fbpx
Connect with us

Opinion

STRANKMAN: The corruption of our democracy is hiding in plain sight

Rick Strankman writes that a subtle authoritarianism has corroded most political parties in Canada.

mm

Published

on

Many people can probably remember the visual brain teaser pictures that were generally very simplistic, but have many hidden features within them. The challenge was to spot the features listed that were contained within the picture. This is a great illustration of the old saying “hiding in plain sight.” 

This is the same principle that allows a person or organization the ability to become almost unnoticeable or masked by staying visible in a setting that allows them to hide their true identity or intent, without actually purposely blending into the background like a chameleon. In what has become normalized authoritarianism Canada, little consideration has been given to focusing on the underlying consequences that can come from not paying attention to important details. 

In yet another example how political parties in Canada have become models that summarily eliminate democracy, a member of the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus was removed from the governing party of Ontario for voting against her own government’s Bill 195. It was confirmed by Premier Doug Ford`s office that Cambridge, Ontario MPP Belinda Karahalios would “no longer be a sitting member of the PC caucus.” Karahalios called her government’s actions “an unnecessary overreach on our parliamentary democracy.”

The bill would have given the government unscrutinised overreaching emergency powers without having to be debated in the Ontario Legislature. The act of a government in Canada performing yet another work-around of the parliamentary system to impose unprincipled legislation rather than pass it in the proper democratic fashion, has become a regular and repugnant habit of majority governments.

Partisan conservatives rightfully denounced this kind of legislation when Justin Trudeau tried to impose it federally, but were conspicuously quiet when their own parties did it in Alberta and Ontario. 

The irony is that the same people that decry a system that allows a representative to have loyalty to the party rather than their constituents, are the same people that when it suits their purpose, will actively participate in a work-around to attain a party goal. It’s not only ironic; it’s hypocritical.

The normalization of this type of undemocratic rule has allowed it to become prevalent in most levels of government in Canada. It’s hiding in plain sight. Whether it can be attributed to political ignorance or apathy, the consequences are all too real and all too undemocratic.

The process of debating proposed legislation was intended to allow for a free and open discussion that explores the possible unintended consequences we’ve seen time and again, that results from a lack of due diligence and consideration. So, who exactly benefits from short-circuiting the intentions of the legislative process? The political party? The people? Any perceived benefit is lost when the unintended consequences come home to roost often at the expense of taxpayers and democracy; so, in the end, the net benefit is completely erased by the wreckage left behind.

In an age when oppression is a hot topic of discussion, this obvious and egregious form of unnecessary control is hiding right there in plain sight. Perhaps this is a result of the frequency with which this form of overt oppression occurs, or perhaps it’s become normalized to a point that it has become the standard background that few take notice of.

Many people enter politics with the idealistic intent of representing their constituents to the best of their ability, but more often than not, they succumb to the noxious aroma of power. 

An exception to that rule is Cypress-Medicine Hat MLA Drew Barnes who seems intent on representing his constituents at the risk of facing the same fate as Ontario MPP Belinda Karahalios. Barnes has once again stepped out of the background to oppose the Alberta government’s attempt to centralize EMS dispatch in Alberta.

The form of subtle authoritarianism that’s been normalized in Canadian party politics has a remedy and it’s hiding right there in plain sight; independent representation that isn’t controlled by the traditional top down party structures

The choice should be ours.

Rick Strankman is a Columnist for the Western Standard. He served as the Wildrose MLA for Drumheller-Stettler from 2012-2019 and was a leader of the farmers freedom movement against the former Canadian Wheat Board.

Opinion

MORGAN: Has Kenney dodged a bullet?

“Whatever shortcomings he may have, it is undeniable that Jason Kenney is a master political player.”

mm

Published

on

Apparently the meeting was quick, but strategic discussions went well into the night before the Executive Committee (EC) of the UCP agreed upon the rules to set out for a future leadership review for Jason Kenney.

The political brinkmanship leading up to this meeting began months ago. While rogue constituency associations (CAs) were trying to meet a constitutional bar set for invoking a leadership review, Kenney loyalists were organizing to ensure the EC elected at the UCP’s November 2021 annual general meeting (AGM) could control the terms of the review. It appears the Kenney loyalists have won this round.

A total of 22 CAs issued a letter demanding a leadership review to be held by the end of March in 2022. That met the bar set out in the party bylaws to invoke such a review and it put Kenney on the spot. An attempt was made to raise the bar for calling a review to 29 CAs, but that motion was soundly rejected by party members at the November AGM. Plan B was to stack the party EC and that appears to have been a success.

A leadership review is now slated to be held in Red Deer on Saturday, April 9, 2022. This review will look nothing like what the 22 constituency associations wanted to see, however. The terms of this review have been set by the party executive and they will slant the odds in favour of Jason Kenney.

The CAs wanted the review to allow every member of the party to place a vote. The only party members who will be able to vote in the leadership review will be delegates who pay a fee and travel to Red Deer on April 9th in order to vote in person. That fee has yet to be determined, but we can rest assured it won’t be inexpensive. This will likely reduce the number of people voting in the leadership review down to well under 1,000. This provides a much more manageable number of members to manipulate in order to ensure a positive measure of support for Jason Kenney.

In the late hours of the last night of the legislative session, the UCP government invoked closure and passed Bill 81 that will allow a single person to purchase hundreds of memberships on behalf of other people in a political party. CAs that used to have to disclose the source of all donations will no longer be obliged to do so. This provides a mechanism for a political action committee (PAC) to funnel funds to CAs which could sponsor members to attend events such as leadership reviews. Theoretically, memberships could now be purchased for others who then have their transportation and convention fees sponsored in order for them to place votes favorable to the leader. Do you think this may happen?

Whatever shortcomings he may have, it’s undeniable that Kenney is a master political player. He knows rules and procedures inside out and he has decades of experience in winning campaigns from general elections to leadership races. Kenney is pulling out the stops to keep himself in the leader’s seat of the UCP and it looks like he may very well pull it off.

While Kenney may have just won the latest battle, it will remain to be seen if he wins the war. He is lining up the stars in order to ensure a winning leadership review, but he will be still facing a grumpy caucus and some infuriated CAs the day after the review if not sooner.

Kenney is buying himself time. With time he may win over ruffled caucus members and as we come closer to election time, CAs may become dominated by Kenney loyalists again.

While Kenney may pull off dodging a bullet with his leadership, his biggest challenge remains winning the next election. Being a skilled political operator may help keep him in the leader’s seat, but it doesn’t necessarily endear himself with the general electorate. Political intrigue can foster public mistrust.

Kenney is in a fight for his political life. This war will take place in a number of battles. So far Kenney is winning them.

The final battle will come in the spring of 2023 when Kenney faces the Alberta electorate as a whole.

Cory Morgan is Assistant Opinion & Broadcast Editor for the Western Standard
cmorgan@westernstandardonline.com

Continue Reading

Opinion

The Pipeline: YouTube cancels Western Standard

This week a Calgary Cop suspended for refusing vax, YouTube cancels Western Standard and D-Day on Kenney’s leadership vote rules. Join us live at 12 PM!

mm

Published

on

Continue Reading

Opinion

MORGAN: Free speech in comedy under siege

“What has happened to our society when a comedy festival may turn into a street battle? “

mm

Published

on

Standup comedians have always been on the front lines in battles over free speech and expression.

In the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, most of the pearl-clutching busybodies came from the ‘moral majority’ religious right. They feared obscenity within comedy acts would degrade the moral fabric of the nation and for a while, the law agreed. Comedian Lenny Bruce was convicted and sentenced to four months in a workhouse in 1964 for the crime of spreading obscenity in his act. George Carlin was arrested seven times during the 1970s for his famous “Seven Dirty Words” routine.

Bruce died before the appeal of his sentence was completed. He was posthumously pardoned in 2003. Charges against Carlin were all dropped before he could be convicted. Carlin and Bruce refused to back down and in the end, the state couldn’t win. We will never know how many comedians allowed themselves to be cowed into changing their acts due to state and social intimidation in those days. Not all of them had the will or support bases Carlin and Bruce enjoyed.

The ability for comedians to freely express themselves is just as threatened today as it was 50 years ago. The source of puritanical outrage against comedy routines has changed, though. These days the prigs demanding the curtailment of free speech in comedy acts are the snowflakes of the politically correct left.

Canadian comedian Mike Ward found himself dragged before human rights tribunals and the Canadian courts for nearly a decade over a routine in which he mocked a disabled young Canadian performer. The case ultimately went to the Canadian Supreme Court where it was ruled in a tight 5-4 split decision Ward’s right to free speech was to be protected, and jokes were not subject to judicial review. We came dangerously close to having a comedian convicted for his routine during this decade. The threat to free expression is real and it’s ongoing.

The prime target of the cancel-culture mob lately has been American comedian Dave Chappelle. Chappelle has long enjoyed poking fun at the hypersensitive underbelly of the LGBTQ activist community and has never backed down in the face of the enraged blowback following one of his acts. In Chappelle’s most recent Netflix comedy special he went out of his way to antagonize the usual suspects as he made jokes about transgender ideological orthodoxy. The response to his act was immediate and predictable. Activists demanded Netflix pull the special down and small groups of Netflix employees staged widely publicized walkouts in protest of Chappelle’s act.

Netflix never pulled Chappelle’s special down and Chappelle has remained unapologetic for it. The controversy generated by apoplectic snowflakes in response to Chappelle’s act likely only increased viewership of the special.

It has just been announced Dave Chappelle is going to be headlining a Netflix comedy festival this coming April in Hollywood Bowl. This signals Netflix has done well with Chappelle’s routine despite or perhaps even because of the controversy it generated. In having a set date at a large outdoor venue and in such a populated area, Netflix is upping the ante in their battle with cancel-culture activists. Not only are they saying they won’t pull Chappelle’s older content, but they are also expanding the reach for his next act.

American and Canadian courts have proven they will protect the rights of free expression for controversial comedians, albeit grudgingly. Anti-free speech activists will have to take their case to the streets now and I suspect they will. With as many as 17,000 attendees arriving for a comedy festival being potentially greeted by a sizable number of protesters, things may get ugly.

What has happened to our society when a comedy festival may turn into a street battle?

Chappelle’s showdown this spring could be a turning point for comedy. Will he and Netflix stand their ground in the face of protests? Will local authorities ensure the show can go on even if activists vow to shut it down? This comedy event is going to be an important one.

As with any art, the enjoyment of comedy is subjective. Some people like simple clean humour, some like complex satire, and some like vulgarity-laden shock comedy. The only people who can judge good comedy are the audience and they should only be able to render judgment through voting with their feet (and wallets). In other words, if you don’t like it, don’t watch it.

Comedians ply their trade by observing the world and poking at sacred cows. They dig into subjects people commonly avoid and force us to think about them through the lens of humour. They provide a public service by pushing the boundaries of free expression and ensuring no subjects are ever out of bounds. They often make us laugh and we need a whole lot more of that these days.

Comedians will not be able to effectively practice their art if they fear censors or legal repercussions. They will be restrained and they will leave subjects that need to be brought before public scrutiny untouched.

If the speech and expression of comedians are allowed to be suppressed, no speech is safe. We need to stand up for our comics for both their sake and our own.

Cory Morgan is Assistant Opinion & Broadcast Editor for the Western Standard
cmorgan@westernstandardonline.com

Continue Reading

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Share

Petition: No Media Bailouts

We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.

835 signatures

No Media Bailouts

The fourth estate is critical to a functioning democracy in holding the government to account. An objective media can't maintain editorial integrity when it accepts money from a government we expect it to be critical of.

We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.

**your signature**



The Western Standard will never accept government bailout money. By becoming a Western Standard member, you are supporting government bailout-free and proudly western media that is on your side. With your support, we can give Westerners a voice that doesn\'t need taxpayers money.

Share this with your friends:

Trending

Copyright © Western Standard New Media Corp.