The Benefits of Uncivil Dialogue:

The CBC is no longer allowing comments on Indigenous stories because the results are stinking up the place.  But will a Bambi-inspired approach of: "If you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all," lead us toward a sunnier way?  It may, but it will be a return to a national fantasy.


One exhibit in Shoal Lake 40's powerful Museum of Canadian Human Rights Violations contains a news article describing the prolonged absence of essential infrastructure in that First Nation - water, sanitation, health services.  The display encourages visitors -primarily urban settlers- to read beneath the article to the spew of ignorant, racist comments that follow.  

At the conclusion of the museum tour, guests almost invariably express dismay that the severe hardships suffered by the people of Shoal Lake 40 should have gone on for so long and in such plain view.  At that point, they're reminded of the vitriol levelled at the First Nation by their fellow citizens …by urban dwellers who continue to draw benefit from a First Nation's imposed marginalization.  

The hateful posts directed at Shoal Lake 40 in particular and Indigenous people in general are typical of what commonly pass for 'fair comment' in the media, the coffee shops and across the kitchen tables of our nation.  We know …we know them far too well.  

So, when museum visitors are shocked by the persistent injustice, persistent inaction, they're confronted by the black and white hate contained in those comments ...and it's plain that justice and equity are bogged down in the racism revealed in those comments.  It's the racism sanctioned by very ordinary Canadian voters.  For many, that unsettling image in the communal mirror becomes an "Aha!" moment.  Almost invariably,  there is resolution to make effort toward change.

So a good argument can be made that settler Canadians need to be constantly reminded of our true range of colours, because only in realizing the worst of our tendencies will fair-minded Canadians find the energy necessary to deal with the flaws in our national character.  
If our difficult truths are not constantly on ugly display, they can and will be denied.  If the myth of Canada as a nice, respectful nation is the only image we see, then self-satisfaction will forgive inaction and our smugness will continue to blind us to our terrible complicity.

Let's keep our considerable capacity for meanness, greed and racism out in the open where we can keep watchful eye on it.

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/community/editorsblog/2015/11/uncivil-dialogue-commenting-and-stories-about-indigenous-people.html

STEVEN HARPER COULD NOT KNOW

A CREDIBLE WAY OUT FOR THE PM IN THE DUFFY SCHMOZZLE

Our Prime Minister is getting a lot of heat from the Duffy trial in recent days.  With his former legal advisor, Benjamin Perrin dragging his right-hand man, Ray Novak, into the ring of deception -not once, but several times- the whole mess is lying closer and closer to the feet of Steven Harper himself.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-duffy-trial-benjamin-perrin-testimony-1.3197129

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/08/26/conservative-governments-character-revealed-in-duffy-affair-hbert.html

It's surprising, then, that his team would leave their leader twisting in the wind when there is such a clear way out.

The evidence in court shows that Wright, Perrin, Novak, Gerstein and pretty much everyone above the janitor's pay scale were intimately aware of Wright's Hail Mary cheque-passing.  Everyone who was anyone was in on the coordinated effort to extricate the CPC brand from the enveloping stench of Duffy's 'entitlements'.

Nigel's desperate move has been rightly and universally condemned. The only moral/political question left unanswered is: When did Wright's wrong become known to PM Harper?

Notwithstanding actual documents, conflicting earlier statements and a growing body of quite fathomable circumstantial evidence, the Prime Minister absolutely insists that he did not know of Nigel's misdeed before it hit the media fan.  It's admittedly difficult to square that circle and, if the twitterverse, the pundits and the polls are any indication of the public's acceptance of the PM's persistent rendition, it's pretty clear that sh*t ain't gonna shine -to put it in a down-homey kind of way.

It might appear that the former legal advisor's testimony created a huge credibility problem for the PM but Perrin, ever the faithful foot soldier, might have actually laid out the path to a big back door that gives the Prime Minister a wholly believable, evidence-based way out.

Following the subtly clever line of Perrin's testimony one can see that Ray Novak need only make himself available to an appropriately Vetted National Reporter and Steven Harper can be completely off the hook.  The interview should follow this script:

Vetted National Reporter: You've been with PM Harper forever, right?
Ray Novak: Yes. Some say I sprang from his forehead but I have baby pics so that's likely not true. (laughs sincerely)
VNR: As Chief of Staff you have personally briefed the Prime Minister and you're frequently around when he's being briefed by others, right?
RN: Oh, yes.  Too often to count.
VNR: And does he listen to these briefings?
RN: No.
VNR: Huh?
RN: It's been said by many -and even some of his critics - that Steven Harper is always the smartest man in the room.  So it goes without saying that he need not listen to anyone …not on any subject.
VNR: Please elaborate.
RN: What, for a normal Prime Minister might be "briefings" are, for Steven Harper, more of an opportunity to impart his wisdom, to share his insights.  He conveys his decisions to his underlings in the context of the topic at hand so that they can go forth and flourish.  The track record speaks for itself.  It works marvellously well and it's now the accepted order of things.
VNR: Do you have any examples of this?
RN: Oh, hundreds.  Right from the time he first became PM.  You recall there were a whole lot of economists beaking on about the possible collapse of the world economy.  They were loud and persistent and, as the record shows He didn't listen to any of them.  Then there was that irritating woman with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and that other so-called expert from Statistics Canada.  They were on about their "evidence" and he didn't listen to either of them.
VNR: Do go on.
RN: Well, I can't think of how many times some geeky legal type from Justice has droned on about the constitutionality of some government law or another.  You should see him.  He's clearly impervious to all that constitutional mumbo-jumbo.  He just kind of glazes over. Knowing the Truth as he does, he becomes quite serene.  I am in constant awe of his patience.
If you would ask him five minutes later what they said - which I wouldn't, of course- he couldn't tell you.  It's not as if he's deaf, he has the band after all, but when it comes to any decisions, any data or information, any facts that don't align with how he believes the country or the world should be, they simply don't get through.
VNR: Remarkable!
RN:  Yeah.  For instance, on the Duffy thing; Ben Perrin gave him a pretty clear legal opinion on the two qualifications for a Senator. The PM simply ignored the one he didn't agree with.  Here was a black letter Canadian constitutional requirement - and pfft! It was gone!  It simply was not allowed through.  You need to appreciate that the Prime Minister had established reality when he anointed Duffy as the Senator for PEI.  He made his decision and he saw that it was good. There's no point in arguing these things and Perrin accepted that.  Objection could only go badly for him in the new reality.
VNR: So then, to the question that everyone is wondering about:  Did you tell the Prime Minister that Nigel Wright would be personally paying for Duffy's expenses?
RN: Of course.  I told him the minute I found out but, you see, the Prime Minister had already declared that Duffy would be paying himself so reality was already set.  His directive had made it so.  The facts, the details didn't matter …they would not compute.
VNR: Fascinating!
RN: This shouldn't surprise anyone. He signals it almost every time it happens.  If you are acknowledged at all he will say something like: "I disagree with the premise of your etc, etc."  When you hear this you know that you and your silly facts have just disappeared from his reality.
VNR: So when the Prime Minister says he didn't know ……?
RN:  He's absolutely truthful, as always.  To know something, a person has to actually take the information in and accept it.  The Prime Minister has this amazing ability to filter out all unnecessary, conflicting information.
VNR: So what you're saying is: If he doesn't take information in, how can he possibly know it?
RN: Exactly.  It's the same if you were to ask him if he knows about evolution or climate change.  There's a ton of information floating around on these topics but none of it is getting through. For him, it doesn't exist.  It doesn't show up on his radar screen.
VNR: Well that certainly keeps everything perfectly clear, doesn't it?
RN: As he has said repeatedly from the beginning.  Can we move on to more important matters now?