U.S. president does not control how international trade works itself out. Individual trade disputes depend on a quasi-judicial U.S. process. As for the renegotiation of NAFTA, it will be done by someone reporting to the (yet to be confirmed) United States Trade Representative (USTR) with supervision by Congress, not just the White House.
Canadian business is vocalizing its predictable right-wing views. Former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley runs the Business Council of Canada (BCC), made up of CEOs representing the 150 largest corporations operating in Canada.
Following the adage first coined by Winston Churchill, "never let a crisis go to waste," the BCC judge the election of Trump as an opportunity to push its favourite right-wing economics.
The Business Council CEO defines the election of Trump as a "competitive challenge" to Canada.
For Manley the Liberal government needs to respond with corporate tax cuts, deregulation, trade deals favourable to Canada, and going slow on climate change.
The Big Business message to Trudeau is: be more Trump than Trump.
Anyone who thinks the Liberals will not heed the army of corporate lobbyists carrying this message has not been paying attention to Canadian politics for the last 25-plus years.
The hard-right turn in Canadian public life has been orchestrated by corporations that have had more success influencing politics than in doing business.
When Justin Trudeau nixed the idea of proportional representation and banished electoral reform, he was tipping his hand as to an impending shift right.
Under current electoral rules, Liberals can win a majority in the next election by keeping the Conservatives down in Ontario. In order to do that, they need to win small "c" conservative voters.
Team Trudeau have decided they have less to fear from the NDP profiting from the Liberal shift to the right, than from disgruntled Ontario Tories getting out in big numbers to vote against them.
Duncan Cameron is former president of rabble.ca and writes a weekly column on politics and current affairs.Trudeau governmentCanada-EU free trade dealcanada-u.s. tradeNAFTAbig businessright-wing ideologyCanadian electionsDuncan CameronFebruary 21, 2017Trumponomics unsettles Trudeau with threats to Canada-U.S. tradeWith the advent of Donald Trump, international trade has taken centre stage in U.S. politics. Trumponomics suggests that the rest of the world has been cheating the U.S. out of jobs and wealth.What happened to liberal politicians? Sadly, they got smart. Smartness has subtly insinuated itself everywhere -- except, apparently, among voters. Smart won't ever replace fair; that's just stupid.Trudeau prepares to cede Canadian sovereignty to U.S. border officialsBy conceding Canadian sovereignty to American border officials, the Trudeau government has crossed a bridge.
The most recent poll regarding Canadian's attitudes towards Israel has just been released and the results are telling. Quite strikingly, far more Canadians have a negative view of the government of Israel than a positive one. Even more remarkable, Quebec respondents have a far harsher view of the government of Israel than their fellow Canadians.
Some have argued that Quebecers have always been more critical of the Israeli government, and more sympathetic to the Palestinians. This assumption was up in the air, however, when a survey by Crop-La Presse issued in 2014 during the Gaza conflict between Israel and Hamas found that the majority (64 per cent) of Quebecers chose not to pick sides in the messy flare up.
With this most recent poll co-sponsored by my organization, it is clear that regardless of what happened in 2014, Quebecers remain wary of the Israeli government. Of those who expressed an opinion, 57 per cent of Quebecers had a negative opinion of the Israeli government, as compared to 46 per cent overall in Canada. Only 16 per cent of Quebecers had a positive opinion, as compared to 28 per cent overall in Canada.
While this doesn't tell us whether Quebecers are pro-Palestinian, it does show that they are far more negative than other provinces when it comes to the Israeli government.
With survey results like these, one would expect Quebec politicians to be guarded with respect to relations with the Israeli government. This could not be more wrong. With Montreal mayor Denis Coderre's recent economic mission, Premier Philippe Couillard's upcoming one and a recent statement on Israel by CPC leadership candidate Maxime Bernier, it is easy to feel as if our political elite are detached from the population's concerns over Israel's human rights abuses.
Rather than asking Israeli leaders tough questions about violations of international law, Quebec leaders only seem to idolize Israel for being such an innovative and business-friendly country. This is especially the case for the particularly effusive Coderre, who came back full of praise for Israel following his economic mission to Israel and (symbolically) the West-Bank.
While having a negative perception of the Israeli government does not mean that Quebecers want their leaders to be anti-Israel, they still might prefer a more balanced approach.
Nobody can deny the fact that Israel has managed to achieve an impressive economic success and that their innovation sector is quite enviable. However, considering the fact that this country is repeatedly cited for violations of international law, and that Netanyahu's right-wing coalition government continues the illegal colonization of Palestinian territory, many Quebecers may believe that our politicians should not engage in a "business as usual" economic approach with Israel.
In China, Philippe Couillard experienced firsthand the difficulty of pursuing economic relations while being under pressure to denounce human rights violations. It is especially hard for premiers since because of the Constitution, Canadian provinces cannot lead their own international policies and diplomacy.
However, Quebec has found a way to circumvent this by engaging in various economic and cultural missions and investing in permanent delegations throughout the world. This broader role undertaken by Quebec political elites is not exempt from responsibilities -- and leaders like Couillard and Coderre need to find a way to achieve both: pursue economic motivations while making sure violators of international law are held accountable.
In the current international political climate, such proposals may seem like wishful thinking: economic incentives are almost always prioritized to the detriment of human rights issues. However, Western leaders are becoming more and more vocal about their disapproval of Israel's increasing settlements expansion, and ongoing disregard for Palestinian human rights.
It's time that Quebec leaders find a way to do the same, and these new poll results should give them all the incentive they need.IsraelQuebecMaxime BernierDenis CoderrePhilippe CouillardQC
Is a disengaged and demoralized national conservative movement venting its frustration with the continuing popularity and generally progressive tone of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberal government by focusing their anger on Alberta's NDP premier?
To ask this question another way, is there a substantial national component to the growing epidemic of violent -- and often misogynistic and heavily sexualized -- threats against Premier Rachel Notley and other prominent women in her cabinet and caucus?
Lots of theories have been advanced to try to explain the rising tide of threats against politicians in this province, and in particular against New Democrats who are women.
It's reasonable to assume that to one degree or another they may all be influencing the problem highlighted by the release of Alberta Justice Department statistics last week that showed Premier Notley is in fact the most frequently threatened premier in Alberta history.
These include, as discussed in this space last week, the following:
The contribution of social media to abusive political discourse by offering both anonymity and an accessible platform to extremists
The creation of online alt-right outlets devoted to promoting hatred and extremism, which offer a daily bulletin of targets to their readers
The tolerance for this kind of behaviour among mainstream media commentators and conservative politicians
The recent success of President Donald Trump's election campaign in the United States
Misogynistic attitudes in our society that are deeply embedded in our culture
But I've never seen it said anywhere in print that much of this vile and threatening commentary may be originating elsewhere in Canada from those people who are increasingly known in progressive Twitter-speak as RWNJs -- that is to say, "right-wing nut jobs."
Think about this, though. With enough nuts and flakes for a breakfast cereal recipe among the unappealing crop of candidates to replace former prime minister Stephen Harper as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, what else is the perpetually angry brigade of RWNJs to focus on?
In other words, is it possible Notley and her cabinet's members are the unlucky recipients of abuse from a whole country's worth of perpetually disaffected right-wing extremists?
After all, if the Internet and social media do anything well, it's allowing people to communicate anonymously in "real time" at any hour of the night or day from any place on the globe.
We're talking about people who were perpetually angry with Prime Minister Trudeau back in the day for -- when you get right down to it -- successfully challenging Harper. This expressed itself as fury at nonessentials like the prime minister's hair -- which, every reasonable observer must admit, is much nicer than that of the previous PM, which looked, as the irreplaceable Heather Mallick once put it in her Toronto Star column, like "a living pulsing thing that would halve, leap on you and clap both sides of your head if you poked it."
This group is still very angry with Trudeau, of course, for daring to defeat their leader in a fair electoral fight, but their fury on that front has dissipated somewhat because of several factors. The biggest, of course, is that Harper's not around as an alternative. There is also the general sense that those who want to replace him aren't up to much, and the fact the CPC leadership race has several extremist candidates who for now are able to pander to the worst instincts of this group.
So, at least until a new CPC leader is chosen, a whole nation's worth of far-right wing-nuts (FRWNs?) can't really work themselves into their usual lather about federal politics.
So where do they focus in the meantime?
Well, if there's anything to this theory, for a lot of them, the focus has become Notley and Alberta.
If Canada's FRWNs have been paying attention, they'll have picked up that their hero, Harper, and his loyal lieutenant, Jason Kenney, are concentrating on Alberta as the most likely beachhead for their national counter-revolution.
And members of this group desperately need to be enraged at someone -- because unhealthy rage is one of the distinguishing characteristics of this segment of the populace, and indeed how such people frequently define themselves. (I'm mad as hell, yadda-yadda.)
So, what better target than an intelligent and articulate woman, the leader of a moderate centrist political movement that is, moreover, the only NDP government in the country. A politician who, once again, is challenging not just their extremist views, but their beloved, semi-retired Maximo Lider?
Now, look … this is just long-weekend speculation based on anecdotal observations. I can't provide statistics to prove a larger-than-expected number of threatening or abusive communications are being sent to Alberta NDP politicians from outside Alberta. Or, for that matter, to Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne from outside Ontario. But some of them most certainly are.
So the question, surely, is worth asking by people who have access to the data.
Alberta Justice should at least look to see how much of this garbage is originating outside Alberta's borders. I'll bet the answer will be a surprise -- perhaps even enough of one to derail the narrative that this is just Albertans frustrated with the faults of the NDP "letting off steam," as the Usual Suspects in right-wing media would like us to believe.
Obviously, not all such commentators are non-Albertans. I know people right in my own community who regularly say deplorable things about both Notley and Wynne on social media.
But even without verifiable statistics, it will be worth watching what happens once the interminable CPC leadership race is finally over. The tone here in Alberta may well improve.
After all, if one of the CPC's several Donald Trump clones is chosen as leader, Canada's loony right fringe will likely return to concentrating its rage on Trudeau's government in Ottawa.
And if someone who does not meet their exacting standards of bigotry and rudeness is chosen -- Michael Chong perhaps -- they may turn their fury on their own party.
Either way, the tone of public discourse in Alberta cannot help but improve!Alberta politicsthreatssocial mediaAlberta JusticeJustin TrudeauRachel NotleyRWNJsDonald TrumpStephen HarperJason KenneyConservative Party of CanadaLiberal Party of CanadaAlberta NDPMichael ChongKathleen WynneAB
The Quebec mosque attack victims spent their lives vilified as terrorists. Then they were murdered by one.
A radicalized, right-wing, white Trump supporter walks into a place of worship and terrorizes a room full of innocent Muslim men as they submit in peace and prayer. How depressingly ironic! These men became the victims of the very label that the media and public use to condemn them: terrorist.
After months of delay, cynical maneuvering and two female cabinet ministers tossed under the Liberal bus of "Real Change," Justin Trudeau finally told the ministry of democratic institutions that "changing the electoral system will not be in your mandate." Surprise!
Karl Nerenberg calls this shameless about-face "a gift to the right." He's not wrong. Greg Squires says that this betrayal of the soft left-wing voters that delivered Trudeau his majority has already cost him re-election in 2019.Choices Two promising young female cabinet ministers were thrown under the bus over a file the Liberals never took seriously. The Conservatives could win another false majority and usher in another Harper-like decade. Justin Trudeau will lose his majority and Canada won't be cool anymore :( Deep-seated cynicism will take root in the Canadian electorate, making it possible for a radical right-wing demagogue to ride a wave of populism to victory in Canada. Electoral reform was never closer to implementation at the federal level -- and now the chance is gone. All of the above None of the above For the last time: no one cares about electoral reform.
In the aftermath of the Quebec City mosque attack, we have heard and read all kinds of language to describe the event. "Hate crime," "mass murder" and "terrorist attack" were all used and they all, to some extent, do define what has happened. However, one confused TVA anchor said on air that this was a case of "reverse" terrorism. As if terrorism had only one form: Muslim against others.
The history of exploration in North America is a tapestry of cultural interactions. The children of Indigenous communities and European settlers eventually established an identity distinct from their ancestors. Songs Upon the Rivers collects information from primary sources and long-lost documents to map the distinct identity of French-Canadiens and Metis.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., was interrupted while reading the words of Coretta Scott King on the U.S. Senate floor this week. Warren was reading a 1986 letter King wrote in opposition to the confirmation of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, then a U.S. attorney in Alabama, to a federal district judgeship. In a rare decision, the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected Sessions. Now, as the Senate debated a new confirmation of Sen. Sessions for the position of U.S. attorney general, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., silenced Warren shortly after she read Coretta Scott King's words, invoking an obscure Senate rule against impugning colleagues. She was told to sit down and was barred from speaking further during the ongoing debate on Sessions.Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., was interrupted while reading the words of Coretta Scott King on the U.S. Senate floor this week.
In case you're still wondering how this unite-the-right thing is supposed to work, Wildrose Leader Brian Jean has clarified matters for you.
The party that emerges when the dust has settled will be the Wildrose Party, he told the world earlier this week. The Progressive Conservatives will be no more -- although, certainly, the "new" Wildrose party (which will not be new at all, of course) will soon try to rebrand itself "conservative."
Stefan starts the show sadly confirming a suspicion we've had since last year that the Prime Minister has no apparent intention to stand up for one of his most critical campaign promises: electoral reform. On the upside, Stefan also updates us on the rapid scale at which battery power storage which is critical to the renewable revolution is growing in 2017.
With last week's announcement that the Liberals are abandoning their promise of electoral reform, coupled with their out-of-control deficit spending, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may have already burned the bridges he built, both to the left and to the right, that won him a majority government in 2015.
The Liberals cannot win a majority in 2019 without the support they siphoned from the Greens and the NDP on the left, nor without the soft conservatives and Red Tories who turned to them after a decade of Stephen Harper. After all, as much as we view Trudeau's 2015 majority as a resounding victory, the Liberals captured less than 40 per cent of the popular vote. Subtract five per cent and all bets are off.
Toronto, Vancouver and Hamilton have become "Sanctuary Cities." So have 37 cities in the United States. It's time for Montreal to join the movement.
The horrific crime that took six lives in Quebec City last Sunday night is a wake-up call for us all. No longer can we pretend that there is no Islamophobia in Quebec. Unfortunately, hate-mongering goes on daily. Sometimes in an open, heinous and criminal fashion, as witnessed at the Quebec City Mosque. Other times in a more hidden fashion, under the guise of a debate on face-coverings in public.