However, he will be leading a much-reduced government. The Liberals lost 21 seats, and their majority in Parliament. To govern, they’ll now have to work with the opposition parties to get their agenda through the legislature.

So, what happens now?

A Liberal-NDP dream team? Not so fast.

For many people I’ve spoken to, at least progressive-minded voters, the prospect of a Liberal-NDP coalition is a dream come true. If the current seat projections hold, the parties together will have 181 seats, or enough for a majority in the House of Commons. On issues where the parties share common ground — and there are many — this could be a semi-stable governing coalition that helps the country move forward.

After all, some great things have been accomplished by Liberal-NDP minority governments. Journalists and pundits love to cite the example of the Pearson-led Liberal-NDP unofficial coalition government, which created universal healthcare and the Canada Pension Plan, among other things.

However, the case for a stable working coalition here is far less clear. Jagmeet Singh emerged battered from this election, too: The NDP was reduced from 42 to only 24 seats, and basically wiped off the political map in Quebec, where it lost all but one of its seats — mostly to the surging Bloc.

Singh has signalled that the NDP has a list of six key demands in order to agree to support the government. On some of them, including interest forgiveness for student debt, more progressive taxation, and expanded efforts to fight climate change, they may well be able to find common ground with the Liberals. But others, including a promise for universal pharmacare and dental care, will likely run into feasibility issues in terms of funding.

The problem the NDP faces is that their base of support is mostly young, idealistic and absolutist. The trouble with ideologues is that they rarely understand the sometimes difficult, cynical, pragmatic compromises necessary to govern. Politically, the NDP can’t afford to back down on any of its core promises, because its voter base would never forgive the party, and would abandon ship.

This could put Singh in an impossible situation of having to vote down a piece of good-but-less-than-perfect Liberal legislation, thus triggering an election early, just because his party’s base would howl in protest if he didn’t. Meanwhile, the Liberals have the far more difficult task of actually governing the entire country, not just the small percentage who voted for them, and, furthermore, negotiating our place in an increasingly hostile, right-wing world. That sometimes involves very difficult compromises. For instance, a tax on the uber-wealthy plays well in an NDP rally, where chants of “tax the rich!” can be heard loudly. But for all that the Liberals have introduced more progressive taxation than the Harper government, Trudeau has to balance a desire for fairer taxation with the need to keep Canada attractive to business, investment and trade. The uber-rich, of course, have uber-mobility for their money and for themselves; make Canada too hostile an environment for the wealthy, and the wealthy will leave. Trudeau knows this. Singh seemingly does not.

And then there’s the pipeline. The bane of Trudeau’s existence, some might say. If the theories are correct that Trudeau actually had very little choice in the the Trans Mountain Pipeline affair, then Trudeau is truly between a rock and a hard place. Even if it isn’t true, Trudeau has a balancing act to play when it comes to oil pipelines. Divesting overnight from all fossil fuels sounds like an attractive idea when you’re an urban, downtown core voter at an NDP or Green Party rally. It’s less obvious for oil patch workers in Alberta who are suffering job losses. Alberta and Saskatchewan voted almost entirely Tory blue, and the Liberals have to be concerned about how they can regain support in the west without listening to their concerns. Furthermore, while the Liberals have made — and I hope will continue to make — major investments in green, renewable energy, there’s no overnight solution to switching off the lights for half the country. The Liberal energy plan may not be as ambitious or catchphrase-friendly as the NDP’s, but it is far more pragmatic and feasible. But pragmatism and feasibility aren’t exactly words that NDP voters appreciate very much, if their attacks on Steven Guilbeault, my newly-elected local MP for the Liberals and the former head of Equiterre, are any indication.

So If the NDP sets out the abandonment of the project as a non-negotiable condition of its support, there may be no good answer for the Liberals. They will have to either scrap a project that they may not be willing or able to scrap, or they will likely see their fragile minority crumble quickly. After all, the Bloc and the Greens also oppose the pipeline. And the Tories have no incentive to prop up a Liberal government for any reason.

So my prediction is that a Liberal-NDP working coalition might last a little while, but will ultimately be short-lived.

The Tories will wait… and build.

The Conservatives failed to achieve their goal of coming to power last night, so ostensibly they lost the election after an underwhelming performance by an equally underwhelming Andrew Scheer. But they did make gains: They picked up 23 seats, technically “won” the popular vote, and reduced the Liberals to a minority.

So will Andrew Scheer step down? It’s unclear.

On the one hand, the Tories failed to expand much beyond their base. They galvanized their voters in the west, basically sweeping Alberta and Saskatchewan. And they won some suburban ridings in Ontario. But they haven’t made the inroads among more moderate centrist voters in Southern Ontario, Atlantic Canada, Quebec or BC that they would need in order to win a minority, let alone a majority government.

Scheer didn’t inspire Canadians to want to vote for him as Prime Minister. He won the Tory leadership as the second-choice candidate to higher-profile contenders, and was sort of a “meh” choice even among his party’s faithful. He ran a very negative campaign, heavy on attack ads and light on policy. He fumbled questions on choice, is seen as being anti-LGBT and anti-diversity, and was even exposed as having lied on his own resume. People view him as distasteful and not leadership material.

On the other hand, the Tories have the best financial position of all the parties, thanks to Harper having eliminated the per-vote subsidy credit during his previous mandate in 2011. This particularly hurts parties whose supporters are lower income (the NDP) or who have more support that doesn’t translate into seats or official status (Greens). But the Tories, with their wealthy donors, can comfortably afford to restock their war chest and go back to the polls anytime. The Tories may not want to risk another leadership contest so quickly, and may prefer a narrative that paints Scheer as having made steady gains towards the prize.

So my guess is he’ll stick around for at least this minority government. If he doesn’t win next time, though, he’ll likely be out on his American, anti-choice, lying, scheming derriere.

The Bloc wildcard.

The big story in this election is that everyone lost… except the Bloc, who resurged to 32 seats in Quebec, stomping to victory in the suburban and rural ridings that had been previously held mostly by the NDP.

Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet won his own seat and will join the House of Commons, after coasting on seemingly strong debate performances, as well as a platform that seemed stolen verbatim from the CAQ playbook. In fact, the electoral map of Quebec in this federal election strongly resembles that of the last provincial election, with the island of Montreal going Liberal red in a sea of Bloc/CAQ blue:

This will probably mean a tiresome return of talk of sovereignty, the issue that just refuses to go away. But not as much as people might think, since Blanchet hardly even mentioned the R-word (referendum) in the campaign.

Instead, it seems that the protest vote in Quebec that had gone to the NDP in the 2011 “Orange Crush” has returned to the Bloc. Voters who don’t feel like they identify with any of the major parties were riding the coattails of the party that promised to defend their “interests” in Ottawa. What are those interests? Well, it seems that the average Quebec voter cares so much about Quebec controlling its own immigration (so that non-francophones and non-white people can’t enter), controlling its own tax returns (because, I dunno, people don’t like filling out two tax returns?), and controlling its own discrimination against minorities (no challenges to Bill 21, please; attacking Quebecers rights to be racist is racism against Quebecers!)

Needless to say, I am not a fan of the Bloc. But what will realistically happen?

Right now, the Bloc is enjoying its victory and coasting on power. But there’s no upside to them in forcing another election early. They’ve gained as much ground as they could have in one election, and they obviously can’t grow outside of Quebec — and realistically probably not on the island of Montreal, either, where there’s just too much diversity for the taste of their brand of racism.

The promises that the Bloc might try to exact from the Liberals in exchange for support probably include no pipeline across Quebec, control over tax and immigration, and a promise not to intervene in Bill 21. All of those would be difficult if not impossible pills for the Liberals to swallow — especially the last one, given the Liberals’ principled stance on minority rights.

My best guess is that Blanchet will go to Ottawa prepared to be a thorn in Trudeau’s side, hoping to build support for nationalism back home and sow the seeds of discord at every turn. He’ll play the role of Official Troll, and do so with a nudge-nudge-wink-wink to the much-maligned Alberta. And then hope like hell for a Tory victory in the next election, so he can build more support for separation in Quebec.

The Liberals have nothing to gain and everything to lose (especially in the west, which already resents Quebec) from being seen to cooperate too much with the Bloc, so they probably won’t try too hard. They’ll be looking to keep their government propped up with NDP and perhaps Green support instead. But if there’s an issue where the NDP finds itself unable to support the government, it will be interesting to see what concessions Trudeau might try to make to gain Bloc support. Let’s hope not too many.

Electoral reform? Don’t count on it.

One of the big promises that voters haven’t forgiven Justin Trudeau for breaking was that of electoral reform. Those pushing for proportional representation will continue to argue that these results were unfair, and that First Past the Post needs to go.

But let’s take a look at the vote breakdown by popular vote versus number of seats:

The Liberals and, to some extent, the Bloc, were the winners under the FPTP system. The Conservatives actually won more of the popular vote but lost the election with fewer seats than the Liberals, because their vote was more inefficiently concentrated in Alberta and their western strongholds. The big losers under FPTP continue to be the NDP and the Greens.

But, let’s leave aside the fact that people probably would’ve voted somewhat differently under a different electoral system. The thing is, the Liberals have no incentive to implement a proportional system in this case, where that system actually would have awarded the election to the Conservatives.

And for those of you who are still mad about this, consider that this is probably a very good thing. Proportional representation, for all that it may “seem” fairer in theory, actually would be a very, very, very bad idea in practice.

First past the post systems give too much power to the political middle. But proportional systems actually give far too much power to the political fringes.

Yes, the Greens would have 6.5% of the seats under a proportional system. But they could conceivably hold 80 or 90% of the political power in a situation where they end up the kingmakers, able to offer or withdraw their support to a coalition government in exchange for exacting promises.

This might not seem so bad if you are pro-Green. Which, fine, let’s leave aside the more wackadoodle elements of their platform (have you actually read it? admit it, you haven’t.), but let’s say you’d be okay with that.

But would you be okay with Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party getting 5 seats because they won 1.6% of the popular vote, instead of the 0 seats they currently hold? And then being able to use those 5 seats to extract promises of ending all refugee and immigration claims in Canada, or pushing through the rest of their extreme-right agenda?

(Side note: Bernier’s face when he learned he’d be losing his own seat was one of the highlights of a mostly meh evening last night.)

Look at countries with proportional systems to see what happens when a few fringe parties get to control the political agenda. Just look no further than the political mess currently underway in Israel to understand the pitfalls of a proportional system and why it would be a terrible idea here in Canada.

And beyond the disproportionate amount of power given to extremist parties on the fringes, proportionate systems have other key pitfalls. In a country as geographically large and diverse as Canada, having zero local representation wouldn’t work. How would you feel about a government where every MP was from Ontario? Or from Alberta? What happens when there’s nobody in Ottawa representing the interests of each region?

Also, in a proportional system, people don’t directly elect any MPs; instead, each party chooses and ranks its list of candidates in an order that it alone determines. The ranking system, and the way politicians curry favour to move up or down the list, leads to cronyism, backroom deals, and a lack of transparency that would make our current system look angelic in comparison.

That’s not to say we don’t need electoral reform in Canada badly. We do; it’s just that proportional isn’t the answer. Personally I’m in favour of some form of ranked-ballot or alternative vote system, which would maintain ridings and local representation and reduce the risk of fringe extremism taking over, while eliminating the spoiler effect and allowing people to vote their conscience:

But realistically, the public support for a proportional system — because it just “seems” fairer — is so strong that it would take so much effort to educate the electorate otherwise, and it would probably be a doomed uphill battle. Which is pretty much what the Liberals concluded when they abandoned the project the first time around. I wouldn’t expect them to do otherwise this time, especially in a shaky minority government situation where every opposition party wants a different outcome.

We’ll probably be back here in 18 months.

Most minority governments last around 18 months. There’s nothing magic about that number, other than the fact that it will take at least that long for most of the parties — especially the broke NDP — to start rebuilding their finances. It’s also long enough that the opposition can reasonably claim to the voters that they “gave them a chance”, and can expect that voters won’t punish them for bringing down the government too soon and sending us right back to the polls.

So yeah, I expect we’ll see a tumultuous 18 months, followed by another election. By then, the Conservatives may plausibly have picked a new leader — though don’t count on Scheer to go quietly — and the Liberals could decide to give someone other than Justin a chance, too.

So we have a divided Congress, but, for the first time since Trump took office, the Democrats have control over one of the branches of government. On the surface, not a bad night, if you oppose Trump.

Americans didn’t massively reject Trump

But here’s the thing: Americans needed to massively, overwhelmingly reject Trump in this election. They needed to send a clear statement that his abuses of power, shocking use of racism and xenophobia, and attacks on the fundamental democratic foundations of the country would not stand.

And they didn’t do that.

More of a “blue trickle” than a blue wave

The reported “blue wave” was more of a trickle, at best. The Democrats picked up some 20-something seats (perhaps up to 30, once the votes are finished being counted) in the House, most of which were competitive seats in swing districts considered to be in play, and many of which had been blue under Obama. The Republicans, on the other hand, actually gained three Senate seats, strengthening their lead. And they picked up highly contested governorships, won a handful of House seats that had been previously held by Democrats, and actually strengthened their leads in some federal and state races.

The massive surge away from the Republican party didn’t materialize. Heck, here in Quebec, we had more of a “blue wave” when the CAQ beat the Liberals last month. And this was against a Liberal government whose worst crimes, arguably, were balancing the budget, defending minority rights, and being in power for too long.

And yet, against Trump? Consider just a short list: Trump is a President who has…

• Ripped children away from their parents and locked them in prison camps.
• Said that neo-Nazis in Virgina were “very fine people”.
• Admitted on camera to grabbing women by the p*ssy.
• Appointed a probable rapist to the Supreme Court.
• Attacked the media as “fake news” at every turn, outwardly attempting to destroy its ability to hold power accountable.
• Cheated on his taxes, not once, but repeatedly.
• Lied to the American public dozens or even hundreds of times a day.
• Appointed people to every single department and cabinet post in government with the express goal of destroying them from the inside.
• Colluded with Russia. Openly.
• Expressed admiration for the world’s worst dictators and despots, including Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin, while attacking and alienating every democratic ally the US has ever had.
• Threatened to “lock up” his political opponents, and led rallies where his supporters have chanted “lock them up!” at his encouragement.
• Prohibited transgender Americans from serving in the military and attempted to erase them from existence altogether.
• Sent thousands of troops to meet a caravan of desperate, unarmed Central American migrants.
• Instituted a travel ban preventing people from specific countries from even setting foot in the United States because of their religion or skin colour.
• Said openly and on camera that he thinks it would be a good idea for the US to have a president for life.

The question isn’t how the Democrats picked up a handful of seats. The question is: Why not more? The question is, how did anyone, ANYWHERE vote Republican at all?

When you are running against a literal fascist who has openly said he wants to tear down democracy and install himself as a dictator for life, and you only manage 53% of the vote, what does that say about the other 47%? About your country’s future?

Trump is being normalized

Most parties in power lose seats in the midterms, as voters use their first opportunity two years into a mandate to stage a mini-referendum on the performance of the President. Obama lost seats in his first midterm, as did Bush, as did Clinton.

But this wasn’t just any midterm election. This was a referendum on hate. On xenophobia. On white supremacy. And Americans basically told the Republican party that they’re more or less okay with all of that. That in red districts, they’ll keep voting red regardless of all of it.

In Georgia, governor Brian Kemp beat Stacey Abrams despite massive allegations of election rigging in an election he is both running in and overseeing. He allegedly falsely struck hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters — mostly from poor areas or minority districts — from the voter rolls. Reports of voter machine hacking and problems abounded all throughout Georgia, as well as long lines at polling stations with a lack of power or water, especially in heavily Democratic districts.  And yet, people still supported him. Barring a recount, he even won. This is not normal.

In Montana, a Republican congressman punched a reporter. Trump came to campaign for him, defending him for this. And he still won. This is not normal.

From Seattle to California to New York, Republicans attacked their Jewish congressional candidates with posters depicting antisemitic tropes. They won anyway. This is not normal.

And yet, the vote totals are frighteningly, disturbingly normal for a first-term midterm election. A small swing towards the other party, sure. But not a massive wave. Nothing that would categorically reject Trump’s blatant moves towards fascism.

The point is, Americans have clearly demonstrated that there is nothing that the Republican party can do that is so egregious that they will withdraw their support. For far too many Republicans and Trump supporters, voting red is less of a thought-out decision and more of a religious affiliation. They will never abandon their party, because it would be akin to abandoning their faith.

And that gives Trump license to do literally anything. Because he knows there’s nothing he can do that will cause voters to turf him out.

What this means for 2020

Nothing good, I’m afraid.

Trump has gained a powerful punching bag and convenient target for his base’s anger. Nancy Pelosi, who is hated almost as much by progressive Democrats as by Republicans, is sure to be a flashpoint for Trump’s anger over the next two years. The traction he’ll get with the Republican base by being able to paint everything as a Democratic vendetta or witch hunt cannot be understated.

Mueller’s report, which theoretically has an audience now, is also probably doomed. If the Democrats latch onto the findings and try to use them to begin impeachment hearings, the Senate will block it, and the Democrats will get painted as petty and partisan. I’m beyond hoping that anything in the report itself will shock the American people to their senses. If they haven’t already cast Trump aside after everything we already know about him, I don’t think there’s anything left that could possibly do that.

Trump will also have a great argument in 2020 for why Republicans need to come out in force. He’ll claim he was unable to get things done because Democrats were blocking his agenda at every turn. While in these midterms, Democrats were able to point to Trump’s inability to achieve anything despite having control of both branches of Congress, they will lose that argument in 2020 when they become the convenient scapegoats.

Meanwhile, there are no clear rising stars in the Democratic party who have gained any momentum in these midterms or have shown themselves to be credible Trump challengers in 2020. While Elizabeth Warren, Kristen Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders all won their contests easily, we aren’t seeing anyone new capturing the imagination of the American people. Someone like Beto O’Rourke is an outside contender, but the hopes people had pinned on him being able to unseat Ted Cruz in Texas didn’t come to fruition.

Some silver linings

It’s not all bad news. The Democrats will be able to wield considerable power in the House of Representatives, placing — for the first time — some sort of check on Trump’s power. The fact that someone out there will be stalling Trump’s legislative agenda, putting up roadblocks on his more outlandish ideas, and preventing him from moving full-steam ahead with his march towards undoing democracy, is a good thing.

There were also a handful of encouraging signs last night, from record numbers of women and minorities winning seats, to the first-ever openly gay governor elected in Colorado, to the first-ever Muslim women elected to Congress, to a handful of ballot measures in states like Florida that will restore voting rights to more than a million Americans who had previously lost the right to vote. And early indications are that there was a record-high turnout in these midterm elections, which is a good sign for political participation. In small victories, Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis — yes, that Kim Davis, lost her re-election bid to a Democrat.

But the point remains: Unless the Democrats find some traction and a huge amount of momentum between now and 2020, things are looking bleak.

America has lost its conscience

By not categorically and emphatically rejecting Trumpism in these midterms, the American people have proven that they’ve lost their way. They’ve normalized the unthinkable. They’ve given the green light to dirty tactics and ugly cheating. They’ve failed to establish any kind of moral red line that says, Mr Trump, you’ve gone too far.

I want to be encouraged by last night’s result. But I just can’t. I fear that it may be too late for the United States to ever find its way back from the dark path that it embarked on when Trump won in 2016. Last night’s election was a stopgap that will delay America’s collapse, but probably not for very long.

America, you have abandoned your conscience. You have lost your humanity.

Here I am, three days later, and still angry. Scared. Terrified, in fact.

But I realize, I’m not terrified at the notion that a madman might come shoot up a synagogue, mosque, church, school, community centre. Even though all these things have happened and keep happening. Terrorism is still — thankfully — relatively rare. And living our lives in fear of random violence makes no sense. We might as well lock ourselves indoors and never cross the street again, since the chances of getting hit by a car are many, many times higher.

No, it’s not the threat of random violence, as horrible as it is, that has me afraid, angry and raging at the world. It’s the way the world has reacted to it. Is reacting to it.

We’ve seen this far too many times before. After Charlottesville. After Pulse in Orlando. After the Quebec City mosque shooting. After Sandy Hook, Parkland, Las Vegas, Charleston, Sutherland Springs… heck, even after the Polytecnique massacre. For a couple of days, there’s an outpouring of support, people send their condolences and change their profile pictures and tweet with solidarity hashtags and attend candlelight vigils. And say things like “never again”.

I used to let myself dare to hope that, in the aftermath of these tragedies, a tipping point would be reached where people might say “enough”… and something might actually change for the better. But I don’t hope for that anymore. Because I know better.

In the aftermath of the worst attack of Islamophobia in Quebec history, there was a collective outpouring of support and grief for the Muslim community. And yet, not even two years later, a bunch of xenophobic assholes in ridings where they’ve probably never met anyone from a religious minority went ahead and elected a government that campaigned on a platform of Islamophobia and race-baiting, that has promised to pass a law restricting religious symbols that would effectively ban freedom of religion for all minorities, and that claims to be doing it because “it’s what the majority wants”.

Two days after a gunman shot up a synagogue in Pittsburgh, Trump is dialing up the anti-immigrant, anti-minority rhetoric. And last night, amidst a very moving show of unity in the Montreal Jewish Community, a speech referenced Trump and a not-insignificant part of the crowd applauded.

Applauded.

Let that sink in. Jews, here in Montreal, at a vigil to remember the victims of the worst antisemitic terrorist attack in US history. Applauding a president who has claimed he’s a “nationalist”, who says that neo-Nazis in Virginia are “very fine people”. Who has based his entire political career on vilifying the other, on dialing up hate rhetoric, on destroying the independent media, erasing minorities, and trampling on human rights. Who holds rallies, including one right after the shooting, that wouldn’t be out of place in 1930s Germany. (And yes, I am saying that deliberately. Even Mike Godwin, who coined the term “Godwin’s Law”, has publicly suspended it, claiming it doesn’t apply when we’re talking about ACTUAL Nazis.)

Even in the darkest days of the 1930s, I can’t imagine any scenario where a group of Jews in a German synagogue would’ve applauded Adolf Hitler.

There are midterm elections in the United States next week. Americans claim to be reeling from this tragedy, as well as from a hate-motivated double-homicide in Kroger and an unprecedented mail bomb plot. And yet, polls suggest that they’re poised to re-elect a Republican House and Senate. And they justify it with nonsense they see on FOX News about how it’s not the president’s fault that this hate rhetoric has gotten so out of hand, and domestic terrorism doesn’t scare them but a caravan of desperate migrants from Honduras does.

Here in Canada, Conservative leader Andrew Scheer is trying to unseat Justin Trudeau with similar tactics to what Trump is using down south. He’s attacking the media as “fake news”, attacking immigrants, attacking minorities, drumming up fear and division instead of inclusiveness and tolerance. And he may well win on that platform.

Then I look at the world. Brazil. Most of Europe.

And I look right here at home. At my friends and neighbours who say words like “solidarity” and yet are perfectly comfortable with a law that would fire teachers for wearing hijabs or kippot. Who can’t see the hypocrisy in wanting public holiday celebrations for Christian holidays, a cross in the National Assembly, and yet think that “religion should be private” for people who may not believe as they do. And who can’t make the connection between their xenophobia and the twisted hateful rhetoric that leads to tragedies like this one.

So no, I’m not scared because a madman shot up a synagogue. I’m scared because the world seems to be steadily marching towards fascism, and I can’t for the life of me figure out how to stop it.

If you couldn’t be in attendance, here’s a video stream of the full ceremony:

“I’ve followed that dark evolution of internet culture ever since. I’ve had the privilege — or deeply strange curse — to chase the growth of global political warfare around the world. In the last four years, I’ve been to 22 countries, six continents, and been on the ground for close to a dozen referendums and elections. I was in London for UK’s nervous breakdown over Brexit, in Barcelona for Catalonia’s failed attempts at a secession from Spain, in Sweden as neo-Nazis tried to march on the country’s largest book fair. And now, I’m in Brazil. But this era of being surprised at what the internet can and will do to us is ending. The damage is done. I’m trying to come to terms with the fact that I’ll probably spend the rest of my career covering the consequences.”

Read the whole thing.

“Our Jewish community is not the only group you have targeted,” the group wrote. “You have also deliberately undermined the safety of people of color, Muslims, LGBTQ people, and people with disabilities. Yesterday’s massacre is not the first act of terror you incited against a minority group in our country.”

This. This. So much this.

Anyone who says the deaths of eleven Jews in Pittsburgh should not be politicized hasn’t been paying attention. Donald Trump’s hateful rhetoric and incitement to violence have DIRECTLY caused this shit.

“The team announced on Sunday that it would hold a blood drive on Monday from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., and would cancel its annual Halloween-themed festivities at Tuesday’s game, instead opting to hold a collection to benefit the victims of the shooting.

The team’s charitable arm, the Penguins Foundation, will also make two donations of $25,000 to support the victims of Saturday’s attack, the team announced Sunday afternoon.

Richard Gottfried was a dentist around my parents’ age. He ran a 10km race every year. He also had a nephew in BBYO, the same youth organization I belonged to as a teenager.

Joyce Feinberg was Canadian, from Toronto. Her late husband was a statistics professor at Carnegie Mellon. She, like so many members of Montreal’s Jewish community, became more involved in the shul after her husband’s passing.

Daniel Stein, a new grandfather and past president of the shul, shared my last name. No relation to me as far as I know, but then again, who knows? I look at the photo of him and think, he looks not unlike my father, my uncle, my family. He wasn’t related to me. But he could have been.

A Squirrel Hill man who once served as president of the New Light Congregation was among the 11 people killed inside a Squirrel Hill synagogue. Via @MikeJdiVittorio https://t.co/uaUle4C6rq pic.twitter.com/ysuCWg6cmc

— TribLIVE.com (@TribLIVE) October 28, 2018

Melvin Wax was an accountant, just like my father and grandfather. A family friend described how he used to do the taxes for his daughters for free, as a favour, just like they did / do.

These victims are not statistics. They feel as real to me as people just like them who I’ve known all my life.

I’ve seen other friends talk about how close to home this has hit them, more than other horrible mass shootings or even similar hate crimes that have targeted other groups in the past months and years. And I admit, I feel that way too.

And then I feel guilty for feeling that way, because every life is as valuable as the next. I don’t live in Pittsburgh and I didn’t know any of the victims. Why am I more affected by this than I was by shootings in an African-American church, in a Quebec mosque, in a gay nightclub, in a daycare centre? Those were horrific crimes too. And they obviously upset me.

And yet, somehow, this feels different. More personal. This feels like someone was targeting my people, my family, my community. We Jews — religious or secular, Orthodox or Conservative or Reform, practising or not — are all connected in this inextricable way where we feel an attack on any of us like a punch to the gut. Because I keep thinking, that could just as easily have been my community on a shabbat morning, on a High Holiday service. My friends, my neighbours. My people. And because I feel like this wasn’t an isolated incident, but a signpost in a rising tide of hate and insecurity that we as Jews are facing with this global wave of fascism. Because this threat isn’t something in a history textbook or a story told by our grandparents’ generation, but is very real and very present.

And then I wonder, if every community mourns in isolation from one another, how will we ever truly connect? How can we unite in the face of this global wave of hatred, racism and fascism? Because we’re gonna need to. None of us can do it on our own. We don’t have enough strength as individual groups. We need each other.

And how exactly is that going to work if we can only seem to emotionally connect on this level with an attack on our own people?

Before committing the Tree of Life massacre, the shooter, who blamed Jews for the caravan of “invaders” and who raged about it on social media, made it clear that he was furious at HIAS, founded as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, a Jewish group that helps resettle refugees in the United States. He shared posts on Gab, a social-media site popular with the alt-right, expressing alarm at the sight of “massive human caravans of young men from Honduras and El Salvador invading America thru our unsecured southern border.” And then he wrote, “HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

The people killed on Saturday were killed for trying to make the world a better place, as their faith exhorts them to do. The history of the Jewish people is one of displacement, statelessness, and persecution. What groups like HIAS do in helping refugees, they do with the knowledge that comes from a history of being the targets of demagogues who persecute minorities in pursuit of power.

[ . . . ]

“As for those who aided the president in his propaganda campaign, who enabled him to prey on racist fears to fabricate a national emergency, those who said to themselves, ‘This is the play’? Every single one of them bears some responsibility for what followed. Their condemnations of antisemitism are meaningless. Their thoughts and prayers are worthless. Their condolences are irrelevant. They can never undo what they have done, and what they have done will never be forgotten.”

Trump has been deliberately inciting this violence and fanning the flames of hate in order to win votes. He not only knew this would happen, he wanted this to happen. He stacked the deck and then waited for these cards to flip over. And flip, they did.

If you don’t acknowledge the link, if you support Trump, if you stand by and let it happen, then yes, this is on you.

The worldwide rise of fascism continues, with Brazil only the latest example:

Mr Bolsonaro’s pledge to fight crime and corruption following a string of scandals have won him mass support.

However critics are worried by his praise of Brazil’s former dictatorship, and by his comments on race, women and homosexuality.

In one infamous incident in 2015 he told a fellow lawmaker she was too ugly to rape.

Mr Bolsonaro’s controversial comments, his pro-gun stance and his populist approach to politics have led to some media dubbing him “Trump of the Tropics”.

What’s truly terrifying is sitting here wondering whether any country will escape this epidemic. When persecuted people inevitably need to escape, will there be anywhere left for them to go?

If you’re struggling to make sense of the horrific violence of today’s Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, a few thoughts:

Judaism has never really been a “thoughts and prayers” kind of religion. It’s an action religion. Judaism teaches that we are all judged by the way we behave towards our fellow human brings, and the things we do while on this earth to make the world better.

So with that in mind, here are a few actions you can take today:

1. Vote. Wherever you live, vote against the candidates who are cozying up to white supremacists or using the politics of division and fear. Vote for the candidates who believe in inclusion.
2. Donate to HIAS, a fantastic organization doing great work to help refugees from all over the globe. Today’s shooter called them out as part of his motive for targeting the Jewish community (because they help resettle Muslim refugees), which is all the more reason to support them. I used to work with them on fundraising and I can attest that they’re the real deal. (Here in Montreal, you can also donate to Ometz, which encompasses JIAS, our Canadian equivalent.)
3. Demonstrate and protest. There will be Havdalah vigils tonight in dozens of cities. But more than vigils, show up to rallies against racism, to protests against xenophobic policies and laws (like the one proposed by the Legault government to ban religious symbols in the public service), and to demonstrations that denounce violence.
4. Stand up and loudly denounce racism, xenophobia, and white supremacy wherever and whenever you encounter it, whether you feel personally affected or not. If you see someone being attacked, don’t stand idly by and let it happen.
5. Help someone. Sponsor a refugee. Volunteer at an organization to help migrants. Give your time and your compassion.

The Jewish concept of “tikun olam” means “improving the world”. Everyone, regardless of belief or background, has an obligation to take part. So ask yourself: What have I done today to make the world a little bit better?

This is relevant not just to Americans, but to us Canadians and Quebecers as well. In January 2017, a man walked into a Quebec City mosque and killed six and wounded nineteen people. Today, a man walked into a Pittsburgh synagogue and killed at least 11 and wounded dozens of others. He said he did it in part because of Jewish support for Muslim refugees in general, and for HIAS, a refugee and immigrant aid organization that helps refugees in particular.

ETA 10/29: American Muslim groups raised over $120,000 to support the Jewish victims of the Pittsburgh shooting in under 48 hours. Sometimes, tragedy really does bring out the best in people.

1. Of course it was a hate crime.
2. Yes, Trump incited it.
3. We’ve seen this before.
4. It’s gonna get worse. Much worse.

Simon Jolin-Barrette, a spokesman for the transition team, said Tuesday there is no contradiction between the new government’s plan to impose strict secularism rules on certain public servants and its desire to maintain the crucifix.

“The historic position of the CAQ is to keep the crucifix in its current position,” he said. “It is a heritage object.”

He says the crucifix, which has hung in the national assembly since 1936, is “part of our history” and “an accessory” to the issue at hand.

Let me be clear, though: Even if he were to remove the cross, that wouldn’t make the ban on religious headwear any more acceptable.

The state should be neutral. That means respecting every individual’s freedom of religion. For the state to be gender neutral, that wouldn’t require all representative of the state to be genderless. Nor would the state being racially neutral require all representatives of the state to have no racial background.

— said by members of the Quebecois majority who are nonetheless perfectly fine with:

• Public Christmas tree displays.
• Christmas lights hung by private citizens outside their homes.
• Easter egg hunts for kids organized by the city.
• Every store, from Dollarama to Wal-Mart, stocking aisles full of Christmas, Halloween, Easter, etc. decorations.
• Paid statutory holidays on Christmas and Easter (but not, y’know, on Rosh Hashanah or Eid or Diwali or…).
• Kids dressing up and going trick-or-treating on Halloween.
• A giant cross on the top of Mount Royal.
• Company “holiday” parties that are Christmas themed.
• Ugly Christmas sweater contests at schools or workplaces.
• The cross hanging in the National Assembly.

“It’s a fundamental democratic principle. Quebec must remain a welcoming and inclusive society where all are invited to the table — a place where we judge humans for what they have in their heads, not on their heads, and for what they bring us in their hearts.”

M. Couillard, I was never your biggest fan. But you wrapped up your political career with class and dignity. And your plea for minority rights needs to be heard urgently by all Quebecers.

But when asked by reporters about the notwithstanding clause and his immigration policy, he didn’t back down. 

“I think that the vast majority of Quebecers, they would like to have a framework where people in an authority position must not wear a religious sign,” Legault said.

Political leaders generally have been reluctant to use the notwithstanding clause, which is viewed by many as politically perilous.

Let me break it down for people who are still wondering about this religious symbols thing: The state being neutral on religion doesn’t require every PERSON in the state to be religiously neutral, any more than the state being neutral on gender requires people working for the state to cut off their genitals.

But if this includes you, I urge you to read their platform first before you cast your ballot. Here are just a few things that they stand for, which you may not even realize:

1. Sovereignty. Yep, hardline, hardcore Quebec separatism. Even harder-line than the PQ these days. And sure, you can always be that person who says “I’ll just vote for the party now and vote no if there’s a referendum”. But galvanizing momentum towards a referendum is dangerous — if you haven’t lived through October 1995, maybe you don’t remember how much. Not to mention, how much do you trust the judgment of a supposedly post-colonial, forward-thinking party that believes separatism is necessary to achieve its global aims?

2. Slashing doctor salaries. By a lot. Because in Quebec Solidaire’s book, doctors make good money and therefore they’re the bad guys. Never mind that their income isn’t just their salary, but their entire business income for their practice — out of which they must pay staff, rent, heat, administrative costs, you name it. Never mind that they study for years longer than other professions, incurring debt in the process. And never mind that slashing their salaries dramatically would make them leave Quebec in droves, worsening our doctor shortage. After all, who needs doctors anyway when you can have CLSCs, right, Mme Masse?

3. Massive tax hikes for the “wealthy” (anyone making over $100k/year) and corporations. And I do mean massive; they want to make them “pay their fair share” in order to fund the utopian ideals of universal free everything for everyone. Because they clearly don’t seem to understand that we already have a progressive tax system where the wealthy pay the most, and that the wealthy and corporations are the most mobile and able (and, if QS wins, motivated) to relocate elsewhere, taking their tax dollars and jobs with them. This isn’t Soviet Russia; people are free to cross provincial borders. And they will. Far from being able to afford everything, QS’s plan would bankrupt Quebec, leading to us being able to afford nothing.

4. Forced francisation laws for businesses with at least 10 employees (up from the current threshold of 50). This would effectively mean most SMBs would be forced to apply the Charte de la Langue française at work, leading to mountains of paperwork, and causing hundreds or even thousands of companies to relocate to Ontario or elsewhere.

5. Scrapping Uber (and AirBNB) in order to, respectively, appease the taxi lobby and eliminate “illegal” hotels. Not regulate them, but entirely scrap them.

That’s just to name a few. But please, read what you’re voting for and seriously consider whether it makes sense before you cast your ballot.

I’m equally cynical and fearful of what tomorrow’s election results will bring. I cynically sense it will be nothing good, and I’m worried for the people and groups who will be most hurt by the fallout. And I’m fed up by people who don’t bother voting because they know that their privilege will protect them from the consequences of whatever happens.

Vote, and vote smart. Vote strategically. And vote compassionately.

Yes, sometimes that means holding your nose and voting for the least-worst option. That’s the reality of first-past-the-post, alas. But it’s better than the cold consolation of realizing your protest vote — or your refusal to vote — helped elect the option you despise the most.

Oprah Winfrey delivered a good speech at the Golden Globes last night, leading to much speculation that she’s considering a run for President in 2020.

But don’t delude yourself into thinking that she’s the answer to America’s problems. Consider:

1. The answer to one rich media celebrity with no political experience is not another rich media celebrity with no political experience.
2. She’s a promoter of pseudoscience, woo, and she singlehandedly subjected the world to the likes of Dr. Phil, Jenny McCarthy’s anti-vax movement, and Dr. Oz.
3. Her new-age schtick works fine on TV but has no place in government. Telling people to just believe in themselves and all their problems will be solved? There’s a ton of “let them eat cake” in that.
4. For critics of Fake News and Alternative Facts, I have 4 words for you: “A Million Little Pieces.” Google it if you don’t remember.
5. Yes, she would be better than Trump. But that’s a low bar to set. Literally ANYONE would be better than Trump. Heck, Kim Jong-effin’-un would be better than Trump.

I’m reminded of a quote from the 1995 film The American President:

“People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they’ll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They’re so thirsty for it they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s no water, they’ll drink the sand.”

The Democratic Party has some soul-searching to do on how it can move forward with new, dynamic leaders of tomorrow who can connect with the electorate. It’s been too hung up on the mistakes of the past since 2016, and there are few promising candidates waiting in the wings.

And don’t get me wrong, I think a lot of people LOVE the idea of a successful African-American woman beating Trump and shutting down all the racist, misogynist haters out there who would tell Democrats that it’s too risky to run any candidate who’s not a white male in 2020.

But, sorry to rain on your parade, folks, but Oprah’s not the answer. She should stick to her entertainment empire. Politics is enough of a reality TV show as it is.

This time last year, I wondered whether we were a little too eager to leap from the frying pan into the fire. One year later, I can say unequivocally: I was right.

Even just a short list of what’s happened in the USA the past 12 months is far more frightening than anything that we could have imagined in our worst dystopian nightmares. From Russian collusion, to neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville, to Muslim immigration bans, to a tax bill that will make the rich richer and everyone else poorer, to Puerto Rico still underwater months after Hurricane Maria, any short list of lowlights is just bad news following worse news. And that’s to say nothing of how we’re all cringing every time Donald Trump accesses Twitter to wonder if today is the day he’ll launch World War III.

What will 2018 bring in the US?

There are those who see signs that the year ahead will be better. Roy Moore lost in Alabama, after all. Surely that means the Left is mobilizing and is getting ready to take down Trump and the GOP in the midterms? Right?

Wrong.

Let’s consider the unique circumstances: The Republicans ran basically the worst human being ever (after Trump, perhaps) — a racist detached piece of megalomaniac scum who is also an alleged child molester — in what they thought was a safe state. And he still got almost half the votes. He only lost because African-Americans and minorities — who generally vote in much smaller numbers, in no small part because of a concerted effort to suppress their votes — turned out in big numbers to vote against him.

It’s an entirely different story in the 2018 midterms. The electoral math is staggeringly terrible for the Democrats in both the Senate — where they’re defending 25 seats to the GOP’s 8 — and the gerrymandered-beyond-redemption House of Representatives. No matter how bad Trump’s approval numbers are, it seems like an act of divine intervention would be needed for the Democrats to win back even one, let alone both, houses.

And scariest of all, Trump may actually get more powerful in 2018, as he appoints more judges to stack the courts in his favour. The one saving grace in 2017 is that many of Trump’s most egregious acts were blocked by the courts. But the President appoints judges, so this was a temporary stopgap measure at best. As more and more judges are appointed to the appeals courts by Trump, even that last-ditch safeguard will fall by the wayside.

I’m reminded of the old Yiddish folk tale: “It could always be worse“.

What about closer to home?

Here in Canada, things are a little less awful. Justin Trudeau may not be entirely living up to the high hopes that the Left had for him. But let’s face it: next to the likes of Trump, Theresa May, or most of the rest of the world’s leaders (democratic or otherwise), he’s still a breath of fresh air. He’s broken some promises and waffled on others, sure. But despite his penchant for selfies and occasional faux pas, I believe he’s still fundamentally a decent human being.

Meanwhile, Montreal has a shiny new female mayor in Valerie Plante, who so far has reversed the pit bull ban and cancelled the Formula E race. So what if she’s failed to defend diversity convincingly, and her more outlandish ideas, like the metro’s pink line, will never get built? At least the stakes here are refreshingly low. Montreal will go into its 376th year with just as many potholes as ever. Plus ça change.

More worrisome is our provincial political scene. 2018 is an election year, and the right-wing CAQ is riding high in the polls. There’s a lot of time between now and October, to be sure. But the prospects look bleak: The Liberals have alienated everyone with their overly zealous austerity measures, corrupt spending, and ill-conceived face-covering ban of Bill 62, just to name a few. Couillard’s approval rating is hovering around the 32% mark, which is worse than Trump’s! Both the PQ and the CAQ are determined to play the xenophobia card to win the racist vote. There’s no good alternative for anglos, minorities, or anyone with a fundamental sense of decency. Our province, already plagued with racial tension and divisive politics, is liable to get worse.

On a personal note

All things considered, my personal 2017 wasn’t all that bad.

I shared good times with friends and loved ones. I welcomed two new baby cousins to the world. I tasted good food, good chocolate, good beer. I had a pretty good year career-wise, working with a fantastic team of wonderful, smart people, one of the few lucky enough to actually make a living at something I enjoy. I live in a city I love with my whole heart. These things can’t be underestimated, and I’m grateful.

I travelled a fair bit: Ottawa, New York, Toronto, Vancouver, Portland. In the spring, I visited two new countries — Peru and Bolivia — and ticked off another one of the Seven Wonders from my bucket list. My itchy feet are always seeking out the next adventure.

Like most people, I’ve tried to do what I can in whatever limited capacity I had in order to fight to make things better: Marches, vigils, protests. It never seems like enough. But every time we show up to be counted, to say not in my name, it’s something, at least.

The point is, I’m lucky. And I’m grateful. Like most people this year, I have tried to balance my need to be informed with my need to stay sane. That means I’ve curled up in a cocoon a bit, away from the news, in order to regain my balance. It means I’ve spent time disconnected from the ever-pervasive Internet and its seemingly endless horror stories. Time with friends, time on the ski hill or hiking or biking, time in front of a fireplace with a good book. Balance is a tricky thing, especially when it’s layered with so much guilt. But self-care is important: You can’t help anyone else until you put your oxygen mask on yourself first, right?

What lies ahead?

There’s reason to hope that 2018 won’t be the end of all things. We humans have lived through much worse before, and we’re survivors.

If travel has taught me anything, it’s that despite the politicians and the power-mongers, most people in the world are fundamentally good and decent. If we keep remembering to look out for one another, to help those in need, and to hold onto our humanity, we will get through even this.

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in

– Leonard Cohen

Mexican authorities said at least 32 people were killed in the quake, all in the southern states. In Oaxaca, which lies along the Pacific coast, there have been at least 23 deaths, according to the state governor, Alejandro Murat. Some 17 of the dead were found in the town of Juchitan, where residents put out pleas on social media for help recovering people from the wreckage.

Mexican authorities said at least 32 people were confirmed dead, including many in the state of Oaxaca along the Pacific coast. In some towns, such as Juchitlan in Oaxaca, there were reports of people trapped under rubble.

I travelled through some of those parts of Oaxaca and Chiapas a few years ago, which just makes it even more devastating in my mind.

Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods… Mother Nature is angry this month.

But… even an accusation of assault can ruin someone’s life. And sacrificing due process on an altar of doing the right thing isn’t the answer, either.

On too many campuses, a new attitude about due process—and the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty—has taken hold, one that echoes the infamous logic of Edwin Meese, who served in the Reagan administration as attorney general, in his argument against the Miranda warning. “The thing is,” Meese said, “you don’t have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That’s contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.”

Let me be clear: In the overwhelming majority of cases of campus sexual assault, the problem is that the victim is dismissed, disparaged or just plain not believed. Far, far, far too many assailants still get off scot-free or with a slap on the wrist. This is especially (though not exclusively) true when the assailant is a white male and/or the victim is a female person of colour.

New paint on the sidewalk on both the northbound and southbound sides indicates that both cyclists and pedestrians are permitted to use it.

[ . . . ]

The southbound side of Atwater Avenue is of particular concern, because cyclists going down the steep hill can gain speed quickly.

[ . . . ]

The city says the new design is part of its strategy to make underpasses safer for cyclists.

The same thing has been done at other problem spots.

Officials say there is no room for a dedicated bike lane on Atwater Avenue — but Sauvé disagrees.

Agreed. I cycle down Atwater every day on my way to work, and I’d NEVER feel safe going down that hill on the sidewalk, no matter what the painted lines say.

Vélo Québec: We desperately need a proper separated bike path linking the De Maisonneuve path, Atwater Market, and the Lachine Canal bike path. That entire stretch is needlessly dangerous. At present, there’s no good way to navigate past the taxi stand near Place Alexis-Nihon, the poor visibility through the tunnel, the Lionel-Groulx metro station (with buses pulling in and out), the Atwater turnoff for the tunnel, and the pedestrian-only zones near the canal.

The whole area isn’t well thought out for cyclists at the moment. And there’s PLENTY of space for a bike lane, if only the city had the political will to build one.

Barack Obama broke his silence that he’s mostly maintained since Trump took office, by speaking out in defence of DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or “DREAM” act:

Let’s be clear: the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question. Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us. They are that pitcher on our kid’s softball team, that first responder who helps out his community after a disaster, that cadet in ROTC who wants nothing more than to wear the uniform of the country that gave him a chance. Kicking them out won’t lower the unemployment rate, or lighten anyone’s taxes, or raise anybody’s wages.

It is precisely because this action is contrary to our spirit, and to common sense, that business leaders, faith leaders, economists, and Americans of all political stripes called on the administration not to do what it did today. And now that the White House has shifted its responsibility for these young people to Congress, it’s up to Members of Congress to protect these young people and our future. I’m heartened by those who’ve suggested that they should. And I join my voice with the majority of Americans who hope they step up and do it with a sense of moral urgency that matches the urgency these young people feel.

Ultimately, this is about basic decency. This is about whether we are a people who kick hopeful young strivers out of America, or whether we treat them the way we’d want our own kids to be treated. It’s about who we are as a people – and who we want to be.

Somewhere, there’s an alternate universe in which Obama is still POTUS. No mass deportations of immigrants, travel bans, transgender military bans, Nazis marching in the streets, “fake news” diatribes, or being one tweet away from nuclear war. Just a president who could speak in eloquent, complete sentences and do his job like a goddamn statesman.

Nostalgia. It almost physically hurts.

Bill 62, the so-called anti-niqab bill, is being touted by the Liberals as a “compromise” that will allow for “social peace” — just a code word for a majority curtailing the rights of minorities … because any visual evidence of people different from them offends their fragile sensibilities so much that they can’t possibly survive. Or something. It’s akin to suggesting that the way to stamp out sexual assault is by telling women not to wear short skirts. It blames the victim of racism instead of the perpetrator. It assumes that the rights of a majority to not see something that offends them is more important than the rights of a minority to dress or practice their religion as they choose.

And, worst of all, Couillard’s approach is actually the most moderate of the three major parties, with both the PQ and the CAQ calling for even more stringent restrictions on religious headgear. It’s as if we’ve learned nothing from the mosque shooting in Quebec City earlier this year, from the Charter of Values debacle, or from what’s currently happening in the US and elsewhere.

Don Macpherson gets it exactly right in this case:

Bill 62 stigmatizes the tiny number of Muslim women in Quebec who wear facial veils. It encourages their persecution, like the harassment of women wearing Muslim head scarves during the debate on the former Parti Québécois government’s ill-fated “charter of values.”

It would enshrine in legislation the hypocrisy of Quebec’s “Catho-laïcité,” or Catho-secularism. One of Vallée’s amendments pretends that Quebec’s public institutions are founded on the separation of church and state, while the bill would preserve the crucifix placed in the Assembly to symbolize an alliance between the two.

The government pretends that the ban on face coverings in general does not discriminate on religious grounds. But its intent is given away by the fact that the ban is contained in a bill to restrict religious accommodations.

It’s a nasty little secret of politics that targeting vulnerable minorities gets candidates elected. Sadly that isn’t so much of a secret anymore, in the era of Trump. But we have our own demons to grapple with here.

It’s telling that so many quasi-Liberal, left-leaning people in Quebec support this nonsense. They believe, falsely, that because forced religion is bad, the answer to it is forced secularism. They want to hide any visual evidence of differences, in order to protect their “patrimoine”, or perceived superiority over everyone else. There’s honestly not much difference between the pro-laicite crowd and the neo-Nazis people marching in Charlottesville this week… except at least the latter are honest about their racist beliefs.

Bill 62 is a bad bill, scapegoating religious minorities in order to pacify racists. It should not become law. Call your MNA.

I’ve tried to think of something coherent to say about Charlottesville, and my rage just keeps getting in the way.

I’m a white person who benefits from structural racism every single day, and if I keep my mouth shut about it, I’m just perpetuating it.

I’m also a Jewish person who knows my history. When the shit hits the fan, time and time and time again, I know that we’ll be out there, first against the wall. The canary in the goddamn coal mine.

I can’t wrap my head around how people voted for the likes of Trump. I can’t wrap my head around how people keep defending him. And, most of all, I can’t wrap my head around how any of those people could possibly be Jewish.

How the HELL does any Jewish person — even one ignorant about the most basic facets of history — vote for someone who puts the likes of Steve Bannon in the White House? For someone who refuses to condemn Nazi white supremacist pond scum, because he’s too busy tweeting about Meryl Streep? For someone whose campaign stops were eerily reminiscent of Hitler Youth rallies? For someone who, like every bully in history, bolsters himself by targeting those people who are most vulnerable?

I’m not naive. We’re not immune in Canada. These pond scum racists exist here, too. The difference is that our current leaders doesn’t fan those flames. Trump does. He’s either a racist himself, or enough of a cynic to use racism to his benefit. It doesn’t much matter which. The effect is the same.

First they came for the Muslims. The Mexicans. The Haitians. The African Americans. The Native Americans. The trans people serving in the military. The climate scientists. The journalists. The judges.

And always, the Jews. We must never forget that, as much as we think we can hide behind white privilege and a feeling of relative comfort and security? But when push comes to shove, they’ll turn on us too. They already have.

#WeveSeenThisBefore. We know how it ends.

If you’re thinking, oh, it’ll all blow over? #WeveSeenThatBefore, too.

Time to get our collective heads out of the sand. Time to say enough. Time to say Never Again. And mean it. Because the stakes are too high.

Markov has spent his entire 16-year NHL career to date as a member of the Canadiens. Narrowly missing the 1,000-game milestone with 990 career games under his belt, the Russian rearguard sits sixth on the franchise’s all-time leaderboard for games played. He has also suited up for 89 postseason tilts during his time with the Habs.

Since making his NHL debut in 2000, Markov has racked up 572 regular-season points, including 119 goals. He finished his final Canadiens campaign tied with Hall-of-Famer Guy Lapointe for second place in team history for points by a defenseman, and is ranked third for goals from the back end.

Thanks for your years of playing your heart out for us, Andrei. You’ll be missed.

President Donald Trump said Wednesday morning that transgender people are not allowed to serve in the U.S. military.

A Pentagon directive under the administration of former President Barack Obama was going to allow transgender men and women to start serving in the military over the summer, according to the Military Times. The ban was lifted in June 2016.

Trump never served in the military and wouldn’t know honour if it hit him in the face. That could do this to the transgender Americans who have served for decades with honour and pride is, well, I want to say shocking. But alas, not much about Trump shocks me anymore.

This man is a disgrace to the office of President and to all humankind.

Former astronaut Julie Payette has been named Canada’s next Governor General, taking over from David Johnston in September. And of course, the internet is all abuzz, because a woman is doing a job that has clearly was made for a man… even though Payette is exceptionally qualified, will be the fourth woman to hold the post in Canada, and is representing the Queen (who, y’know, is also a woman).

Once again, The Beaverton nails it:

“It only took a master’s degree in engineering, knowing six languages, playing classical piano with the Montreal Symphony Orchestra, being a mother, and maneuvering a space shuttle payload into the International Space Station to convince the man that Payette has what it takes to be the Queen’s symbolic representative in Canada.”

(HT: Liesl, who has basically become one of my primary sources of content lately.)

If there is the barest sliver of consolation, it’s that Trump appears almost as miserable and anxiety-ridden as we are. He’s losing the tiny bit of control he had. It’s better for Trump to show us all who he really is than to let his lackeys pretend he’s remotely worthy of his office. Every time he tweets, he reveals his presidency as a disgusting farce. Let’s hope he keeps doing it.

Trump feeling emboldened to make these kinds of brazen statements? That’s not refreshing. That’s terrifying.

Society only works when people recognize that there are lines you don’t cross, things you don’t say out loud. It only works when people react in horror to these things, as they ought to.

There’s a LOT to criticize about Canada’s relationship with our First Nations, both past and present. So, two thoughts about this statement:

1. Words matter. Tone matters. On this, I will commend you for your words and for attempting to strike a real dialogue for perhaps the first time in Canadian history.

U.S. bond rating agency S&P Global has boosted Quebec’s credit rating to AA- – helping the province surpass neighbouring Ontario for the first time.

The agency says over the next couple of years it expects Quebec to keep its budget in the black and its debt ratios in decline thanks to strict cost controls, growing tax revenues and prudent fiscal policies.

Quebec Finance Minister Carlos Leitao tells The Canadian Press his province hasn’t reached this level with S&P, which was formally known as Standard and Poor’s, since 1993.

A little bit of political stability can go a long way, it seems.

But, leave it to Donald Trump to make that one more thing on the list of everything he is massively screwing up:

Trump said Cuba had secured far too many concessions from the U.S. but “now those days are over.”

Trump has ordered tighter restrictions on Americans travelling to Cuba and a clamp-down on U.S. business dealings with the Cuban military.

He said penalties on Cuba would remain in place until its government releases political prisoners, stops abusing dissidents and respects freedom of expression.

This makes me really sad on behalf of everyone affected.

I watched online and, for most of it, Obama was in fine form: Eloquent, respectful, inspiring. But then there was an odd section, late in the speech, about gender equality and advancing the cause of women. Which included this line:

“I did conclude at a certain point that if you just put women in charge of every country for just about two years, the world would make a huge leap forward and just be better off generally. And that’s why I do think you guys (women) are a little better.”

With all due respect to Barack Obama — and he deserves a lot of respect — that statement goes way too far.

It’s one thing to encourage more gender parity, and better representation for women and minorities in politics at all levels. On this we agree entirely.

Macron, 39, a former economy minister who ran as a “neither left nor right” independent promising to shake up the French political system, took 66% to Le Pen’s 34%.

His victory was hailed by his supporters as holding back a tide of populism after the Brexit vote and Donald Trump’s victory in the US election.

This also makes me wish our political systems in Canada and the US had run-offs. How many Harpers, Marois or Trumps could have been avoided this way?

For the first time since 1994, NHL players will not attend the Winter Olympics.

The league has released a statement saying it “considers the matter officially closed.”

The IOC confirmed to CBC Sports Monday that the NHL won’t be sending its players to Pyeongchang.

[ . . . ]

Connor McDavid said “100 per cent” that NHL players should go. The Edmonton Oilers captain, who wasn’t even born the last time NHL players didn’t attend in 1994, said he couldn’t envision the Olympics without the world’s top players.

“I just feel like we’re misrepresenting our sport on a pretty huge scale and a pretty huge level,” Jonathan Toews, a long-time ace for Team Canada, added. “A lot of the talk has been it’s the players pushing for it, and it’s the players that are interested and want to go. I think the players do want to go, but I think it should be of interest to the players and the league. I think the NHL should be in the Olympics.”

It’s no understatement that most Canadian Olympic fans care first and foremost about the hockey, to the point where we’d happily sacrifice medals in every other sport if it meant winning the men’s and women’s hockey gold. The players want to go. The fans want them to go. The owners don’t want to lose money from having a three-week break, which is all well and fine. But how much will they lose from fans tuning out in disgust?

This decision comes as a huge slap in the face to every hockey fan everywhere. This is a travesty.

We live in the age of the digital lynch mob, where our slightest missteps get magnified, stupid remarks snowball and ill-considered words live on in infamy. Potter is not the first to be scorched by the blowback from this vicious cycle.

[ . . . ]

The modern tools that are supposed to foster societal discussion have a tendency to drown out dissenting views and become echo chambers of outrage. It is regrettable there can no longer be criticism without consequences, that ideas can no longer be challenged without resulting in a chill effect.

I agree. I also thought Andrew Potter’s column was ill-researched, ill-advised and lame. But I don’t think he deserved to lose his job over it. Everyone — academics especially — should have freedom of speech, which includes the freedom to sometimes be wrong. And if you’re wrong, people can call you out for it. And you can admit you’re wrong and learn from it. That’s how we all get smarter. But to silence voices just because we don’t like what they say? That hurts all of us.

I’m not so concerned with Potter in particular. By most accounts, the guy is a jerk. But in what happens the next time a professor says something that people don’t like?

The “pile-on effect” is one of those unfortunate consequences of social media that is hard to keep in check.

The Globe and Mail’s #OpenMinds Series has some practical, common-sense solutions that should be implemented:

• Expanding access to publicly funded therapy
• Using technology to deliver therapy into the homes of Canadians
• Teaching the next generation about mental health
• Giving youth early access to good clinical care
• Providing affordable housing to those who need it
  

I agree with all of these. And I’d add a few:

1. Healthcare is under provincial jurisdiction. But the Federal government DOES have the power to amend the Canada Health Act to include mental health. (No doubt the provinces would push back about it being an unfunded mandate, but studies show that these solutions would actually *save* the government money in the long run.) Amending the Act would rightly recognize the importance of mental health and would pressure provincial governments to provide better access to care across the country.
2. Resources (funding, support groups, education) for caregivers are notably absent from this list. This is a big gap in our existing system. Being a caregiver is an enormous responsibility, and people with loved ones in their lives battling mental health problems need all the help they can get.
3. Many people are afraid to seek treatment for mental health problems because they fear losing their jobs if their health issues become known. Both employees and employers need more education about their existing rights. And where loopholes exist in the laws, these need to be amended to ensure that nobody ever has to worry about being fired due to mental illness.
4. We need to do a better job training police on how to deal with people with mental health issues. There are too many horror stories of people being killed, harmed, or shuffled into the criminal justice system when what they need is treatment, not enforcement.

According to the CAMH, mental illness costs the economy an estimated $51 billion per year, and affects an estimated 1 in 2 Canadians by age 40. Nearly 4000 Canadians commit suicide each year. There’s no doubt that we have a mental health crisis in this country. And it’s in our power to fix.

Let’s do better, Canada.

Chaffetz was articulating a commonly held belief that poverty in the United States is, by and large, the result of laziness, immorality and irresponsibility. If only people made better choices — if they worked harder, stayed in school, got married, didn’t have children they couldn’t afford, spent what money they had more wisely and saved more — then they wouldn’t be poor, or so the reasoning goes.

[ . . . ]

Since the invention of the mythic welfare queen in the 1960s, this has been the story we most reliably tell about why people are poor. Never mind that research from across the social sciences shows us, over and again, that it’s a lie. Never mind low wages or lack of jobs, the poor quality of too many schools, the dearth of marriageable males in poor black communities (thanks to a racialized criminal justice system and ongoing discrimination in the labor market), or the high cost of birth control and day care. Never mind the fact that the largest group of poor people in the United States are children. Never mind the grim reality that most American adults who are poor are not poor from lack of effort but despite it.

Conservatives believe in a meritocracy; people who get ahead do so because they “deserve” to, because they’ve worked hard and pulled themselves up by the proverbial bootstraps. The flip side to that is that poor people or the less successful are seen as also “deserving” of their failure, because they’re lazy, stupid, or otherwise unworthy.

Liberals tend to believe that success and failure are mostly based on factors completely outside of one’s control: Systematic and structural factors that set some people up with advantages that allow them to succeed despite themselves, and others with such insurmountable odds that it would take a miracle to defy them.

As usual, the real truth lies somewhere in between the two. A lot of our success or failure *is* structural and outside of our control. And our choices and actions do matter, but they’re not the only things that matter. I think so many people struggle with the notions of systematic discrimination and privilege simply because they don’t want to let go of feeling like they’re in control of their own lives. I get that. I really do. That doesn’t mean it’s okay to attack people for being poor, though.

Alain de Botton has a good TED talk about this, which is worth a watch if you have a few moments.

BCCLA has written a clear, easy-to-understand guide for Canadians about issues that are far from clear or easy to understand:

The first thing to remember if you’re a Canadian travelling to the United States is that you do not have a free-standing right to enter the US. Many Canadians have been crossing the Canada-US border regularly and without incident for years, but it’s important to remember that US officials have no obligation to let you into the country and can deny you entry for all sorts of reasons that may seem arbitrary and unfair.

[ . . . ]

Until another case comes along, we simply do not know whether the CBSA’s powers include compelling people to provide passwords (though we certainly know that CBSA acts as if they have this power), or whether it is constitutional to arrest someone for refusing (though we know that people have been arrested in these circumstances).

In short: We have very limited privacy at the border, even coming back into Canada. This is an issue that hasn’t been clearly decided by the courts yet. Until then, there are fuzzy guidelines, which may or may not offer some degree of protection. But, if in doubt, leave your devices at home.

And, memo to the federal government: We need to do better. Please address this through legislation, rather than waiting for it to end up in court.

The question is, what are we going to do about it?

Let’s look at history to see what has worked to successfully fight fascist / totalitarian regimes.

Option #1: War
Worked for: Germany, Italy and Japan circa WWII, among others.
Pros: Not many, but sometimes in history there hasn’t been much of a choice. The above examples did ultimately re-emerge as successful democracies.
Cons: Lots and lots of dead people. Plus, y’know, the US is the world’s biggest military superpower. There aren’t really any powers that could fight the US, even if they wanted to. And the only ones who could (Russia, China) mostly have worse political systems than the US does. Not to mention the pesky little problem of nuclear weapons.
Chances of success vs Trump: Virtually nil.

Option #2: Waiting for the leader to croak (of natural causes)
Worked for: Spain
Pros: Well, Trump *is* 70, and isn’t exactly in peak physical condition. Even if — as I fear — 2016 was the last real US election and Trump is positioning himself as dictator-for-life, statistically, how long could he really last? A decade? Maybe two? Once he’s gone, so is the demagogue-like power of his cult of personality.
Cons: Look at how much damage he’s done in a month. Just imagine where we’ll be in a decade. By then, will there be any pieces left of US democracy to even pick up?
Chances of success vs Trump: Ehhh, moderate. His supporters would probably claim that reports of his death were “fake news”.

Option #3: Voting out the leader
Worked for: Um…? Can’t think of any.
Pros: Technically the US *is* still a democracy. It’s only two years ’til the midterms, and four ’til the next general election. Peacefully voting out Trump would be a nicely nonviolent way to end the problems.
Cons: It’s highly unlikely the US will still be a real democracy by then. Already, so many people are being stripped of their right to vote that I’m sure there won’t be anything but a puppet election by then. (Dictators routinely get 95-99% of the vote… that’s how you know those elections are bogus.) Plus, the people who voted for Trump — and their hatred, racism and anger — aren’t going away. Scary as Trump is, there’s a whole party full of equally awful people in the GOP just waiting for their turn. President Palin? President Bachmann? President Bannon?
Chances of success vs Trump: Started off high, but getting slimmer by the day.

Option #4: Civil war
Worked for: The US, among others.
Pros: Avoids getting other countries involved in this mess. States hold a lot of power to counterbalance the federal government. Blue states like California and New York have a lot of money, power and influence. They could break off on their own, or, y’know, join Canada. Along with Vermont. We’d be happy to take Vermont. They have Ben & Jerry’s.
Cons: The federal government controls the army. And, again, those pesky nuclear weapons.
Chances of success vs Trump: Not very good.

Option #5: Nonviolent resistance
Worked for: Colonial countries achieving independence against empires, e.g. India, much of Africa, etc. Also the Civil Rights movement in the US.
Pros: There’s a huge progressive machine already in place fighting the good fight in the courts, at protests, in the media and on the streets. Americans have never taken shit lying down. Everyone from women to minorities to EPA scientists to librarians is picking up a picket sign.
Cons: Trump controls the courts (or will, once he appoints enough justices). He’s virtually discredited the media in about a month. The right to peaceful assembly is being legislated away as we speak. Mass roundups and deportations have already begun — so far of “illegal” immigrants, but first they came for the Communists and all that. At some point, peaceful resistance may not be enough.
Chances of success vs Trump: Probably the best of all the above options.

Have I missed anything?

Note: In case it wasn’t clear from the tone of this post, of course I’m not really advocating violence, and war is horrible. These are scary times, though.

In the clearest explanation for why nearly all of Trump’s cabinet choices are known mostly for despising and attacking the very Federal agencies they’ve been designated to lead, Bannon explained—in very clear language–that they weren’t appointed to lead these agencies, but to destroy them:

Atop Trump’s agenda, Bannon said, was the “deconstruction of the administrative state” — meaning a system of taxes, regulations and trade pacts that the president and his advisers believe stymie economic growth and infringe upon one’s sovereignty.

“If you look at these Cabinet nominees, they were selected for a reason, and that is deconstruction,” Bannon said. He posited that Trump’s announcement withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership was “one of the most pivotal moments in modern American history.”

I mean, it HAD to be true, right? But to actually admit it? You’re an antisemitic scumbag, Mr. Bannon, so maybe you don’t know the definition of the word “chutzpah”… but that’s pretty much it.

In 2008, Taylor, along with sociologist Gérard Bouchard, signed a report that called for a ban on religious symbols worn by public servants in positions of coercive authority — police, judges and prison guards.

Opposition parties quickly demanded the ban extend to teachers and daycare workers, “something we had not at all envisioned,” Taylor wrote in an open letter published Tuesday in La Presse.

He cited the controversy over the Parti Québécois’ 2013 Charter of Quebec Values as having created the “stigmatization” of certain sectors of Quebec society, particularly the province’s Muslim community, and blamed the controversy for attacks ranging from hateful comments to physical assault on Muslims wearing a veil.

Taylor said times have changed and he no longer endorses the recommendation.

Admitting that is the first step. But it will take more than an open letter to undo the damage. People still clinging to the idea that we need to find a “consensus” misunderstand that, in a democracy, minorities should never be compelled to conform to the tyranny of a majority.

Don’t like hijabs, kippahs or turbans? Fine, nobody’s forcing you to wear them. You are free to wear what you want and believe what you want. But stop telling other people what they can wear or what they can believe.

Bill 62 is bad legislation and must be scrapped.

A photo of two kids — a Muslim girl and Jewish boy — rallying for the same cause alongside their dads, warmed the hearts of audiences across social media.

Both children are pictured hoisted high above the crowd on their father’s shoulders, holding handmade signs. Seven-year-old Meryem looks across at Adin, 9, who is smiling back at her. Her father, Fatih Yildirim, is holding a sign saying “empathy.” Adin’s father, Rabbi Jordan Bendat-Appell, has a sign with a message about the past — “we’ve seen this before never again.”

For what it’s worth, I spotted a significant number of Jewish people at last night’s Montreal vigil to support the Muslim community in the wake of the Quebec City attack, too.

Just a few years ago, this sort of unity between our two communities would have been almost unheard-of. I think the turning point — as far as I can remember — came when we marched side by side to protest against the Charte des valeurs. Thus proving that when the issues are important enough, we can unite and find common ground.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t still big issues to tackle. But I think we’re all looking for nuggets of hope this week. This is one.

On the one hand: Not very classy of Bell Media to lay her off right after the 5-year anniversary party. I know there’s never a good timing for a layoff, but this was especially poorly timed, IMHO.

On the other hand — personal opinion here — Heather B. was a terrible morning host. I like and respect Terry DiMonte most of the time. He’s a pro. But Heather as his sidekick was just cringe-worthy. Most of the time she played into this stereotype of being a vapid airhead, which — if it was an act, was demeaning to all talented female broadcasters everywhere — and if it wasn’t an act, YEESH. Half the time, even Terry seemed to be trying to bite his tongue to avoid telling her off for some moronic comment or another. I have no idea how she got to the 5-year mark on the show in the first place. I had predicted she wouldn’t last 5 weeks. And CHOM made it worse by painting her as a ditzy idiot in station promos, an image she played into. Whether they thought that their demographic wanted to hear this (ew) or whether they’re really that tone deaf, I am not sure. But it was painful to listen to either way.

There are so many talented women in the radio biz, and most of them don’t get the opportunities they deserve. I’d like to see a female morning show co-host or even (wake up, Bell, it’s 2017) host in the future. But Heather just wasn’t it.

Best wishes to you, Heather. I hope it all works out for you. But I can’t say I’m too upset in terms of the impact this will have on my morning sanity. A little less yelling at my radio will be good for me.

We’ll know more about the suspect who was taken into custody soon enough. But this isn’t merely on the shooter. This is on all of us. We can do more — we MUST do more — to stop racism in its tracks.

Fellow Quebecers: We know this is not who we are. But just saying that isn’t enough. We must demonstrate it through our actions. These are our neighbours, our friends. We can’t claim to live in an open, welcoming and tolerant society and yet allow shit like this to happen. Standing idly by isn’t an option.

Fellow members of the Quebec Jewish Community: We’ve endured racist attacks against our own institutions, so we, above all, must act when our fellow citizens are facing the same sorts of threats. Let’s step up and prove that we oppose ALL racism, not only racism directed at our particular group.

To our MNAs, MPs and elected officials: Leadership sets the tone. Values charters, debates about head coverings, and debates on who exactly is a Quebecois all throw fuel on the fire. You, above all, have the responsibility to do better. Change the rhetoric.

It’s normal, I guess, to be contemplative and reflective on New Year’s Eve about the year that was. I think back on the optimism I felt this time last year. Justin Trudeau had just been elected in Canada, ushering in a promised era of “sunny days” ahead. We were riding a wave of goodwill and compassion. The weather was perfect. And I ushered in the year by watching the Habs win the Winter Classic. It felt like it would be a fantastic year.

But then… well, we all know what happened next.

From Trump to Brexit, from Ankara to Aleppo, from Putin to Erdogan to Duterte, it’s been a year of demagoguery and populism. A year of racism and hatred. A year of terror, turmoil, and the very real sense that the world is on the brink of something truly awful.

It was a year of many losses. David Bowie. Alan Rickman. Prince. Florence Henderson. John Glenn. Leonard Cohen. Greg Lake. Sharon Jones. Gene Wilder. Garry Marshall. Muhammad Ali. Patty Duke. René Angélil. Harper Lee. Glenn Frey. Alan Thicke. George Michael. Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds. Just to name a few.

It seems like most people around me would agree with John Oliver: “Fuck you, 2016!” Nobody seems particularly sad to close the book on this year and turn the page.

The end of an era?

But here’s the thing: Will 2017 really be better? I mean, how could it possibly?

With the countdown to Trump’s inauguration ticking away by the moment, it seems that the US is in for a rough ride. Women, minorities, the environment, science, compassion, human rights and democracy are all highly at risk. Meanwhile, Trump’s off-the-cuff foreign policy-by-tweet risks launching the entire planet into World War 3.

I fear that, as difficult a year as it’s been, 2016 might go down in history as the last year of a golden age. Will future generations look back on this as the last year before everything went to shit?

Good riddance, 2016

So this New Year’s Eve, I wonder: Why are we so anxious to leap out of the frying pan and into the fire?

Maybe we should be holding onto these moments as hard as we can. Maybe we should think about all the privileges and good things we still have. After all, we will probably need to fight like hell to defend them from the onslaught to come.

Personally, I feel lucky. Despite the year that was, I got to visit four new countries in 2016. I sampled fine wine, beer and chocolate. I saw Mount Everest, the Hagia Sophia, the Taj Mahal. I danced (okay, tried to dance) salsa in Cuba. I’ve been tremendously fortunate to have set foot in over 50 countries in my lifetime and to have seen and experienced so much of this amazing, beautiful, incredible planet of ours. I plan to keep on travelling as much as I can for as long as I can… before it’s too late.

I have family and friends who I love, a good job, a roof over my head, and the privilege of being in a position where I have the ability and resources to help others. I even have a new backup pair of glasses.

I don’t know what 2017 will bring. But these are the things I’m going to hold onto, come what may.

So, in that spirit, let’s wish 2016 a Billie Joe Armstrong-style Good Riddance: “I hope you had the time of your life.”

Pardon my swearing. But if there’s ever a day that requires the bluest of language, it’s today.

I went to sleep last night a little worried on your behalf, Americans, but not overly so. Clinton had consistently led in the polls. The electoral math seemed to be in her favour. I was concerned that Trump was closing the gap, but, like many of you, I never really thought he’d win. I figured, okay, Hillary Clinton would edge him out, she’d make a fine and decent president, and life would go on.

I woke up this morning to three things: A lovely home-cooked breakfast by Sophie, the owner of the B&B, approximately fifty unread messages in my inbox, and the sinking news that I’d been wrong. Very, very wrong.

Since then, I’ve basically had one long panic attack. I can’t concentrate on my trip. I can’t think past tomorrow.

At the moment, I’m at Schiphol Airport, waiting to board my flight to India. On the train on the way here, a couple of Americans sitting next to me started singing Leonard Cohen’s “Everybody Knows”. “Everybody knows that the dice are loaded / everybody rolls with their fingers crossed / everybody knows that the war is over / everybody knows that the good guys lost.” Quite apt for the end of the world, if you ask me. People around me at the gate are talking about nothing else. Even in Dutch, it’s easy enough to make out the reactions.

This is bad. Very, very bad.

I don’t have a lot of coherent thoughts gathered yet. They’re all swirling around my head — or, more accurately, churning around in my gut — so I fear the best I can do is to just share with you, stream-of-consciousness style, what’s in my head right now.

A victory for Trump; a defeat for democracy

The American democratic “experiment” now has an end date. RIP Lady Liberty: 1776-2016.

Americans are far from the only citizens of a democracy to voluntarily vote to end it. In all those cases, it’s gone extremely bad for the citizens.

The problem is, they have no idea what they just set in motion. Americans can’t know. They, like us Canadians but unlike most of the rest of the world, can’t contemplate the consequences here. They’ve never lived through anything like it before. But just ask the citizens of Russia, Turkey, the Philippines, Venezuela, Zimbabwe… I could go on here.

Voting for the strongman demagogue who PROMISES to jail his opponents, silence the media, purge the public service and bomb the shit out of anyone he wakes up and decides he doesn’t like? BAD idea. (Trump-ism: BAD. The WORST.)

How the HELL did you go from Barack Obama, the epitome of class and damn near  the best president you’ve ever had, to the Orange Nightmare?

First they came for the Jews..

Godwin’s Law is a double-edged sword. There have been so many ridiculous Nazi comparisons, that it’s like crying wolf. And the problem with the corollary to Godwin’s Law is that it shuts down legitimate comparisons. Because really, [insert politician you don’t like]-is-a-Nazi is a ridiculous claim to make, offensive and insulting to the victims of the Holocaust, and short-sighted… most of the time.

But there are too many chilling comparisons to 1933 here to avoid bringing them up. Like Trump, Hitler was a joke at first. Nobody took him seriously until it was too late. Like Trump, Hitler rose to power amidst anger and economic hard times, and on a platform of blaming an easy scapegoat of the “other” for everyone’s troubles. Like Trump, Hitler set out in chilling detail what he planned to do once he assumed power — namely, make Germany “great” again by rounding up minorities, invading neighbours and purging all opposition — and then he went ahead and did it.

A favourite trope in books and movies about time travel is to say, what if you could travel back in time and prevent Hitler from coming to power? Should you do it? Would altering the course of history that way have worse unintended consequences? As much as these sci-fi fictional scenarios grapple with those ethical dilemmas, I’ve long said that they missed the fucking point. The question’s not should you stop Hitler; the real question is could you. Because we’ve been shouting from the rooftops for months now as the Trump train was coming at us, and nobody listened. NOBODY. At least the people of Germany in 1933 didn’t have the benefit of hindsight when they voted. They didn’t know what could go wrong. What’s your fucking excuse, America?

How did this happen?

Isaac Azimov famously said, “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

That cult of ignorance wove fake scandals about Hillary Clinton to the point where Trump voters were convinced that she covered up UFO landings and stabbed babies for breakfast. The American voters didn’t come to a different conclusion on the same facts; they were starting from a whole different set of facts.

The narrative of the rural, uneducated, boorish, small-town Angry White Male voter was inadequate to capture what happened here. That might explain Trump getting a small percentage of votes. It doesn’t explain how he won the popular vote in states across the country.

There is just so much anger from so many people. That’s the only way I can fathom to explain this. The level of anger that it must take to deliberately choose the WORST POSSIBLE HUMAN as leader is just a giant ‘fuck you’ to the whole system. This is a burn-the-fields, if-I-can’t-have-her-noone-can blind rage by people who just want to watch the whole world burn.

The #NeverHillary crowd must be so proud of themselves right now. Feeling smug for casting a vote for Jill Stein, a write-in for Bernie Sanders, or simply staying home and refusing to take part now? Congratulations. Your stand for your principles helped create this nightmare.

For that matter, Bernie Sanders himself deserves a lot of the blame for this. Many of the Trump campaign themes, like Hillary’s ties to Wall Street, her email scandal, and the idea of “rigged” voting, were created and perpetuated by the Sanders team. All Trump had to do was to pick up the baton. Sanders did eventually halfheartedly urge his supporters to vote for Clinton, but it was too little, too late by then.

One thing is for sure: Polling as we know it is dead. The pollsters couldn’t see this coming. Their models were all based on what usually happens in politics. There was nothing usual about Donald Trump. Any one of the thousands of things he said in the campaign should have been enough to end anyone else’s candidacy; they only made his numbers rise. The pollsters had no idea what to do with this.

Don’t feed the trolls

The first rule of social media? Even the most junior community manager knows it: DON’T FEED THE TROLLS.

Well, congratulations, American media. You did it. You fed the ultimate troll. Donald Trump is basically the Youtube comments section come to life. He says outrageous, insulting, ridiculous things for attention. He keeps getting attention. He keeps saying more of them. And now he’s — god help us — the leader of the (formerly) free world.

The media bears a fair amount of responsibility here. Social media, like Facebook, bears a lot too; the echo chambers and clickbait editorial style used on these platforms has helped create these divisions and a world where people would rather be ignorant than be informed.

Trump is a politician a la Rob Ford; people kept tuning in because he was such a train wreck that they couldn’t resist seeing what he would do next. And every time people tuned in, his ratings went up. The problem is, this isn’t a TV show. This is real life.

No outs, no reprieves, no do-overs

The UK messed up bigtime earlier this year with Brexit. They regretted it instantly. But there were no takebacks. Did you learn nothing from them, Americans?

Actually, I take that back: At least in the UK, as bad as things are, the referendum on Brexit was technically non-binding. And it’s unclear what the government will do next. There’s still a chance (albeit not a very big one) of a last-minute reprieve there. For the US? Nada, zilch, zero. This is your vote. There’s nothing but a steady march to the handover of power in January.

It’s 2016. We have hoverboards, self-lacing shoes, the Cubs won the World Series… and Biff is going to be president. Holy shit, we’re in Back To The Future! Sadly, there’s no Doc Brown or Marty McFly to go back in time and set things right.

This is real life. There are no do-overs.

A defeat for women, minorities, everyone

We don’t need feminism anymore, some would argue? Well, here’s exhibit A. Have no doubt, a good part of the reason Clinton lost is that she’s a woman. So much of the vitriol directed against her — people calling her a “bitch”, people hating her for staying with her husband when he had an affair (while forgiving him for having the affair in the first place), people blaming her for smiling too much / not enough / being too tough / being too soft… and then turning around and electing the most misogynistic asshole to ever run for office? How could it not be gender related?

Consider this: The most qualified woman in the country just lost out on the highest job in the land to perhaps the least qualified man in history. Apparently there’s no amount of experience or know-how that is enough to compensate for the lack of having a penis in America.

And Trump will be a Republican president, with a Republican-controlled House and (likely) a Republican-controlled Senate. There will be almost nothing he can’t do: Appointing Supreme Court justices at will, repealing Obamacare, and reversing the last 50 years’ worth of human rights gains are only the start.

As usual, the people who are the most vulnerable will suffer the most.

The Cold War is over; Russia won

Everyone in Amsterdam today is talking about Vladimir Putin. And with good reason. He had his hands all over this election.

The entire free world lost out yesterday. Russia is perhaps the only winner. He has his puppet Trump in the White House now. This is bad in so, so many ways.

Canada’s screwed, too

We couldn’t vote in this one, but we sure as heck will have to live with the consequences. 75% of us live within 100 miles of the US border. The US is by far our largest trading partner and economic influence. We share the world’s longest undefended border, and we rely on our warm friendship with the US for security and defence. Most of the things we enjoy as Canadians — good quality of life, openness, free healthcare — are made possible by our solid relationship with the United States.

To my American friends looking for information on moving to Canada — no, not jokingly — I can refer you to here, for starters. (Apparently the immigration sites are going down due to a spike in traffic this morning.) It’s difficult but not impossible; it helps to have a job offer from a Canadian company willing to sponsor you for a visa — or a Canadian spouse.

But I stress this — Canada is not the safe haven from Trump that you think it is. Our jobs, our security, our livelihood are at risk. We’re under threat from Russia now, too, even moreso if the US can’t meaningfully defend us through deterrence. And if Trump — heaven forbid — launches World War III, we’re in close proximity when the shit hits the fan.

Don’t get me wrong: I’ve never felt so lucky to be a Canadian as I do today. But I’m not naive enough to think that we’ll escape this unscathed. Nobody will. The US just has too much influence on the rest of the world.

Get out now

Whether or not fleeing to Canada is a realistic option, I do worry for you.

This is a nighmare from which we cannot wake up. I know some people will call me alarmist. But history has proven again and again that it’s better to be a little alarmist than a lot sorry.

Again, going back to Germany in the 1930s, the common refrain was “oh, it will blow over” and “democracy is too strong here” and “he’ll never actually do the crazy things he says he’ll do.”

If you don’t grant me that comparison, then at least look at what’s happened in the world since. Look at modern-day examples if you don’t believe me.

So, if you’re female, a minority, or a sane human, and you have the chance, I don’t think I’m being overly dramatic when I say, get out now. If you can. You have until January. Start looking into options now.

Note: This post has been cross-posted from my India travel blog.

My street in the Plateau Mont-Royal is being dug up again.

It’s the fifth time that this particular intersection has been dug up in the past three years. Or maybe it’s the sixth. In all honesty, I’ve lost count. The area has been under construction so constantly since I moved there in 2011 that I’ve taken it as the default for the area. Residents have gotten fed up, with endless road closures, random power and water shutoffs with no warning, and constant noise and dust from the ongoing construction. With all this construction, not once have I or other residents ever received any kind of notice.

Local businesses have closed in droves. My neighbourhood is a shell of its former self. Each time the road is filled back in and the construction crews remove the barriers and orange cones and clear out, I don’t even dare to hope that it’s really, truly, over. By now, I know better.

This time, it’s the installation of traffic lights — ostensibly a precursor to turning my street into a “velorue” — a pilot project that even the Projet Montreal borough government who invented the idea doesn’t seem quite clear on. (Despite being pressed repeatedly on the concept by the media and local residents, all Luc Ferrandez and his councilors will say on the subject is that it will be some sort of cycling paradise, but they remain stubbornly unable to provide any practical details on how exactly they will work. It’s like the Donald Trump version of city planning: We don’t know what it is, but it will be “good, great, the greatest, uuuuuuge.” I’m a cyclist and I am generally in favour of pro-cycling infrastructure projects, but this idea just seems so ill-conceived and poorly thought out that I can’t bring myself to get on board. But I digress.)

Anyway, back to the traffic lights. This begs the question of why they couldn’t installed the last time the road was dug up to widen the sidewalks. Or the time before that, to fix the broken water main. Or the time before that, to replace the pipes. Or the time before that, to tear down an abandoned building and put up condos. Or the time before that, to … well, who even remembers anymore? And so on, and so forth.

So this morning, I was leaving for work, trying to navigate around the construction as usual. Today was worse than usual, since even the pedestrian access was cut off. The construction worker out front of my apartment suggested that I ‘detour’ completely in the opposite direction of where I was going — doubling my 10-minute walk to a 20-minute walk.

The conversation went something like this (paraphrased and loosely translated from French):

Me: “Can I get through?”
Him: “By car?”
Me: “No, on foot.”
Him: “No, it’s blocked off. You will need to go around.”
Me: “Do you know when this will be done?”
Him: “We’re installing traffic lights. There weren’t any here before.”
Me: “Yes, I know. Any idea why they couldn’t have been installed the last time the intersection was dug up? This is the fifth or sixth time in the past three years, at least.”
Him: “We don’t have any visibility into those other projects. We only deal with traffic lights. There’s no coordination between departments, madame.”
Me: “Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it?”

And that, in a nutshell, sums up everything that’s wrong with the way we do construction in Montreal. The city doesn’t talk to the borough. The borough doesn’t talk to the city. The water department doesn’t talk to the electrical department, which doesn’t talk to the road paving department, which doesn’t talk to the pothole fixing department, which doesn’t talk to the traffic light department.

In one particularly egregious example, a city beautification crew came through and planted flowers along the median in the morning, only to have all their work dug up by another city crew in preparation for roadwork that very same afternoon. I’m not making this up. I wish I were.

Montreal has become so known for its endless construction, in fact, that Josh Freed has (semi-jokingly) proposed that we make the orange cone the official city symbol. At least one retailer, Main and Local, has taken him up on the idea.

The usual excuses all take the same form: Montreal is an old city with ageing infrastructure in urgent need of repair. Years of neglect have caused us to fall behind on these repairs, and we have to spend a lot of money making up for it. And yet, much older cities seem to manage just fine with far fewer construction nightmares. I’m sure most of Europe would laugh at the idea that Montreal is an “old” city. And yet, they manage to maintain and repair their centuries-old infrastructure with a minimum of headaches.

No, the problem isn’t one of age, it’s one of management. Namely, those four little words: “It’s not my job.”

Look, with a little bit of planning, we could blitz construction projects each year. Start one tenth the number of projects at a time, put crews on them to run them efficiently, manage the power and water and bike lanes and traffic lights and paving all together, finish them up within a couple of weeks, and move on to the next. There’s absolutely no reason whatsoever to launch hundreds of construction sites simultaneously, and close every single autoroute, road, bridge, sidewalk and intersection at the same time and allow those projects to drag on for months and years.

No other city in the world does construction this way. They all think we’re insane.

Conspiracy theories abound as to why it happens this way in Montreal. The construction industry is controlled at least in part by organized crime. The construction companies are colluding. The politicians are taking kickbacks. And so on, and so forth. Most of those things are true, at least to some degree — just read the transcripts of the Charbonneau Commission if you’re not convinced. And there’s no easy way to stamp that out overnight.

But I’m also a proponent of the theory that you should never attribute to malice what can be chalked up to mere incompetence. And let’s face it: The level of incompetence in how construction is planned in this city is staggering.

Mayor Denis Coderre doesn’t seem too inclined to do anything about it, either. He flits around the city taking selfies and planning big vanity projects for Montreal’s 375th anniversary. Meanwhile, the official opposition Projet Montreal seems more concerned with punishing car owners and local businesses by closing more roads, adding more construction projects, and making it harder for anyone to live or work or visit the city — and the complains when businesses move out to suburban multiplexes like Dix-30.

And so, the orange cones aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. This problem affects all of us.

But when it comes to fixing it? “It’s not my job.”

Meanwhile in Quebec, the new PQ leader is none other than Jean-François Lisée:

I admit I’m actually a bit surprised that he won. He’s too intellectual, too mild-mannered, too unpopular with the PQ elite, too cautious for the hard-liners, too last-generation for the progressive youth.

But I admit that, as someone opposed to most of what the PQ stands for and in particular disgusted by the identity politics game that they have been playing over the past few years, I have a weird sort of respect for Lisée. It’s the sort of respect you give to a political opponent, sure. But it’s the kind of respect I was able to have for a Lucien Bouchard but not for a Pauline Marois, a Bernard Drainville or a Pierre-Karl Péladeau.

Raise your hand if you’re surprised. Hand up? You clearly haven’t been paying attention anytime this past, oh, say, decade.

Everyone from both parties is rushing to condemn Trump’s comments and distance themselves from him, and the media and political pundits are speculating that this might finally cost him the election once and for all. Some are even going so far as to speculate that he might withdraw from the race.

But here’s my cynical prediction: Trump’s campaign will get a boost from this.

His supporters will excuse it as “locker room talk” and decry the “overly politically correct elite” for expressing disgust. Trump has given his supporters license to express the most vile racist and misogynist thoughts in the recesses of their mind, and this is no different. Trump won’t apologize, not really. He’ll “apologize” (wink wink) while allowing Clinton to once again be seen as the spoilsport and disapproving schoolmarm. And he’ll pick up votes from people who secretly hate woman and believe that sexual assault is a man’s god-given right and that calling it a crime is an invention of feminists.

And one only has to look at how middle America (read: middle-aged white guys) feels victimized and put upon for no longer being able to freely express all the politically incorrect opinions they secretly hold. I mean, just look at All Lives Matter, Gamergate, and the Men’s Rights movement for examples. Racist, sexist white guys resent it when you point out that their views are racist and sexist. And they love Trump for giving voice to their anger and resentment.

Uzbekistan’s veteran dictator, Islam Karimov, has died, leaving central Asia’s most populous country in a state of turmoil and political uncertainty.

[ . . . ]

There were few official clues as to how Uzbekistan’s new leader may be picked. All week the state media has refused to comment on rumours that Karimov – who had been in hospital since Sunday – had suffered a brain haemorrhage. His daughter Lola broke the news on Instagram.

Karimov has been in power for 27 years, and is “officially” loved by his entire population (because who could say otherwise in a regime with no free speech?) but I suspect also has many legitimate fans.

Weirdly enough, I flew out of Tashkent almost a year ago today. Last year, I left just as Uzbekistan was preparing to shut down for its annual National Day celebrations. This year, the celebrations were skipped by most senior officials due to Karimov’s illness.

Given the strategic importance of its location — and the degree of messed-up-ness of many of its neighbours — instability or a power vacuum could be really, really messy. Uzbekistan has managed to fend off Russia, China, Turkey, AND radical Islamism of the form that ISIL and the like are trying to spread. All of them, plus a few other players, might view a period of uncertainty as an opportunity to pounce.

It’s hard to know what will happen next. But I send best wishes to my friends in Uzbekistan.

Apparently, I’m not the only one: This census reportedly had a 98% response rate, higher than the last two censuses. In fact, so many people were excited that the mandatory long-form census, along with evidence-based decision making is back, that they crashed the StatCan website within hours of its release.

Which is why I was so taken aback when a census enumerator rang my buzzer a few weeks later. I wasn’t just flustered that somehow they may have lost my response, but I was actively embarrassed that anyone might think of me as anything less than enthusiastic about completing it.

Turns out they were mistakenly looking for someone living in (nonexistent) apartment 7A. I live in apartment 7. I felt much better once we cleared that up.

There are reports of troops being deployed to the streets of Ankara and Istanbul. The prime minister says a group within the military is trying to stage a coup.

Update: Vox tries to explain the situation in Turkey:

I hope that the coup will fail. Assuming that is what happens, it will clear the way for total domination of Turkish politics by Erdogan. It will make it easier for him to make the constitutional changes he wants to make himself essentially the one and only politician deciding everything in the country.

Either way, the chances for democracy have receded even further.

Update #2: The coup does indeed appear to have failed. And, as predicted, Erdogan is using it as an excuse to consolidate power and purge political dissidence. A state of emergency has been declared for 3 months, and so far, over 10,000 people have been rounded up and over 20,000 teachers and university professors have been fired. And there are fears that this is only the tip of the iceberg:

The president did not announce details, but the security measure could facilitate longer detentions for many of the nearly 10,000 people who have been rounded up since loyalist security forces and protesters quashed the rebellion that started Friday night and was over by Saturday.

[ . . . ]

“As the commander in chief, I will also attend to it so that all the viruses within the armed forces will be cleansed,” Erdogan said.

[ . . . ]

Rights group Amnesty International says the crackdown has extended to censoring media and journalists, including those critical of the government.

People living in democracies rarely believe that their political institutions are so fragile to the whims of an autocratic demagogue. But Erdogan, following in the footsteps of Putin, Chavez and so many others, is proving that democracy is indeed incredibly fragile. Even in Turkey, for a long time considered a stronghold of secular democracy in the middle east and a bridge to Europe. Not so much anymore, it looks like.

This is going to get worse before it gets better.

Bettman said the NHL board of governors unanimously accepted an expansion bid from Sin City on Wednesday, with the new team set to begin play in the 2017-18 season.

I have so many questions. Starting with:

1. Does anyone in Vegas other than the bookies actually know or care that hockey exists? Seriously, it’s a city in the desert which has zero hockey culture whatsoever. Who are they planning to sell tickets to, disgruntled tourists who lost big at slots?

2. How do you evenly divide 31 teams among 4 divisions? (Okay, not that 30 divided by 4 was much better, especially with 2 extra teams in the east. But still. 31 is an odd number that will create scheduling nightmares.)

So much for the Olympic values of peace, understanding and bringing people together: A Syrian boxer has quit the World Boxing Championship rather than be forced to compete against his Israeli opponent:

The first round match between Syrian Ala Ghasoun and the Israeli fighter was scheduled to place at the tournament which is a precondition to qualifying for the upcoming 2016 Olympic games in Rio de Janeiro.

“I quit the competition because my rival was Israeli, and I cannot shake his hand or compete against him while he represents a Zionist regime that kills the Syrian people,” Ghasoun said according to Arab media, The Jerusalem Post reported. 

“If I fight against him, it would mean that I, as a athlete, and Syria, as a state, recognize the state of Israel,” Ghasoun added. 

“The decision to quit was not mine,” the Syrian boxer said. “It was made by the Syrian Sports Federation and by senior Syrian officials. It was a very difficult decision, because I have worked hard to participate in the championship. But I serve my homeland – my honor and my loyalty belong to Syria.”

For what it’s worth, an estimated 150,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in over five years of civil war. Of those deaths, how many were caused by Israel’s “Zionist regime”? Exactly zero. But let’s not allow facts to get in the way of hatred.

An American-born man who’d pledged allegiance to ISIS gunned down 49 people early Sunday at a gay nightclub in Orlando, the deadliest mass shooting in the United States and the nation’s worst terror attack since 9/11, authorities said.

Some thoughts:

1. Saying that it has nothing to do with the victims being gay is to erase a hate crime by trying to cover it up or mask it. It’s disrespectful to the victims, who died simply because someone hated them for who they were. It’s erasure in retrospect, even if it’s well intentioned.
2. Yes, it is about gun control. Sadly, I don’t expect this to have any more impact on the debate than the zillion mass shootings before this. At some point, America decided it was okay with the consequences of the “right to bear arms” and this sort of thing will keep happening. And happening. And happening.
3. Trump is going to make this all about hatred of Muslims and hysterical fear of immigrants — even though the shooter was a domestic terrorist who lived in Florida. He’ll probably succeed, too.
4. Don’t expect people to refer to a “cycle of violence”, at least, which is what the media would be doing if this were a nightclub shot up in Tel Aviv instead of in Orlando.
5. There’s really nothing good to say. It’s all horrific and awful. My thoughts are with the families and friends of the victims.

The group of seven, which includes people associated with the provincial Liberals and the Parti Québécois, were arrested shortly after 6 a.m. on Thursday in Quebec City, Charlevoix and the Gaspésie, UPAC chief Robert Lafrenière said.

[ . . . ]

Others arrested are:  former Liberal cabinet minister Marc-Yvan Côté, Normandeau’s former chief of staff, Bruno Lortie, Roche engineering employees Mario Martel and France Michaud, as well as Ernest Murray, a former political attaché to former Premier Pauline Marois and François Roussy, former mayor of the town of Gaspé.

The discussions being sparked in social media as a result of this are interesting. Corruption has long been assumed to be a part of most political processes, especially here in Quebec. The long, drawn-out Charbonneau Commission was met by the population with a shrug, probably because many of its so-called “shocking” revelations were things that everyone pretty much knew but nobody openly acknowledged. Our politicians abuse party fundraising, cozy up to organized crime, and fix bidding contracts in exchange for kickbacks? That discussion is as old and tired as the endless debate about the Cavendish extension.

Of course, anger over corruption does tend to flare up on occasion. The student-initated “Maple Spring” gave voice to a general anger against the Charest-led Liberals, which ultimately brought down the government and ushered in 18 turbulent months of Marois-led PQ rule. That time period was so fraught, so divisive, such an ugly chapter in Quebec’s recent history that it still gives me the chills. I’m no fan of the Liberals — they’ve always been a hold-your-nose-and-vote party — but I also have absolutely no desire to return to debates about kippas and headscarves, identity politics, or whether Muslims in Quebec deserve the same rights as the rest of us.

And so when I see people — particularly PQ supporters — gleefully greeting the news of more Liberal corruption, I have to wonder: Would you prefer your political leaders to be corrupt or evil?

For a number of reasons, I’m going to come down on the side of corrupt over evil. Here are just a few.

1. It’s a false dichotomy.

The truth is that even the evil politicians are probably just as corrupt as the non-evil ones. UPAC may have arrested mostly folks associated with the Liberals this morning, but nobody — except maybe ardent PQ supporters — could argue that the PQ isn’t equally corrupt. Politics, sadly, is an environment in which power-hungry people obtain quite a bit of power and often have very little oversight. That’s just a rampant breeding ground for corruption. It’s an arena that either spits our or corrupts even the most honest players as they rise through its ranks. Leave a party in power for long enough and it will develop a stench of rot around it. Remember how the Harper Conservatives were first elected in a backlash against the Federal Liberal Sponsorship Scandal? Ten years later, we had one of our most opaque, corrupt governments in history, complete with Senate and expense scandals of its own. Every government promises to restore transparency and integrity to the office, and inevitably they all become just what they were fighting against.

2. The politics of division and fear hurt us more than the politics of self-interest.

Here’s another example for you: The Progressive Conservatives under Mulroney vs. the Conservatives under Harper.

That Mulroney was corrupt is pretty well established by now. The Airbus affair was just the tip of a very large iceberg. But, by and large, though I disagreed ideologically with the Progressive Conservatives, their particular brand of politics was far less evil than the Shit Harper Did. Mulroney may have accepted cash payments and signed some questionable trade agreements, but his PC party would never have run the type of election campaign we saw from Harper last October, with RCMP tiplines for “barbaric cultural practices”, second-class citizens, and endless pounding on the drum of fear of the other. Not to mention his systematic takedown of anyone he didn’t like, from environmental charities to women’s groups to anyone trying to commit acts of science, anywhere.

Scapegoating, drumming up racial and ethnic hatred and divisiveness, and inciting suspicion and fear hurt us immeasurably.

3. Donald Trump

In case you’re still not convinced, consider this: Donald Trump is gaining a scary amount of support in the United States on the grounds that he’s an “independent” not beholden to the corruption of the Republican establishment or the Washington political elite. His message to his supporters is that, because he’s rich and self-financed, he isn’t beholden to special interest groups and is therefore uncorruptable.

Now, that may or may not be true. (Hint: It’s not.) But even if it were, Trump is campaigning on hatred of Muslims, Mexicans, minorities, women, poor people, immigrants, and everyone whose name isn’t Donald Trump. He’s encouraging his supporters to assault and beat up peaceful dissenters at rallies. He’s stirring up anger, hatred and the worst sides of Americans like no previous candidate ever has. If — G-d forbid — he were to get elected, does anyone really doubt that his particular brand of evil would have disastrous and far-reaching consequences?

In the four hours around the close of polls across Super Tuesday states, searches for “how can I move to Canada” on Google spiked by 350%. By midnight, the query had risen to more than 1000% its normal search volume. It was especially high in Massachusetts, where Trump dominated the field with just under 50 per cent of the vote.

It’s trendy for Americans to talk about moving to Canada if their candidate loses an election. It’s far less common for them to actually do it. According to Statistics Canada, about 9,000 Americans move to Canada per year, compared with about 33,000 Canadians who move to the US annually. And the US has 10 times as many people as we do, so the discrepancy is even bigger when you look at per capita numbers. Politics aside, most people move for more practical reasons, like jobs.

… But if this time you really, really mean it, I’ll be considering marriage applications as of September.

Criteria:

• Any gender (this is Canada after all)
• Any socioeconomic status (we have socialized healthcare and a considerable social safety net; I don’t need to marry you for your money)
• Preferably a nice person (’cause we’re nice in Canada, eh?)
• Must love snow
• Must hate guns
• Must be able to quote John Oliver at length. And eventually Rick Mercer, though I’ll allow you some time to brush up first.
• Bonus points for sending me chocolate with your application
• Bonus points for witticisms about Drumpf’s hair

1. He’s usually highly accessible to the media. But he declined to be interviewed for this article. Which is both admirable and highly telling: Admirable because the religious views of American politicians are usually front and centre in campaigns (unlike here in Canada, where we mostly consider it to be their personal business). But also telling, for the same reason, because any experienced US politician knows that NOT talking about religion is just as conscious a choice as talking about it.
2. 92% of Americans said they would have no problem voting for a Jewish President. That’s refreshing. (Though I doubt the numbers would be nearly as high for a Muslim President.)
3. The idea that many American Jews don’t feel the need to support Sanders out of a sense of loyalty. That’s nice, too, considering voting based on tribalism rather than ideology is far too common. It also speaks to a sense of security that the Jewish community has achieved in the US.
4. But it also speaks to many Jewish Americans’ discomfort with Sanders, which is probably a result of the US Christian Evangelical right wing having politicized support of Israel as a right-wing issue — and, consequently, relegated the left wing to have to prove itself as NOT anti-Israel. Sanders may be Jewish, but he represents a socialist wing of the Democratic party that has ties to a lot of Israel’s enemies. Even those among the US Jewish Community who believe in Sanders’ domestic policies are somewhat wary of his foreign policy credentials when it comes to the middle east.

How any of this will play out in the Democratic primaries, or, indeed, in a general election, is anyone’s guess. I want to believe that even the most right wing Jewish Americans would stop short of casting a vote for the likes of Trump. But there isn’t much to suggest how votes would split in the primary in states with large Jewish populations like New York. An AJC poll puts support for Clinton at 40% versus only 18% for Sanders, but it dates from last September — long enough ago to be irrelevant.

Very likely Sanders will pick up support from younger, more left wing Jewish Americans, while older ones will continue to support Clinton. But I don’t think there will be a Lieberman-like surge among American Jews to throw their support behind Sanders as “one of our own”. Nor do I think Sanders will make an effort to campaign on that basis.

All that to say: It’s complicated.

This year, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust is urging us to not only remember the victims of the Holocaust, but to turn our focus towards fighting persecution that is taking place in today’s world, right here in 2016:

Don’t stand by is the theme for Holocaust Memorial Day 2016.

The Holocaust and subsequent genocides took place because the local populations allowed insidious persecution to take root. Whilst some actively supported or facilitated state policies of persecution, the vast majority stood by silently – at best, afraid to speak out; at worst, indifferent. Bystanders enabled the Holocaust, Nazi Persecution and subsequent genocides.

We said “Never Again” but that did nothing to stop genocides in Rwanda, Cambodia, Bosnia or Darfur.

We said “Never Forget” but we can’t apply that only to antisemitism when there’s so much discrimination even in our supposedly democratic, free home countries, against people with different skin colours, gender identities, sexual orientations, religions or traditions.

We tore down the concentration camps in Europe and made them into museums. But prisoners are still being sent to death camps in places like North Korea.

Adolf Hitler has been dead for 70 years, but politicians are still running for office and using minority-baiting and drumming up hate, fear and prejudice in order to gain power.

We’ve acknowledged the tragic outcome of saying “none is too many” and yet we still react in fear when desperate refugees from civil wars in places like Syria want to come to our shores.

Competing about tragedies (“ours was worse than yours”) only serves to divide us, to pit us against each other and to further build walls between humans. Instead, let’s focus on calling out injustice and persecution wherever we see it. Not just today, but every day.

It’s not just about being Jewish. It’s about being human.

Disclaimer: This post contains spoilers for the TV show “The Wire”. And also some colourful language, such as you might expect when talking about terrorist bastards.

This week has been a bad one for the world. Unless, of course, you happen to be a giant terrorist asshole. Terror attacks in Beirut, Baghdad, and the deadliest attack in Paris since World War 2 have sent the world reeling. The group known by many acronyms — ISIS, ISIL, or what I’ll refer to in this post as Daesh, has claimed ‘responsibility’ (if such a word could even be used) for all three attacks.

All this has happened against a backdrop of unprecedented humanitarian crisis, as hundreds of thousands of refugees continue to flee Syria’s deadly civil war. Western governments are debating how they can cope with what they’ve dubbed a “migrant crisis”, as though the problem only started when desperate refugees started showing up in Europe. It happened on the eve of the G20 summit in Antayla, Turkey, and in the lead-up to a huge global summit on climate change taking place in Paris.

The responses to the attack, in typical format, have followed the Rorschach Test pattern; people see in tragedy what they want to see. More foreign aid. Less foreign aid. More military intervention. Less military intervention. More solidarity with refugees. Close our borders to refugees. It’s about Islam. It’s not about Islam. And so on, and so forth. French president Francois Hollande has taken a hard line, promising military strikes against Daesh, closing of borders, and crackdowns all around.

Everyone has an opinion on how to fight this so-called “war on terror”. But is this really a “war”?

It strikes me that this so-called “war on terror” bears a lot of resemblance to another misnomer: the so-called “war on drugs”.

Sure, this isn’t exactly an original observation. Plenty of people have pointed this out in analysis after analysis. But, other than depressingly similar tactics, sources of funding and consequences, these two so-called wars parallel each other in other ways. Here are just a few:

1. Both “wars” are about money, power and territory.

“A’ight, see this? This the king, and he the man. You get the other dude’s king, you got the game. But he trying to get your king too. So your gotta protect it.” — D’Angelo Barksdale

We’ve heard a lot about how the “war on terror” is a war on ideology. They hate our way of life, goes the narrative. They hate us for our freedoms. They want us dead. They want to impose a radical Islamist government based on sharia law, and they want everyone to adhere to it to the letter. This is about religion or ideology, goes the argument, and we need to understand it better. Or we need to condemn it. Or we need moderate Muslims to condemn it. Or some version of all three.

But these terror attacks have as little to do with the ideology of religion as drug cartels have to do with the ideology about drugs. They’re about three things: money, power and territory. The religion — like the drugs — are merely the tools. The means to an end.

I think most people would agree that drug dealers don’t care about drugs, per se. As much as there’s an “ideology” of drugs, even, which there isn’t, really. Sure, some people might grow dreadlocks and smoke weed and go to Grateful Dead concerts and subscribe to a Bob Marley-like world view, but those usually the consumers, not the distributors. For most drug lords, the drugs are beside the point, other than the fact that they represent an excellent way to make money. Drugs are illegal and in high demand, so there’s a supply vacuum. Organized criminals are opportunists: Drugs represent an excellent opportunity, so they’re all over that. They were all over the alcohol business during prohibition. They’re involved in gambling, prostitution, pretty much any area where they can make money and secure power. And when they kill rival drug dealers, or muscle their way into territory, they’re doing it not for any ideological reasons, but merely to secure more money and power.

The so-called “war on terror” is the same thing. Organized terrorist groups in the middle east use religion to recruit, train and keep people in line. They use it to justify their actions. The folks at the bottom and the middle may believe it. The folks at the very top probably couldn’t care less. Religion is a powerful tool to achieve their ends, but those ends are the same: Money, power and territory.

Observers of the middle east have noted that there are two major spheres of influence competing for money, power and territory right now. Sunni vs. Shiite isn’t about ideology. Not really. I mean, yes, there are theological differences between the two main branches of Islam, but that isn’t why they’re fighting. They’re fighting for control of a sphere of influence. The two major — Sunni Wahhabist, mostly backed and funded by Saudi Arabia, and Shiite — mostly backed and funded by Iran — want to dominate the region and prevent the other from gaining ground. Daesh wants to establish an Islamic caliphate across the entire middle east. Iran, via its proxies such as Hezbollah, has similar aspirations to take over the likes of Syria and Iraq on the Shiite side of the fight. But here, Shiite and Sunni are merely used as designators for which tribe you belong to. You might as well call them shirts and skins, or red hats and blue hats.

Religion is a tool that they use to recruit and cling to power. But it’s not the only one. Even for recruits, religion is often beside the point. They’re motivated by a promise of a return to power — a common refrain from people who have been disenfranchised or who feel humiliated and powerless in their lives. They’re motivated by fear: Join us or we’ll kill you is a powerful threat when you live in a war zone. Join us or we’ll kill your family and everyone you love is an even more powerful threat. And they’re motivated by the promise of power, dignity and spoils.

This is nothing new. Human beings have been aligning themselves with whomever they see as the most powerful leader since the dawn of humanity. If one group appears to be gaining ground, people will jump on their bandwagon. If another appears to be losing ground, people will scramble to jump ship. We see it all the time in our democratic, peaceful elections. It’s only natural that the same thing would happen when the stakes are higher, and when power is achieved not at the ballot box but at gunpoint.

That’s why Daesh’s tactics are so calculated. Attacks like the one in Paris are designed to send a message at home: We’re the strongest, so align yourself with our camp and not our enemy’s. It’s basically a horrific pissing contest, where whoever wins gets the spoils. They’re designed to send a message abroad, to disaffected, disenfranchised young people bristling at the indignity of being treated like second-class citizens in their home countries: Join us and we’ll give you honour and power. And they’re designed to secure a power base.

In the war on drugs, dealers will go out into the streets and carry out brutal revenge attacks to send a message to their rivals that they mean business. Gang symbols and signatures, swift retaliations, brutal execution methods — they’re the equivalent of a horse’s head left in bed. Terrorist organizations operate in much the same way: They don’t behead people because it says so in a holy text. They behead people to strike fear and send a message.

If they could achieve money, power and territory without these methods, they probably would. Drug dealers don’t like having to kill people or launch wars; these things are bad for business. But they do it, because they’re fighting law enforcement on one side and their rivals on another. To show weakness is to lose.

Similarly, terrorist groups don’t often define themselves as such. They want territory, perhaps. as in the case of the IRA in Ireland, or the ETA in the Basque region, or — arguably — the PLO and then Hamas et al in the Palestinian territories. They definitely want power. They’ve determined terrorism to be a remarkably effective tool to achieve their means. But if they could secure and hold onto their power base without carrying out these attacks or oppressing people, they probably would. The problem is that in their world, there’s always someone else willing to take it one step further to wrench power away from them. Arguably, this is why the likes of Bashar al-Assad and Saddam Hussein ruled with such heavy-handed iron fists. In their world, to show weakness is to concede altogether. And to carry out a horrific show of strength — such as when Assad launched chemical weapons at his own people — is to send a message to rival groups: Don’t fuck with me.

You can’t fight a war against these folks. You can conquer one group or leader or kingpin, sure. But you can’t conquer the desire for money, power and territory. Someone will always want those three things. And someone will always be willing to resort to something worse than the last guy did in order to get them. This summarizes all of human history.

2. Fighting these “wars” leads to unintended consequences.

“The Game’s the same, just got more fierce.” — Slim Charles

In the fictional universe of The Wire, arresting Avon Barksdale or killing off Stringer Bell doesn’t end the drug trade in Baltimore; it merely makes way for the likes of Marlo Stanfield, whose brutal methods make the Barksdale heyday look downright civilized in comparison. At one point, Det. Jimmy McNulty wryly says “what the fuck did I do?” but he has no idea how prophetic his words will become, as, in later seasons, the police find themselves nostalgic for the Barksdale days when dealing with Marlo, Chris and Snoop.

The real life war on drugs is a bit like that, too; governments and law enforcement agencies take down or arrest one drug gang, cartel or criminal organization, and all it does is help their rivals. The CIA gets involved, deposing of political leaders tied to one cartel, and this merely puts their rivals into power. And soon enough, the groups you fund and back today turn into tomorrow’s enemies.

Because there will always be demand for drugs, if you vanquish one drug lord, it simply creates a vacuum. And nature abhors vacuums. So these vacuums get filled pretty quickly, by whichever rival drug lord is willing to resort to the most violent, brutal tactics to claim power.

Well, it’s the same with the “war on terror”. Western governments get involved to fight one group. That group gets vanquished, maybe, creating a power vacuum. And these vacuums tend to get filled pretty quickly — and not by democratic moderates, either. No, a power vacuum gets filled by whoever demonstrates the most power. Whoever inspires the most fear. Whoever is willing to resort to the most horrific methods.

Let’s not kid ourselves: A victory against Daesh won’t end terrorism. It will merely lead to someone worse.

What could be worse than Daesh? Yes, I agree, they’re pretty horrific. The irony is that they make other terrorist organizations, like Al Quaeda, look mild in comparison. Who would’ve predicted, after 9/11, that one day we’d be sitting around waxing nostalgic for the days of Osama Bin Laden?

Following Friday’s attacks, Francois Hollande announced France’s intent to take the fight to the enemy on home ground, in the form of stepping up air strikes and military action against Daesh. He called upon world allies, many of whom are already engaged in this fight, to step it up as well.

But fighting Daesh in Syria is not a simple matter. How do you do it? Do you fund and support its rivals? Well, let’s look at who those rivals are: the likes of Bashar al-Assad, who used chemical weapons against his own civilians to quell Arab Spring protests. Hezbollah, supported by Iran in an attempt to check Sunni Wahhabi fundamentalism with Shiite fundamentalism. Or Al-Quaeda, which has separated itself from Daesh because the latter’s methods are too extreme for the former’s tastes. Which one of these would you suggest that Western powers back, exactly?

How did we get here? By simplistically assuming that if we deposed one bad guy, a good guy would take his place. By assuming the world is like an old Western movie, with black hats and white hats, where the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

We could argue that this all dates back to colonialism. There’s some truth to that. But that puts too much responsibility on European colonial powers. There were empires before European colonialism. There will be empires after it. Most of human history has been one of empires, because we humans seem to only know how to organize ourselves into tribes and follow leaders who are powerful enough to fight the other guy’s leaders.

Arguably, empire is our natural state as human beings, and the modern democratic nation-state is a historical blip, an anomaly that has resulted from a golden age of prosperity. That’s a depressing view of history, to be sure. But remember, the modern democratic nation-state is only just over a century old. That’s nothing in the grand scheme of history. There’s nowhere near enough time gone by to determine whether this model is sustainable or not.

Anyway, the US got rid of Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people (who the US had helped prop up in the Iran/Iraq war a decade earlier). But democracy and sunshine and rainbows didn’t magically spring up to take his place. Instead, we got Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, Daesh. Because sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy.

Meanwhile, Russia got involved in the conflict, fighting Daesh by funnelling money, weapons and support to the Syrian army via Iran. Pause and think about that weird alignment of enemies for a moment. Because Russia, unlike the US, understands tribalism and divide-and-conquer cynical politics. And is willing to play all sides against the middle to achieve its own aims — of — you guessed it — money, power and territory.

The whole thing is arguably one big proxy war. The US and Russia may never have fired a shot during the Cold War, but that didn’t stop them from fighting proxy wars on other people’s land, putting other people’s civilians in the crossfire instead of their own. To some degree, that’s what is happening here, as Putin makes a move and Obama makes a counter-move.

Each time we get involved in the middle east (or anywhere, really) to topple a dictator or power base we don’t like, we end up putting a worse one in power. Wasn’t it Einstein who pointed out that doing the same thing over and over again expecting different consequences is the definition of insanity?

3. Both “wars” are used as excuses to erode civil liberties at home.

“You call something a war, and pretty soon, everybody going to be acting like warriors … and when you’re at war, you need an enemy. And pretty soon, damn near everybody on every corner is your enemy. And the neighborhood you’re supposed to be policing, that’s just occupied territory.” — Major “Bunny” Colvin

The “war on drugs” has, by some accounts, turned into a war on all citizens. In the US especially, this is what has happened: Entire neighbourhoods in cities where the police face off against the people living there in an ongoing daily battleground. The US incarcerates more people than any other country in the world. Police using automatic weapons against teenagers. Entire communities are under siege. There are more African-American young men in prison than there are in college. And so on. And so forth.

Similarly, the “war on terror” has inspired us to give up a gamut of civil liberties. Ignoring Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” has been summarily dismissed. The Patriot Act. Bill C51. Governments spying on their citizens. Closing borders, denying refugee claims, throwing people in prison without due process. All of these have been consequences of the so-called “war on terror”.

In both cases, we’re reacting in the worst possible way. The “war on terror” has arguably played right into the hands of the terrorists, who could calculate these moves like a chess game. If their fertile recruiting grounds are among disaffected, marginalized and disenfranchised population segments who feel humiliated and beaten down, then what could be worse than creating more people exactly like that? This is what France has done, with its large Muslim population barred from dressing or worshipping as they please, dealing with high unemployment, low economic opportunity, high degrees of racism, and living in neighbourhoods where there’s no upward mobility in sight. This is, to some extent, what happens all over Europe, or in all western countries who use the “war on terror” as an excuse to treat anyone with brown skin or a middle eastern sounding name as a second class citizen.

That’s not to say that any of this is an excuse. There are no excuses for terrorism. And I would never, ever suggest that France (or anyone) had it coming. The so-called “root causes” of terror lie in the money, power and territory fight I referenced above. All the rest of it is just a tool. And there is no universe under which I would blame the victim here.

But let’s face it: Terrorism isn’t about killing a few dozen or a few hundred innocent people. It’s about inspiring fear in the millions. And when we allow the fear to spread like wildfire, we’re playing right into their hands. When we stay home from movie theatres and off subways, when we submit to strip searches at airports, when we impose curfews and cancel plans and allow fear to rule our lives, and — most of all — when we scapegoat the “other” by banning religious headwear or denying medical care to refugees or a thousand and ten other ways that we turn our fellow citizens into the enemy — then we help nobody at all.

Because then it becomes not a war against the terrorists. It becomes a war against ourselves.

4. Neither “war” has an endgame.

Carver: You can’t even think of calling this shit a war.
Herc: Why not?
Carver: Wars end.

Traditional wars, such as they were, had endgames. Sure, you could argue, fairly convincingly, that there are no winners in war and there never have been. But, at least when two nations fought, there were generally agreed-upon conventions to ending a war: One side would surrender, everyone would sign some sort of armistice, and both sides would pick up their weapons and go home.

Neither the war on drugs nor the war on terror are real wars, though. As such, they don’t have endgame scenarios.

With the war on drugs, topple one cartel or kingpin, and three more will rise up and take their place. You can’t stop the supply altogether, because as long as there’s demand and profit, someone will find a way to ensure the supply.

You can’t stop the demand, either; no amount of “just say no” or “this is your brain on drugs” campaigns will stop people from trying them. You can’t lock up every drug user (though heaven knows, the United States certainly seems to be trying). And while there are programs that can help individual drug addicts recover, there aren’t any solutions as of yet that quell the problem on a societal level.

Actually, there is one possible endgame with the war on drugs: Legalization. The world could legalize all drugs — not just marijuana, but all of them — and regulate and tax them. There will probably be some sort of black market that remains, as there is now for legal drugs, but it will be far less. And some people will still get addicted — as they do with other legal drugs such as alcohol — but they will be a minority and can be helped more easily if they’re not afraid of legal repercussions. We’re a long way off from mass legalization of all drugs, and I admit it would cause a whole host of other problems. But at least it exists as an option. However, let’s face it: The drugs are beside the point for the drug cartels. If drugs were legalized, they’d merely move onto some other sort of illegal enterprise for profit. And they’d continue to compete for those same three things: Money, power and territory.

Well, terrorism similarly has no endgame. And there isn’t even the stopgap option of legalization. You can’t surrender to the demands of the terrorists, because their ideologies are beside the point. At most, you can recognize their territorial, financial and power claims by recognizing them as nations — as the UN wants to do with Palestine, for instance — and you can hope to impose some sort of stability that way. It’s difficult enough to do that with groups who resort to terror to establish independence or statehood. It’s much harder to do that with groups who don’t have nationhood as their stated goal. But either way, you can’t end a war on terror by surrendering to it. That’s just a surefire way to cause more terror.

And there’s certainly no victory endgame scenario. If you beat one terrorist group militarily, you merely set up conditions for another to move in and take over. Western governments have enough firepower to bomb Daesh to kingdom come, but then what? Nature abhors a vacuum, remember? Someone will take over, and that someone will likely be a group that’s even more extreme than the last one.

So how do you fight terrorism? Well, that’s the million dollar question, isn’t it? If I had the definitive answer to that question, I’d probably be working in a very different job right now. But I have an inkling that you don’t fight it by declaring “war” against a tactic. Because that war just drags on endlessly, causes all sorts of unintended consequences, and hurts the very people we’re trying to help the most.

I think that’s a terrible idea. Here’s why:

After a decade of Stephen Harper’s “war on science”, we finally have a government committed to returning to evidence-based decision making. Trudeau wants to bring back the long form census. He wants to make scientific committees independent again. He’s committed to bringing knowledge and scientific literacy back into public policy.

Wow. Just wow.

Prime Minister Trudeau. It’s been a long time since Canada has heard those words. Before my lifetime, anyway.

I dared hope for a Liberal minority. I never in my wildest dreams could have predicted a Liberal majority.

The Tories have been turfed out. Stephen Harper has announced he will step down as the leader of the party — the only leader the party in its current form has ever had. A long decade of darkness in Canada is drawing to a close.

The NDP dropped back to third place, its Quebec bubble having burst. One of the ridings it hung onto was my own of Laurier-Sainte-Marie, where Gilles Duceppe was defeated by Helene Laverdiere. I’m happy about that and proud to have played my part.

Overall, though, the NDP simply couldn’t compete with the Liberal surge as undecided progressive voters looked for a bandwagon to jump onto. Our broken First Past The Post system simply left no room for vote-splitting on the left, and Mulcair was unfortunately the loser on that front. I still respect him and think he ran a solid campaign. And I hope he will stay on as party leader and MP for Outremont, and participate actively in government. He and Trudeau agreed on quite a few issues, and the NDP could certainly make their mark in this next parliament.

The Bloc Quebecois won 10 seats, but got a lower proportion of the popular vote than they did back in 2011. Duceppe lost his riding and will probably retire again — for real this time.

Justin Trudeau will have his work cut out for him. A majority means he can get things done. It also means he has no excuses.

The real work begins tomorrow. And don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of it. Canada has suffered greatly under Harper, and a lot of work will be needed simply to stop the bleeding and start reversing the damage. Restoring funding to gutted federal programs, improving the status of women, minorities, immigrants, First Nations, restoring human rights and equal citizenship for all. Fulfilling his promise to amend Bill C-51. Dealing with the fallout of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as details emerge. Healing the wounds caused by wedge politics driven by racism. Bringing back openness, transparency, science and information to Parliament. Healing the wide chasm between Conservative and Progressive voters. The list seems never-ending and the work is surely daunting.

But that’s all for tomorrow. Tonight, we celebrate.

Merci, Canada.

Via the Orwellian-named “Fair Elections Act“, Stephen Harper is trying to make it more difficult for people to vote, and I fear he may be succeeding. Don’t let him get away with it!

Here are some resources for people voting today:

• Accepted pieces of voter ID from Elections Canada. Remember that your voter card is NOT an accepted piece of ID. And that one of your pieces of ID must contain your address.
• If you get refused based on your ID, or if you are unable to produce something with your address, you can also have someone who knows you and live in your riding take an oath that they know you. Vote with a friend, just in case.
• This Hamilton-based lawyer has also offered free legal advice to anyone turned away from the polls. You can contact him on Twitter or by phone.
• If someone phones you or stands outside a polling station and tries to convince you that the poll location has changed, don’t listen to them! Check elections.ca to see where you should vote, or use the address on your voter information card.
• If you end up with a pre-marked ballot, as some people have been reporting, don’t use it! You have the right to ask for another one.
• Finally, if you’re stuck in long lineups and feel like you’re wasting your time, stick it out! It’s a favourite underhanded election tactic to understaff polling stations where people are likely to vote against the incumbents. Tweet to #pollwatch to report any unusually long lineups, and try to vote early just in case. Remember, most people are eligible to take 3 hours off from work, paid, to vote.

The Harperites are desperate, and they’re resorting to every trick in the book. Let’s stop them in their tracks.

ETA: There are reports in my own home riding of Laurier-Sainte-Marie of “dirty” ballots pre-marked for the Conservatives:

Laurier-Sainte-Marie might well be the riding in Canada least likely to go Tory; they’re battling it out with the Greens for 4th place here, behind the NDP, Bloc and Liberals. So if this is happening here, it’s probably happening across the country.

Brian, who wrote this post, had this to add:

I wasn’t paying attention at first, so I thought the cops were there to handle some irate thug. Turned out he called the cops over the fraud, who in turn contacted EC. I calmly explained to the person who handed me my ballot that it was pre-marked. I got a second one, same thing. At this point, cops just asked me what was wrong, I explain and am handed a third ballot. I vote.

As I come out of voting, cop shows me who I thought was just a polling station supervisor, but it turns out several of the people are actually people who are more important and were called in because of fraud. He took my name, ID, story of what happened and triple-asked me if I was 100% certain that the third ballot wasn’t spoiled. At this point there are more irate people than just that one old dude and I’m paying attention enough to translate what they’re saying. All the same deal; a mix of “WHAT’S GOING ON HERE?!” and accusations that the polling station/elections Canada are rigging the election for Harper.

It seems like the Tories have decided that they can’t win the election, so they’ll try to steal it instead. I re-iterate: Don’t let them get away with this! Check your ballots carefully, and if you see fraud, report it to Elections Canada and to VoteWatch. You can also phone Elections Canada at 1-800-463-6868 if you’re at your polling station and encounter difficulties or get denied your right to vote.

Now, it’s true that this is a bit of a lighthearted treatment of the topic, with plenty of room for moose jokes and Canadian stereotypes. But remember that Oliver is addressing an American audience and trying to condense a lot into a 15-minute segment.

Point is, it’s nice to get some support. Appreciate the sentiment, John.

Well, it’s been a really long slog of a campaign. But either way, it all ends tomorrow. So I’ll just leave you with this plea: Please get out and vote — it CAN and WILL make a difference.

If you’re not sure where or when to vote, visit www.elections.ca.

If you aren’t sure who to vote for, check out:

• Party platform and campaign promise summaries by CBC
• CBC’s VoteCompass
• I Side With

If you’re looking for strategic voting resources, here are some (though I always recommend taking them with a grain of salt, because polls can be wrong):

• ThreeHundredEight.com’s riding-by-riding poll projections
• Leadnow’s Vote Together
• Strategic Voting for Progressive Voters

Here’s to a brighter future as of tomorrow. Canada, let’s do this thing.

• Polls showing a Liberal surge are going to help Trudeau‪‬, as anti-Harper voters get off the fence and hop on the bandwagon of the party they perceive as most likely to beat the Tories.
• Having said that, recent polls don’t reflect the Dan Gagnier resignation over the Energy East affair. It remains to be seen whether this will put a damper on the Liberals’ results on Monday.
• Meanwhile, Mulcair continues to take a beating in the Quebec press on the niqab issue. The NDP can expect to lose seats in Quebec on Monday, and hasn’t really shown a strong gain elsewhere in the country.
• The Bloc may pick up a few more seats, but probably not enough to buoy it out of irrelevance.
• Elizabeth May will probably win her seat, and no others.
• The Liberal vote is more inefficient than the Tory vote based on riding distribution, and thanks to recent gerrymandering.
• We also probably haven’t seen the last of the Tories’ dirty tricks, as it’s likely they’re holding onto some cards to try to sway results on Monday.

Realistic prediction: Liberals will win the popular vote, but Tories will win a narrow minority government. The government will be highly unstable with no opposition parties willing to prop it up but nobody wanting another election anytime soon. Chaos will ensue.

Hopeful prediction: Liberal government, with strong NDP representation to hold the balance of power and force an informal coalition.

Don’t look now, but the Habs are off to a hot start, going 5-0 for the first time in franchise history:

“Despite powerhouse Canadiens teams that won a record 24 Stanley Cups in their 106-year history, the previous club record for wins to start a season was only four, last accomplished in 1977-78.”

It’s early days yet. But a 25th Stanley Cup would sure look nice in the city come spring. S’all I’m saying.

 

An unkind cartoon this summer showed the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, kneeling before the statue of another politician, asking: “What now, O Great One?” That in itself would not be unkind. The punchline is that the statue is clearly labelled as that of Richard Nixon, famed above all for his attempts to corrupt democracy.

As Harper tries for a fourth term in office at the Canadian federal election next week, he is trailed by an extraordinarily long list of allegations. In the Watergate scandal, all the president’s men were accused primarily of breaking the law to get Nixon a second term in the White House. In Canada, some of the prime minister’s men and women have been accused not simply of cheating to win elections but of conspiring to jam the machinery of democratic government.

The article goes on from there to discuss the government spending and robocall scandals, the Mike Duffy affair, the use of a data bank to manipulate “wedge” politics, torture of prisoners in Afghanistan, the F-35 fighter jet scandal, proroguing Parliament and being found in contempt, omnibus bills, and so on and so forth.

Each one of these scandals on its own should have been enough for voters to throw out the Tories in anger. Taken together, though, they’ve led to a certain amount of depressed resignation, along the lines of “oh, just one more scandal”. We’ve lost our ability to be shocked or angered by any of this, it seems. We just appear to take it for granted that our government will do this sort of thing — and get away with it.

By the way, here are links to both interviews:

Justin Trudeau: http://en.daily.vice.com/page/vice-meets-justin-trudeau

Thomas Mulcair: http://en.daily.vice.com/page/vice-meets-tom-mulcair

It wasn’t just our shul. People across the country reported seeing these campaign posters put up outside their synagogues just in time for the High Holidays.

Our rabbi was angry. So were a number of members of the community. So was I. As we stood in the lobby waiting for Kol Nidre services to start, the discussions in hushed whispers were adamant among the (largely Liberal-leaning) members of the congregation.

After all, it’s one thing for political candidates to send a new year’s greeting. That’s nice, and more or less expected. It’s quite another for them to campaign, without permission I might add, opportunistically on a religious holiday, slamming opposition parties in the process.

Of all the things that offend me about the Conservatives — and there are many — the blatant way that Stephen Harper has tried to paint himself as the pro-Israel candidate to win Jewish votes might be the worst.

The new pledge follows a string of opinion polls showing that the incumbent party’s hard line against Muslim headwear – refusing to permit a new immigrant the right to wear a veil during a ceremony affirming their citizenship – has helped lift it from third to first place in the drawn-out election campaign.

“We need to stand up for our values,” said immigration minister Chris Alexander, as he announced the new initiative on Friday. “We need to do that in citizenship ceremonies. We need to do that to protect women and girls from forced marriage and other barbaric practices.”

If this sounds disturbingly like McCarthyism, that’s because it is. As Neil Macdonald explains, it is what happens when politicians descend into the lowest form of politics: Scapegoating and using xenophobia for votes:

Just out of curiosity, I called the RCMP’s media relations department to ask about this new task force and what sort of barbaric cultural practices would merit a call to the Mounties.

The officer who answered said that if, say, an honour killing is taking place next door, it’d be best to dial 911 and tell the local police.

Otherwise, the force said in an email about 20 minutes later: “It would be inappropriate for the RCMP to comment on a political announcement.”

“A political announcement.” What a dry, refreshing description.

Playing politics with people’s rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression is a dangerous game. You don’t have to wear a niqab to understand this. You don’t even have to approve of those who do. But you do have to recognize that there’s a difference between your freedom to disapprove of something, and passing a law banning it. This is the same discussion we had in Quebec around the Charter of Values, and for the same reason: What it comes down to is that some people are fearful of the “other” — and politicians have figured out they can play up this fear for votes.

We already have laws against domestic violence, torture, coercion, assault and murder. The RCMP, as well as local and provincial police forces, already have a mandate to investigate in those cases.

But a tip line to report on your neighbours for practices that you may find strange or distasteful? That’s not my Canada.

Canada dropped from 12th place last year and did far worse in the environmental protection category, where it ranked 27th. Every other country made progress in this area except Canada, the centre said in a report on the rankings.

Canada “has the dubious honor of being the only CDI country with an environment score which has gone down since we first calculated the CDI [in 2003],” the report said. “This reflects rising fossil fuel production and its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, the world’s only treaty governing the emissions of heat-trapping gasses. Canada has dropped below the U.S. into bottom place on the environment component.”

‘Cause, who needs the environment anyway, right? After all, once we destroy this planet, we can always just move to Mars. Or something.

This week, the City of Montreal released a series of recommendations to the provincial transport ministry on how we can make our laws better for cyclists. Among the recommendations:

• Allowing the “Idaho Stop” — which takes physics into account and legitimizes the widespread practice.
• Letting cyclists drive on sidewalks where their safety is compromised on the road and provided there’s no risk to pedestrians.
• Removing the requirement that cyclists stick to the “extreme right” of the road — where they’re more likely to be at risk from buses, taxicabs or “dooring”.
• Prohibit the use of mobile devices while cycling — this is common sense, or ought to be.
• Increase fines but eliminate demerit points for cyclists — this makes sense since not all cyclists have a driver’s license.

Cycling is a funny issue. It tends to get people’s backs up as fast as, say, the abortion debate or middle east politics. It’s as though people identify on a visceral, tribal level as “cyclists” or “drivers” and they tend to get very angry and shouty and assume that their side is always right and the other side is always wrong. It’s very, very difficult to have a reasoned, sensible debate about cycling because of this. Not to mention, newspapers like the Gazette love to incite this controversy to sell papers. (Quickest route to insanity: Read the comments on any cycling article.)

As a sometimes-cyclist, sometimes-driver, sometimes-transit user and sometimes-pedestrian, I do see all sides of the issue.

Yes, cycling is a healthy, eco-friendly way to get around. I agree that we should do more to promote cycling, and that the laws need to protect the safety of cyclists.

Yes, there are some cyclists who break the law. But there are also drivers who break the law. And, yes, in both cases, it’s sometimes because they’re careless or reckless. But in many cases with cyclists, it’s because they’re trying to protect their own skin.

Take, for example, left turns. Now, the law says that if I want to make a left turn, I have to move over to the left lane and then turn against oncoming traffic, just as a car does. But in many, many places in Montreal, that’s a fantastic way to get killed. So I — just like many other cyclists — often do the two-step turn, where I cross straight first, then turn into the crosswalk lane, wait for the light to change, and cross straight in the other direction. The highway code says I’m not supposed to do this. My sense of self-preservation says otherwise.

Likewise with the Idaho Stop. Anti-cycling people will grumble about how it gives cyclists license to “break the law” by rolling through stop signs. But here’s the thing: Most stop signs are there as traffic calming measures, to get people to slow down in residential neighbourhoods. Traffic lights are typically deployed at larger intersections, and cyclists will still have to come to complete stops at red lights. But in most cases, cyclists are already going slowly enough that they don’t need to be “traffic calmed”. Moreover, stopping at a stop sign, hopping off your saddle to put your feet on the ground, and then starting again, takes a LOT more effort than merely pressing the brake pedal. Especially on the 50-pound Bixis. The laws of physics say that there’s little risk to allow a cyclist to slow down when they approach a stop sign, look both ways to make sure it’s safe to proceed, and then slowly roll through. Most do it already. Let’s legitimize the practice.

The most controversial recommendation here is probably regarding helmets. Right now, there are no laws requiring adults to wear a helmet while cycling, and the report says we should keep it that way. Now, I wear a helmet when I bike, and I’d encourage everyone else to as well. I understand that in jurisdictions with helmet laws, the cycling rate drops, which is bad for the safety of all cyclists — and for public health. But I’m still pro-helmet just as I am pro-seatbelt. And I see how an argument could be made for both sides of this one.

Overall, though, I’m encouraged by the recommendations in this report. Let’s hope the province adopts them into law, so that Montreal can continue to serve as a model of cycling-friendly cities.

As this piece in Maclean’s explains, the Tories under Harper have gone to war on information. And we’re all losers:

Stories about government data and historical records being deleted, burned—even tossed into Dumpsters—have become so common in recent years that many Canadians may feel inured to them. But such accounts are only the tip of a rapidly melting iceberg. A months-long Maclean’s investigation, which includes interviews with dozens of academics, scientists, statisticians, economists and librarians, has found that the federal government’s “austerity” program, which resulted in staff cuts and library closures (16 libraries since 2012)—as well as arbitrary changes to policy, when it comes to data—has led to a systematic erosion of government records far deeper than most realize, with the data and data-gathering capability we do have severely compromised as a result.

[ . . . ]

Disappearing data is only one part of a larger narrative of a degradation of knowledge—one that extends from federal scientists being prevented from talking about their research on topics as mundane as snow to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission being forced to take the federal government to court to obtain documents that should have been available under Access to Information.

[ . . . ]

The result is a crisis in what Canadians know—and are allowed to know—about themselves. The threat this poses to a functioning democracy has been raised over the past several years, most recently, in the massive, damning June 2015 report “Dismantling democracy: Stifling debate and dissent in Canada” produced by Voices-Voix, a non-partisan coalition of more than 200 organizations and 5,000 individuals.

Read the whole thing.

Last fall, the city of Montreal took over management of the financially-burdened company and announced that it had adopted a plan to fund and keep the beloved bikeshare service going for at least 5 years. This season’s launch was accompanied by celebrity bike designs, launch parties, and even rides by the mayor.

All this fanfare — and security — has renewed interest in Bixi, spurring the sale of a record number of memberships:

As with last year, 5,200 Bixi bikes will be available at 460 sites in the city, as well as in Westmount and Longueuil. The service is off to a good start, with a record 37,386 members already signed up. That’s 4,000 more than it had at the end of last year, when skittish patrons weren’t sure if the bike-sharing system that filed for bankruptcy protection would survive.

Good news for those of us who like the service, right?

The problem is, Bixi still only has the same number of bikes and docks as in previous seasons. And there are increasing signs that the added demand is causing some problems.

Personally, I haven’t been able to find a bike at my five closest stations in the morning all week. The entire Plateau has been a bit anemic, in fact:

Other residential neighbourhoods such as Rosemont and St-Henri are reporting similar morning bike shortages.

In the evening it’s the opposite, with the downtown core virtually empty of Bixis shortly after 5pm, and the bike racks in residential neighbourhoods full up shortly after.

Bixi claims that its teams are “doing their best” to cope with “increased demand”. And it’s true. They have their trucks out, redistributing bikes as fast as they can manage. They have the depot stations in the mornings to cope with downtown rush hour traffic. They’re doing all the things they did in past seasons to manage this admittedly complicated logistics challenge.

But with Bixi doing everything it can to boost revenue by selling as many memberships as possible, you have to wonder if the system is simply being pushed past its capacity.

With with over 8 subscribers per bike signed up even before the start of the season, and with the vast majority of members wanting to use these bikes during peak periods, it stands to reason that there must be a tipping point. I’ll defer to smarter folks than I on how to work out the math. But, judging by the complaints pouring in from users across social media, I’m going to assume that we may already have reached that point.

Has Bixi become so popular that it’s about to become the victim of its own success?

It would be great if Bixi were to announce that it was expanding to cope with the increased demand. More bikes, more docks, more redistribution, maybe even expanded territory. All that would be welcome, but probably not politically feasible right now. After all, Denis Coderre might have been able to justify bailing out its debt and providing it with an annual subsidy, but a big capital investment at this point probably wouldn’t fly.

Bixi’s membership is up right now, which is great. But how many of these members will join again next year if they could never manage to find a bike or a dock when they needed one?

After 44 years of Conservative rule, the province much-maligned for being “Canada’s Redneck Zone” or “Texas North” surprised pundits — but not pollsters — when it turfed Jim Prentice to elect Rachel Notley as premier. The Tories only managed a third place finish, behind the right-wing Wildrose party.

So what happened? Did the land of cowboy boots and oil wells suddenly decide that the NDP’s brand of social democracy was preferable to the Tory blue brand of pro-wealthy, pro-corporate policies? Was this a protest vote or an indication of real change?

And, most importantly, does this spell bad news for Stephen Harper and the Federal Conservatives in the upcoming October election?

Eh, maybe. But probably not as much as you might think. Here’s why:

United left, divided right

In Alberta, the left rallied around the NDP in this election. The Liberals only claimed a single seat, with most left-of-centre voters gravitating towards Rachel Notley to help unseat the Tories. The left won by being united.

The right, on the other hand, was split deeply between the Tories and the spoiler Wildrose party, which won 21 seats to become Alberta’s official opposition. If you recall, the Wildrose party, which politically actually sits right of the Tories on many issues, had been projected to win the last Alberta election by pollsters. Many voters last-minute shifted back to the Tories to prevent that from happening, but a lot of them probably were more centrist than right-wing and not natural Tory supporters in the first place. This time around, with the momentum behind the NDP, many of them might have felt comfortable casting their vote elsewhere.

On the federal scene, of course, it’s quite the opposite. Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are running neck-and-neck or slightly ahead (depending on which polls you believe) of the Tories, and are the favourites to form a government in the fall — albeit likely a shaky minority one. The NDP gained momentum under Jack Layton but it’s unclear if they’ll be able to hang onto it in this first election with Thomas Mulcair at the helm. The left, in other words, is deeply divided between the Liberals and the NDP, with other parties like the Greens, or the Bloc in Quebec, further fragmenting the votes. On the right, however, the base there pretty much still has no option other than the Tories. Ever since the Reform / Canadian Alliance merged with the Progressive Conservatives in 2003 under the “Unite the Right” banner, the Tories have managed to consolidate their votes and haven’t allowed much room for dissent.

In other words, maybe what Canada needs is a federal Wildrose party.

Alberta’s demographics have changed

Alberta’s population ain’t what it used to be. The job boom led to mass migration westward, and the province added over half a million people in the past decade — a double-digit percentage growth. Those thousands of people from Eastern Canada or Quebec who have moved to Alberta?  And they’re not traditionally big fans of the Conservatives.

Moreover, the younger population of Alberta, especially the urban youth, tend to be more progressive, and young people have been moving to Alberta in droves throughout the past decade’s job boom. Edmonton voted in an NDP MP in an urban riding in the past federal election. Calgary elected progressive (and Muslim!) mayor Naheed Nenshi in 2010 and again in 2013.

All of this combines to shake up the assumptions we might have had about Alberta, making way for a broader spectrum of political views to compete seriously.

But on the federal scene, it’s a bit of a different story. The Liberals or the NDP might compete for a couple of seats in urban Edmonton or Calgary, sure. But many people will probably see no contradiction in voting for the provincial NDP and then turning around and voting for the federal Tories. Alberta’s map may be a little lighter blue this October than it was in 2011, but I suspect it would take another decade or so for these changing demographics to be reflected on the federal election map in any significant way.

Alberta’s economy has changed

For years, Alberta has been about jobs and oil. Oil and jobs. Jobs and oil. A “have” province, Alberta’s boom economy has led to rapid creation of wealth for its residents. Combined with the country’s lowest taxes, this has meant that many well-off Albertans have felt like they’ve had it pretty good.

But it’s been largely a bubble. And last year, that bubble started to burst. In a six-month period, the price of oil fell from over $110 to under $50 a barrel.

The effects of this have been enormous. The provincial conservatives, long racking up deficits even despite all the boom wealth, suddenly saw the money dry up. When the Prentice government released a budget that included both austerity cuts for individuals, and tax breaks for corporations. This hit a lot of middle-income Albertans right in their pocketbooks, fuelling anger and discontent. Oil jobs have been drying up, and everyone is nervous and worried. And to add insult to injury, Prentice rolled back charitable tax credits, pissing off people across the spectrum who believed that he was attacking charities while letting big business off the hook.

Stephen Harper’s Federal Tories, on the other hand, have been careful not to make the same mistakes. Suffering from the same drop in oil prices as the Alberta Tories, the Harperites shifted their focus instead to what they call the “law and order” agenda. They’ve drummed up fear of terrorism, introduced Bill C51, and basically used misdirection to distract everyone from the economic challenges. They released a budget full of feel-good handouts and promises that will mostly benefit only the wealthy, but in a much more populist way (like increasing the TFSA contribution limit).

Also, time is on Harper’s side here. Oil has climbed back up to over $60/barrel since it hit its low in March, and is projected to stabilize and climb further by the fall. You can bet that the Tories will try to take credit for this — even though it, like the high price, has nothing to do with Canada at all. We can expect to see more focus on the economy in the election campaign if things appear to be on an upswing by late summer.

Notley didn’t win so much as Prentice lost

Ultimately, this election wasn’t so much won by the NDP as it was utterly bungled by the Tories. Alison Redford, the former Tory leader, was forced to resign amidst spending scandals. Jim Prentice as newly installed leader angered friends and critics alike by placing cronies in high-powered jobs, recruiting nine former Wildrose MPs with incentives to cross the floor, and — in a blatantly opportunistic move — calling this election a year early. That, combined with his disastrous budget and spending record, doomed things for his party, driving his more centrist voters leftward to the NDP and his more conservative voters rightward to Wildrose. Sure, Rachel Notley was able to capitalize on this protest sentiment by running a good campaign. But the big fail here was on the part of Jim Prentice and his perfect storm of a terrible campaign.

Stephen Harper may be a lot of things, but he’s not incompetent. Machiavellian and calculated, yes. Tyrannical in terms of not allowing discussion or dissent, sure. But incompetent? We Canadians should only be so lucky.

Ultimately I think that Harper may be nervous, but not nearly nervous enough. To unseat the Federal Tories, the other parties will need to make a lot more strong moves between now and October.

January 12: We’re not trying to save money; it’s just that too many blue-collar workers called in sick. Says the guy who had a whopping 48% absenteeism rate from his job last year.

January 22: I lied. We are trying to save money. We can’t afford to clear the streets because of Denis Coderre’s $800k in cutbacks. You have $11.5 million budgeted for snow removal. You mean to tell me you’ve spent it all already? It’s only January.

January 23: Actually, it’s Helen Fotopoulos’s fault; we’re still paying down her administration’s debt. Helen Fotopoulos hasn’t been in power since 2009. This one’s on you.

January 26: Okay, we made a mistake. We’ll remove the snow after all. But only from major arteries.
Because people who live on side streets don’t ever need to get anywhere.

January 27: We decided to prioritize the sidewalks instead of the streets. So then why does the Plateau have the worst-cleared, iciest sidewalks in the city?

To be updated as more excuses appear. Which they no doubt will.

Update: March 4: A long list of excuses for why the Plateau had the least efficient and most expensive snow removal operations in 2014, including:

• There wasn’t enough snow in three out of the five major storms to warrant clearing it. Even though every other borough did.
• Progress is reported via social media, not via city databases. That excuses not sending important statistics to a city agency how, exactly? 
• The streets are narrower than in other boroughs.  So there ought to be less snow to clear.
• The snow removal equipment is older than in other boroughs. Much of it was replaced last summer, and they’re not any more efficient at snow removal this year.
• The Plateau is the centre of Montreal’s nightlife, and has more cars and “difficult people” to deal with. The centre of Montreal’s nightlife hasn’t been the Plateau in years, thanks in no small part to Ferrandez and co. And there are fewer cars in the Plateau compared to most boroughs — most residents don’t own one. The only “difficult people” I’m encountering here are M. Ferrandez and company.

But, cutting through the slogans and rhetoric, what does this update actually contain? The details are still pending, of course, but at first glance it reads to me as surprisingly… balanced.

The good

For one thing, the rich and corporations are being asked to shoulder the lion’s share of the cuts. This is far from a conservative approach. The budget includes such measures as suspended bonuses to senior executives, reduction in tax credits to large corporations, and added taxes on financial institutions, insurance companies and oil companies. Small and medium business, meanwhile, are getting some tax breaks.

Even the much-decried increase in daycare fees is largely limited to households making over $75,000 per year, and even that is an increase from $7 to $8. Most families will see an increase of only 30 cents per day, to $7.30. The only families who will pay the $20/day maximum are those with household incomes of $155,000 and above. The current system was very tough on lower income families stuck on long waiting lists — sometimes for years — for a $7/day spot. The updated pricing will be more expensive for wealthier families, to be sure, and might drive more of them to the private system, but this would mean the coveted public system spots will be more available to the people who need them most. Again, hardly Attila the Hun policy.

The budget update also contains a number of environmental measures, including registration fee increases for large vehicles, insurance fee premium increases for drivers, added taxes on fuel at the pump, and several green energy and anti-climate change initiatives.

The not-so-good

Yes, the general population will shoulder some of the burden, too. The most contentious austerity measures aim to trim back public sector pensions, which arguably needs to be done, but the government’s heavy-handed approach here is backfiring. Someone who has worked in a public sector job for their entire career on the promise of a certain pension should not be told, now that they’re close to retirement, that they won’t be getting what was promised. There simply isn’t enough time for them to go back in time and save more money. In addition, the MNAs had to be shamed into scaling back their own ridiculous pensions — something that should’ve been a no-brainer in “austerity” times. They did it, but kicking and screaming. However, on the whole, the private sector can’t afford to indefinitely shoulder the burden of such high public pensions, especially when the taxpayers supporting them largely have no pensions and insufficient retirement savings themselves.

The politically questionable

To make matters worse, the government has picked a fight with unions by reducing the tax credits for union dues. This will cost union members a mere $70 or $80 each on average per year, but the unions are powerful foes and are already angry about Bill 3. The last election saw many unionists break with the PQ in anger over Pierre-Karl Peladeau, the Charter of Values and a whole host of other things. But the unions and the PQ are traditional allies, and the small amount of savings that the Liberals will get from this tax credit scaleback (estimated at about $112 million per year) probably isn’t worth the political cost of driving them back together.

The bottom line

On the whole, this budget update reads refreshingly Liberal by Canadian standards, though perhaps not by Quebec ones. It’s not a Tory reward-the-rich-and-oil-companies-at-the-expense-of-everyone-else budget.

But the actual provisions may end up mattering very little when compared to the visceral opposition to the A-word: Austerity. A lot of people are angry.

The Liberals have little choice but to do their deepest cutting early on in their mandate, hoping that by the time the next election rolls around in four years, there will be enough of a recovery to shower the population with pre-election gifts. But in the meantime, it may not be pretty.

There were also shots reportedly fired by another gunman at or near the Rideau Centre shopping mall, and/or near the Chateau Laurier. It’s still unclear whether there are two or more shooters.

Downtown Ottawa is on lockdown, with the RCMP advising people to stay indoors and away from windows and rooftops.

I know it’s trite to say this, but this kind of thing is not supposed to happen in Ottawa, of all places. There’s not much information yet to go on, but Ottawa is the sort of place where you’re usually more likely to get bored out of your mind than shot. And I mean that as a compliment.

CBC has an updated live news coverage feed here.

Stay safe, folks!

Update: 3:45pm: What we know right now is that the soldier who was guarding the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is dead, having succumbed to his injuries in hospital. He was a young reservist from Hamilton who was serving on guard duty this week. His name has not yet been released pending notification of next of kin, who are definitely in my thoughts today.

We also know that the gunman who then entered Parliament and started firing shots is dead, taken down by Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers, who reportedly showed incredible courage in preventing further injuries or deaths.

Beyond that, nothing else is hard evidence. Everything else is speculation. Initial reports of a possible second shooter appear to be false (as they usually are) and the police have been very careful about releasing information, as the investigation is ongoing.

In times like this, I think it’s worth noting that finger-pointing, blaming politicians, speculating, advancing conspiracy theories, or otherwise wreaking havoc and inciting panic is a very, very bad idea. Please, everyone, take a breath. We don’t know what we don’t know. This isn’t about ISIS, Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau, Thomas Mulcair, Pierre-Karl Peladeau, Rene Levesque, Barack Obama, George Bush, or your mom. This isn’t about the media making wild leaps and assumptions in order to fill air time and gain viewers. Please, think before you hit retweet!

My wonderful aunt, Suanne Stein Day, is running for re-election as LBPSB Chair. It’s because she’s wonderful, and not just because she’s family, that I’d urge you to go out and vote for her if you’re eligible. (And give her a Like on Facebook while you’re at it, eh? Especially the parents among you, please share your concerns and thoughts with her, as she’s certainly listening and wanting to help!) I can’t vote for her as I don’t live in the LBPSB’s region. But I can certainly give her a ringing endorsement on this blog.

But, whoever you vote for, I’d urge everyone to get informed and get involved. I’m not a parent. Maybe you’re not either, and you’re wondering why you should care.

Voices of the anglo community

The thing is, the anglophone community in Quebec has very little left in the way of political representation. Many of our institutions, community organizations and representatives no longer exist. The school boards are one of our last remaining organized voices to be taken seriously whenever issues arise.

In the last two years, there were plenty of these issues. The debates while the PQ was in power over Bill 14 and the proposed Charter of Values proved how important it was for us to have these voices. Suanne, as well as other prominent voices from minority communities, travelled to Quebec City to present briefs at the parliamentary hearings for these two very discriminatory pieces of legislation, both of which were ultimately defeated. These are but two examples, but Suanne has been a vocal and active defender of our rights in the media and political spheres.

Our future at stake

The English school boards are essential to the future of our community. Bill 101 and subsequent legislation have so restricted eligibility for English education that the boards are facing an existential threat. Dwindling enrolment is a result of these restrictions and of anglophones moving out of province or choosing to send their kids to French schools.

You may not realize this —  I didn’t, at first — but the English boards face an even bigger challenge with funding. See, every eligible voter in Quebec gets automatically registered to vote in the French schoolboard of their area, regardless of their language of preference or the language in which they themselves were educated. The only exceptions are parents with children actively enrolled in the English system (if they’ve since graduated, you may have been switched back to the French list) and people who have filled out a form asking to be switched to the English list.

This isn’t just about where you vote, either. It’s also about which board gets to collect your school taxes. Whether you are a property owner paying school taxes directly, or a tenant paying them via your landlord as part of your rent, this applies to you. And me. And all of us. That means that the English school boards are facing a perpetual funding challenge even compared to the ratio of community they serve, because so many of the English-speaking or anglophone-eligible people living in their districts may be registered on the French lists. ETA: Actually, there’s a revenue-sharing agreement in many regions of Quebec, including the island of Montreal. But not everywhere. And the number of people registered to vote in the English schoolboard elections is still much smaller than the proportion of the community they serve.

Despite these challenges, the English school boards graduate engaged, successful students. The students of these boards are Quebec’s most bilingual, have Quebec’s highest rates of graduation and post-secondary education, and go on to be our future leaders and ensure the continuity of our community.

Many of my closest friends are teachers, educators and parents. Others are people who simply want what’s best for the community in general. This school board election takes the decision out of the hands of a few commissioners and places it in the hands of the general population. The gauntlet has been thrown. Let’s pick it up and accept the challenge by getting involved and turning out in big numbers in November to vote.

How to vote for an English school board:

1. Call the Director General of Elections office at 1-888-ELECTION (353-2846). You can check for your entire household at this time.
2. If you’re on the English list, all is well. You will receive a voter’s card in the mail in October.
3. If you’re on the French list and wish to be transferred to the English list, you must visit the website of the English school board in your area and download and complete a form requesting to be transferred. Here are links to the forms for the EMSB and the LBPSB.
4. Mail the form into the address on the bottom, or drop it off at a school, board office, or with a candidate running for office. DEADLINE: OCTOBER 14th.
5. You’ll get a voter card in the mail in October telling you when and where to vote, and who the candidates for your board are. If you don’t know any of them, that’s okay; read what they’re saying, speak to parents or teachers or reach out to the candidates themselves on social media. Ask them questions.
6. Vote on Election Day on November 2nd. There’s also an advance polling day on October 26th.

I’ve been following the debate in Scotland more closely than I thought I would. For one thing, I have quite a few friends in the UK and this impacts them directly. But if it were only that, I’d probably give it a cursory amount of attention and move on. Of course, it’s more than that.

As a Quebecer, this issue is close to my heart. In many ways, it feels all too familiar. And I’ve come to realize that the stress level I feel over this whole thing has very little to do with Scotland, and everything to do with reliving the unresolved fear and uncertainty and anger that I have over the 1995 Quebec referendum.

Call it PRSD: Post-Referendum Stress Disorder.

On referendum night in 1995, I sat with my family and watched as the ballots were counted and the results came in. I was fifteen years old — too young to vote, but not too young to understand the significance of what was happening. I knew that my future, and the future of everyone I knew, was being decided by people other than me. I felt angry, scared, and helpless — that a 50%+1 plurality of people who were nothing like me could potentially steal my country, my nationality, my passport, my identity as a Canadian. One third of my high school class moved to Ontario that year. My parents talked about doing the same if Quebec separated. I’m a fourth-generation Montrealer, and I was terrified that I would lose my home and my life and everything I knew and held dear. I remember watching the counts tally across three different TV screens — there was no social media back then — and seeing the vote count flip back and forth between “yes” and “no” so often that I bit my nails right down to the quick. And then, I remember the enormous relief when the votes were in and the result was a narrow victory for the No side, only to have that relief shattered by the infamous Parizeau “money and the ethnic vote” speech, and to understand that to some people, I would forever be an outsider in my own home. It’s a terrible feeling at any age. And it has certainly left its scars.

Now, flash forward almost two decades, and it feels like the Scots are in much the same place as we were in October 1995. Like in Quebec, support for independence in Scotland was low; only a few months ago, nobody took the threat of separation seriously. As in Quebec, the polls have swung considerably in the past few weeks and days, to the point where it’s too close to call. One poll I saw even had the breakdown of support at 49.4% Yes, 50.6% No — exactly the result of the 1995 Quebec referendum. (Not counting all the fraudulently rejected “No” ballots. But I digress.) As in Quebec, Scotland feels alienated politically, an island of leftist views swarmed in a sea of Tory right in the rest of the UK, just as we have been many times — most notably in 2011, when Quebec’s Orange Crush happened at the same time as the RoC went Tory Blue. As in Quebec, the Yes side in Scotland has managed to sell a dream of an independent future to a population that is weary of being ignored by the federal government. As in Quebec, the UK government woke up to this threat very late, and is now scrambling to make a series of promises to try to talk Scotland into staying.

The similarities are not lost on Quebec separatists. Option Nationale leader Sol Zanetti (who?) made an asinine video, full of fact-twisting, factual errors and just plain ridiculous logic, urging Scots to vote yes. Several PQ MNAs, including leadership frontrunner Pierre-Karl Péladeau, have made their way to Scotland to watch the results come in — and, presumably, to try to use them as a way to rekindle the sovereignty debate here at home. Jean-François Lisée is heralding Scotland as a “shining example” for Quebec nationalists.

It’s almost as though they don’t want to remember that Alex Salmond snubbed and embarrassed Pauline Marois when she went to visit him last year. He wanted nothing to do with her. No fool, Salmond has certainly studied and learned from Quebec’s referendum process, but really didn’t want to associate his potentially successful movement with Quebec’s twice-failed one. Who could blame him for that?

Last April, a majority of Quebecers decided they, too, want nothing more to do with Marois or her PQ, either. Since 1995, support for sovereignty here has plummeted, and hovers around the 30% range. We voted the PQ out and the Liberals in this year, not due to any love for the Liberals, but because PKP said the R-word and Quebec panicked. We want nothing more to do with referendums. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Twice. We’re sick and tired of it. Heck, even the PQ leadership candidates seem to recognize how this has turned into a political third rail, promising “ten-year plans” and lots of delays and really, anything-but-referendums. They have PRSD, too.

But now, the PQ has seen the perfect opportunity to rekindle the sovereignty flame from the ashes. They’re projecting, of course. They’re making this out to be all about them, when in fact, it has nothing to do with them.

But then, I’m guilty of the same thing.

The truth is, I’m inclined to support the No side in the Scotland debate, not for any specific reasons related to Scotland or its issues, but because I’m projecting my own experiences as a Quebecer onto their debate. My sympathies lie most with the (by most counts) roughly half of the people in Scotland who want to stay a part of the UK. I know what it feels like to have your country almost taken away from you, to be at risk of losing your home and nationality and identity. I know those feelings of helplessness and fear all too well. And the people in Scotland who are surely feeling much the same way today are the ones who are most in my thoughts.

The issues are different, though. In lots and lots of ways. Here are just a few:

1. Scotland’s case for independence makes more sense economically.

Figures don’t lie but liars figure, so all of these numbers are going to be politically loaded and subject to debate. But by most accounts, Scotland — with its rich offshore oil reserves — pays more into national unity than it receives. Quebec is quite the opposite; we’re a “have-not” province in federal equalization payments, receiving more from federalism than we pay in. An independent Scotland would face serious questions about international treaties, EU membership, currency and monetary policy… there’s no doubt of that. But their case for independence is stronger simply due to the fact that the UK stands to lose more by having Scotland leave.

2. Scotland’s brand of nationalism isn’t about ethnic origin.

One of the greatest successes of the Scottish independence movement is that it’s inclusive of all ethnic minorities. Unlike Quebec, Scotland hasn’t created a brand of nationalism that centres on “us” versus “them”.  Its brand of nationalism is big-tent inclusive, and centres more on economic and political self-determination than on language or culture. The racism component is missing, making this debate far less ugly than ours. If the No side wins by a narrow margin, don’t expect any infamous “money and the ethnic vote” comments from Alex Salmond. Then again, the cynics out there could note that our first referendum in 1980 had far less of this attached to it; that many anglophones and minorities who voted for Rene Levesque in the 70s would never vote for the likes of Parizeau, Marois or Drainville today. Our movement devolved. Let’s hope Scotland’s doesn’t.

3. Scotland’s question is clear(er).

The question on Scotland’s referendum ballot has six words: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” Contrast this to Quebec’s convoluted question in 1995: “Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on 12 June 1995? No wonder that 4 in 10 people who voted Yes in the 1995 referendum actually believed that it meant that Quebec would stay in Canada. One can only imagine how poorly the Yes side would’ve fared with a clear question. And the subsequent Clarity Act, which turned Stephane Dion into Public Enemy #1 among Quebec sovereigntists, only proved how scared they were of actually asking a clear question. Now, arguably, there are very real questions about what an independent Scotland would look like. But at least they’re asking the question the way it ought to be asked.

4. Scotland has been independent before.

Scotland was an independent country for 800 years, until it joined the UK in 1707. Sure, you could argue that since it has never been independent in the modern era, that doesn’t matter. But Quebec has never been an independent country — and probably never will be. There’s a big difference between the country of Scotland (and yes, I use that word deliberately; regardless of today’s outcome, the four constituent countries of the UK are, in fact, countries) and the province of Quebec. Creating a new country is a different kettle of fish from restoring one that has such a strong historical basis.

5. Europe has many small countries; North America has three big ones.

An independent Scotland would be one of four dozen European countries, half of which have smaller populations. If it were to join the EU and other trade organizations (complicated due to Spain/Catalonia and other objections, but not impossible), it wouldn’t be out of place or desperately overshadowed. It could hold its own and pull its own weight, and be taken seriously among its neighbours. Quebec, on the other hand, is a province of 8 million people living on a continent dominated by three main countries — the US, Mexico, and Canada — with a collective population of 500 million people. Canada is already the smallest of the three population-wise and often has trouble negotiating on even footing with our neighbour to the south, which is ten times our size. An independent Quebec would quite simply be drowned out by its trade partners and neighbours, who already see us as an expensive afterthought market for trade and commerce and certainly would even more so if we were to be independent.

Ultimately, this debate isn’t our debate, regardless of how familiar it may feel to us. I’ll be watching with interest and hoping for a No vote. But whatever happens, it would serve us well to remember that, for once, this really isn’t about us. And that’s a good thing.

So I’ve been not saying very much. Because I know that I wouldn’t be saying anything that most of you don’t already know, And, sadly, nothing I could say will convince anyone who has already made up their mind otherwise. I don’t think that inflammatory posts belong on my Facebook news feed — or on anyone else’s, for that matter. That’s why I have this separate blog page in the first place. I’ve had to unfollow some folks. I’ve even had to unfriend a few people.

But if I had to give a nutshell account of my thoughts, this comes pretty close:

I ask the enraged critics of Israel’s defensive responses to Hamas: Would you have us not respond to this monstrosity? Do you think it’s not worth losing the PR battle to retain our humanity and save as many lives as possible? What country would stand by when thousands of terrorist missiles assault its citizens?

[ . . . ]

We will do what we must to protect our people. We have that right. We are not less deserving of life and quiet than anyone else.

No more apologies.

(Hat tip: Richard.)

And, in case this isn’t enough, let me just recap the statement from the About page on this blog: “This blog is staunchly, unabashedly and wholeheartedly pro-Israel. Eretz Yisrael is in my heart and in my soul, and I will never hesitate to tell off anyone who would threaten its right to exist in peace and security. A broad spectrum of opinions are welcome here, and I will never shy away from a good debate. But if you’re here because you’re a hater, a terrorist apologist, or just a plain old-fashioned antisemite, please do everyone a favour and f#$% off.”

For the past 18 months, it’s felt a bit to me like we’ve been fighting a war on two fronts: On the one hand, against Pauline Marois and the PQ at the provincial level, and on the other hand, against Stephen Harper and the Conservatives at the federal level.

One of the two fronts of this war was defeated last night, as the PQ was thrashed at the ballot box and earned its worst election result in 44 years. Now, it’s time to turn our focus to the other front.

Despite ostensibly occupying opposite sides of the sovereignty debate and of the left-right political spectrum, Harper’s Tories and Marois’s PQ have a lot in common. Both came to power on a wave of anger against Liberal corruption amidst grandiose promises to clean up government, and both took corruption to new heights. Both have been engaging in the politics of fear and division. Both have been trying to rig the electoral system to deny votes to their political opponents — Marois via her paranoid accusations about “students from Ontario” trying to steal the election, and Harper via the Orwellian-named “Fair Elections Act” that is anything but. Since coming to power, both have done pretty much nothing I agree with and plenty that makes my blood boil.

Stephen Harper once infamously said that “You won’t recognize Canada when I’m through with it”. That statement turned out to be eerily prophetic.

In the past 8 years of Conservative government, here are just a few ways in which Harper has been working to make Canada completely unrecognizable:

• The Economy. The Tory pet issue, and the one on which it runs its campaigns. Really? Not so much. Under Harper, Canada went from having a balanced budget and an annual surplus to running the biggest deficits in Canadian history. Yes, some of that was due to the global economic recession, but a lot of that has to do with the Tories’ spending priorities.

• The Environment. Harper withdrew Canada from the Kyoto protocol, muzzled scientists from researching or even talking about climate change, destroyed records, and stripped away environmental protections in favour of his friends in the oil industry. In fact, last year, Canada was ranked dead last out of of 27 OECD nations for environmental protection.

• Statistics Canada. Scrapping the mandatory long form census over the objections of pretty much every public poliymaker and everyone who’s ever taken a statistics course in their life.

• The War on Science. Tories decided that science had to either support their positions, or else science was evil. If the above points weren’t enough for you, Here is a pretty comprehensive (and frightening) chronology that was painstakingly compiled and that ought to make you shake in your booties.

• Corruption. Where to begin? Losing $3 billion dollars. Election robocall scandals, and lying to senior citizens. Mike Duffy.

• Lots and lots more. The status of women. First Nations relations (or lack thereof). The bloated Omnibus bills. Proroguing Parliament to avoid answering questions he doesn’t like. The list goes on. And on. And on.

This two-front war has left many of us exhausted, our resources and emotional stamina drained. Many of us here in Quebec have been too preoccupied with the PQ to turn much attention to what’s going on in Ottawa. The immediate existential threats to our basic human rights that Marois proposed seemed the more urgent problem, and we had an imminent provincial election to worry about. So we focused our efforts here.

But now, it’s time to turn our focus to the other direction, and do everything in our power to make sure that the next election result ensures that Stephen Harper and his Tories can do no further damage to Canada. They’ve done far too much already.

Bye bye Pauline. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

Watch out, Stephen, you’re next.

Obviously, I would have preferred a Liberal victory over a Quebec Solidaire one here. The QS is staunchly pro-sovereignty, militantly anti-English, and has pie-in-sky ideas about economics and policy that only a party at no risk of ever having to govern can afford to hold. Furthermore, Manon Massé, while I’ve no doubt is a nice enough person, is a social justice activist who also happens to be an anti-Israel activist who joined in the Gaza flotilla of 2011 and is a member of a group that calls itself “Queers Against Israeli Apartheid”. (Whether or not any member of this group has any idea that Israel is the only state in the middle east where gay rights are even defended is another question… I’ve learned not to expect any logic when arguing with people like this. But I digress.)

Manon Massé (left) and Françoise David of Québec Solidaire awaiting the results of the close race in Sainte-Marie-Saint-Jacques

The Liberal candidate, Anna Klisko, a housing and real estate lawyer, daycare owner and mom, seems like a much better representative for this riding.

But the truly amazing thing is that she’s come so close to victory at all. The Liberals were expected to come a distant third in this riding, which has been solidly PQ since its creation in 1989. Instead, Daniel Breton of the PQ is sitting in third place, some 600 votes behind Massé. And it’s Klisko who has challenged for the lead. Her strong showing caught everyone by surprise, even her political rivals.

The truth is, Liberal voters in my neighbourhood do exist, though many tend not to broadcast it. And even if some of the votes that the Liberals got this time around were more anti-PQ votes as opposed to genuine support for the Liberals, there’s also the fact that some folks may have voted Quebec Solidaire instead of Liberal because they viewed them as the best PQ foil. Whatever the case, hopefully this means that our riding will be more than an afterthought in the next PLQ campaign, and that we’ll get some actual attention for once.

Whatever the recount shows, I’m glad to no longer be living in a PQ riding. I hope that if Massé is confirmed as the winner, that she will represent the interests of all her constituents with honour. And either way, I’m happy to know that my vote really meant something for once, that it came close to making a real difference in my riding, and that I no longer have to feel like a lone red voter in a sea of blue.

It’s been a really ugly 18 months, and an even uglier campaign. But tonight, my faith in the people of this province I call home was restored.

It’s hard to believe that scarcely five weeks ago, the PQ called this election and was projected to coast to an easy majority. How things change in the course of a campaign.

The PQ’s strategy of demonizing the “other” and running on the Charter of Values backfired. Some people finally started to realize that you don’t promote feminism by bullying women and telling them what they can or cannot wear. The big gaffes, though, could all be summed up by three little letters: PKP. His infamous fist-pump, and the subsequent referendum talk, cost the PQ a lot of votes. Their move to the right cost them a lot more on the left. And in the final days of the campaign, they were left scrambling. Tonight, they achieved their worst result in 44 years, since their maiden election in 1970.

Hopefully, this delivers a resounding message to the PQ and to anyone else who wants to play these ugly games of wedge politics: Don’t.

So now we have a Liberal majority, which is perhaps the lesser of the evils rather than a genuinely good thing. But despite my issues with them, this is the best possible result for Quebec. The Charter and Bill 14 are dead. The Liberals won’t be forced to buy support from the likes of the CAQ by promising concessions on language or identity in order to govern. We won’t be living under the constant threat of a referendum. And, best of all, we’ll have a good 4-5 years without an election, so we can actually focus on rebuilding.

More good news:

• Pauline Marois lost her seat and stepped down as PQ leader. Odds-on favourites for her successor? Drainville, Lisée, or Péladeau?
• Also defeated for the PQ: Diane de Courcy, Martine Desjardins, Leo Bureau-Blouin, and (thankfully) Louise Mailloux.
• Former Liberal Fatima Houda-Pepin was defeated as an independent by the Liberal candidate in her riding, which means her obvious plans to cross the floor to the PQ will be thwarted.
• In a beautiful piece of poetic justice, Quebecor media mogul Pierre-Karl Peladeau narrowly won his seat in Saint-Jerome, and now will have to sit in opposition in a majority Liberal government.

• And in my home riding of Sainte-Marie-Saint-Jacques, not only was the incumbant PQ candidate Daniel Breton defeated, but he’s actually in *third* place right now. Manon Massé for Quebec Solidaire is in the lead, but she hasn’t been declared elected yet as she is only ahead of the Liberal candidate by 69 votes. Yes, the Liberals, who were projected to come a distant third and hardly even bothered to campaign here. This riding has been Pequiste since 1989. Everyone said I was nuts for hoping for a Liberal victory, but the Liberals actually won 600 more votes than the PQ. It just goes to show, you never know!

Tomorrow, there will be work to do. The Liberals have to rebuild the trust of Quebecers despite corruption allegations. They have to work to heal the deep rifts that this ugly campaign left, while tackling the important issues including the economy, healthcare, education, infrastructure and the environment. Some of us will agree with their policies and some of us will disagree. And there are no easy answers to the big questions.

But tonight, let us breathe a collective sigh of relief, and celebrate

Merci, Québec.

In 2012, Pauline Marois donned a red square and declared the PQ the party of the social left. In 2014, she stood by Pierre-Karl Peladeau and declared the PQ the party of business and the economy. A scant 18 months have gone by.

A student-led coup d’etat?

As I’d pointed out at the time, the PQ’s involvement in the red square movement was no accident. Whether you believe it was orchestrated in advance or sheer opportunism or a little of both, Pauline Marois and company knew exactly what they were doing when they put on those red squares and promised the world to the protesting students.

As you know, I did not support the red square protests at the time and I still don’t. I think tuition badly needs to unfreeze, and the fact that it’s become such a third rail issue is hurting our education system, our economy and our opportunities for the province’s future. But of course, it was never about that. The protests rapidly changed their tone from the original tuition freeze message to talk about corruption, social issues, anti-protest legislation, and specifically about the Liberals under Jean Charest.

To this day, I speak to friends who supported the red square movement who argue that it had nothing to do with PQ versus Liberal. Many of them don’t and won’t vote for the PQ; they’re Quebec Solidaire, Green or even Marxist-Leninist voters, or else they’re utterly disgusted by politics and don’t vote. I don’t doubt that their own personal motivations to be out there banging pots and pans were, in fact, pure. Nobody wants to believe that they’re merely puppets in a larger political game, with someone else pulling the strings. It’s an ugly and insulting accusation to level at people who, I’m sure, had the best of intentions.

But the truth is, the students and others who were out there played exactly into the PQ’s hands.

The voter turnout among 18-24 year olds is historically low. It was only 36% in 2008, and has hovered in the under 40% range for decades. In 2012, a historically unprecedented  62% of them voted. Similar upswings in participation were noted among the 25-34 age group. It was this huge vote upswing that turfed out the Liberals and put the PQ in power.

It was, in effect, a coup d’etat cleverly disguised as a protest movement.

And, intentionally or not, the folks out banging on pots and pans became tools of the PQ, who rode the anti-Liberal anger all the way to a narrow minority-government victory. A real feat for a party that had been in complete disarray only twelve months earlier. And anyone who thinks that this happened by accident or happenstance is, excuse me for saying this, but just as naive as the students who believed Pauline Marois when she pinned that red square on her coat in the first place.

Desperation tactics

Flash forward 18 months and that’s all changed. The PQ has taken a hard right turn by recruiting media mogul, businessman and notorious union-buster Pierre-Karl Peladeau to its ranks. It’s a calculated strategy by the PQ, who sees the CAQ collapsing and is going after its voters in the suburbs. However, in the process, the PQ’s traditional staunch allies — labour unions, students, activists, the social left in general, are finally feeling abandoned.

The gamble doesn’t seem to be paying off. Marois started this campaign having leveraged ugly wedge politics and minority-baiting to build lead in the polls that gave her party a virtual lock on a majority government. With two weeks to go until the election, however, that support seems to be bleeding. Peladeau’s infamous fist-bump brought up the R-word — referendum — every mention of which has cost Marois votes. Her Charter message has gotten off message. Corruption accusations are flying. A CTV poll last week gives the Liberals a 5-point lead in the polls — potentially enough to even win the election, if this trend continues. (Dare I hope…? Not yet. Please vote.)

So, not too surprisingly, Marois and her party are resorting to desperation tactics.

Students: From pawns to bogeymen

In 1995, Jacques Parizeau infamously blamed the referendum defeat on “money and the ethnic vote” after accusing immigrants and new Quebecers of having their citizenships fast-tracked to allow them to “steal” the referendum. They also illegally disallowed 86,000 “no” ballots in a desperate attempt to try to steal the referendum for themselves.

And now it’s 2014 and we’re seeing the same ugly tactics all over again. Pauline Marois is publicly “worried” that the election will be “stolen” by yet another group of “outsiders” — this time her target is students. Namely, students who moved here from out of province to study, and who are attempting to legally register themselves on the electoral list to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Marois’s concern? Too many of them have ‘funny-sounding’ English names and are thus unlikely to vote for the PQ. So their attempts to vote are ‘worrisome’. Clearly.

Only 18 months ago, students helped Marois coast to victory. This time, she’s desperately hoping that they’ll provide a convenient foil that will help her avoid defeat. After all, if Muslim women in hijabs don’t scare voters enough, maybe students from Ontario will do the trick.

The PQ believes they’ve found a way to get scared voters from the regions to turn out in high numbers. They’ve latched onto this issue. The justice minister even weighed in.

How ironically symbolic was it to see Leo Bureau-Blouin — one of the student protest leaders — out front at a PQ press conference designed to deny the rights of students to vote. Because Bureau-Blouin and fellow student leader Martine Desjardins, in becoming PQ candidates, showed what most of us knew all along: They were never in it for the students. They were in it for themselves — their own political careers, their own advancement. In the process, they were fully prepared to throw the student members of their unions under the bus, denying them their right to attend classes they paid for or even in some cases, to graduate. And then they threw them under the bus a second time at the PQ’s sham of a student leadership “summit”, at which the PQ proceeded to unfreeze tuition anyway — albeit to a smaller degree than the Liberals had been planning to do, leaving a huge funding gap about which our universities are sounding the alarm. But even so.

And the thing is, it turns out that it’s all completely manufactured nonsense. Registrations aren’t unusually high; according to the DG’s office they’re even slightly down from the last election. Students, due to the fact that they move around a lot, are more likely to be trying to register at a new address before an election than older people who have lived in the same place for a long time.

The real outrage

The real outrage isn’t that students are trying to register to vote; it’s that anyone is trying to stop them.

There are three criteria that have to be met to allow someone to vote in this election. They have to be Canadian citizens, they have to be 18 years or older, and they have to have been ‘domiciled’ in Quebec for a minimum of 6 months.

Simple, right? Not so much. Because students are reporting that they’re being denied the right to register to vote by the review boards, after being asked to prove completely arbitrary things, like their intent to remain permanently in Quebec, their taxpayer status or their holding of a driver’s license. Many students don’t pay taxes, since they earn little income. Many students in Montreal don’t drive or own a car. That’s perfectly normal. But the PQ finds it concerning. Why? Because they’re too anglophone? Too ethnic? Too likely to vote for someone other than the PQ who, I might point out, royally screwed over the students last time around? All of the above?

The DG’s office released a “clarification” as to what “domiciled” means, which clarified absolutely nothing at all. It basically empowers the DG’s office to conduct an inquisition into all matters of the voter’s life, and then to arbitrarily deny them their right to vote anyway.

Anyone who thinks this sounds an awful lot like the Republican Party in the United States would not be wrong.

It’s still about identity politics

The PQ is doing everything in its power to win this election. Because in their view, this is still about identity. “Nous” — Pequistes — have the right to vote, but “vous autres” — anyone voting for someone else — is an outsider who is stealing Quebec’s right to decide for itself. “Vous autres” includes anyone the PQ deems an outsider, whether because they are immigrants, minorities, students, too anglo, too ethnic, too federalist, anything non-PQ.

We all have the right to vote. But in Pauline Marois’ view, the only people who ought to vote are the folks who agree with her. Everyone else be damned.

The whole thing is utterly disgusting. I can only hope that any student legally allowed to vote who is denied will appeal, and that other students will go out and vote en masse to turf out the PQ. I hope that they will realize that they were never allies, that the PQ never had their best interests at heart and is only interested in power at all costs.

I hope the electorate will be too smart to be played this time.

Update: Kelly McParland echoes this sentiment in the National Post: For Marois, the only thing worse than an ethnic voter is a student from Ontario.

Update #2: CJAD has more reports of students being denied their right to vote, including a student who secretly recorded his exchange with the revision officer. A direct quote by the revision officer: “You can show me all your bills for the past 10 years. It doesn’t prove to me that you’re eligible to vote.”

The Parti Quebecois has been in power for a scant year and a half. In that time, it has done more damage than even I would have thought possible. From a vitrol-laced election campaign, the PQ wasted no time launching into a vitrol-laced program designed to cynically scapegoat minorities to win a majority.

This absolutely must not happen. And that is why I am issuing this unprecedented plea: Vote Liberal.

Yes, you heard me. Philippe Couillard is not my favourite guy by any means, or, I would venture a guess, yours. He has flip-flopped on nearly every important issue so far. He leads a party still reeling from corruption scandals and trying to find its footing after being brought down in a flurry of red squares and angry protesters. He lacks Jean Charest’s charisma. He hasn’t been particularly inspiring on any of the issues thus far.

But this is too important. The CAQ has never been a viable option and has been bleeding support for months. The other separatist parties that siphoned off support from the PQ last time around, such as Option Nationale, have basically ceased to exist. Quebec Solidaire is little more than a protest party that, thankfully, is no threat to form a government. The PQ has done all the math and believes that it has what it takes to pick up a few seats here, reduce a bit of vote-splitting there, and coast to a majority.

In a year and a half of minority government, the PQ has succeeded in turning Quebec into an international laughingstock. It has ratcheted up tensions at home. It has been preying on the politically weak — minorities, women — to leverage people’s hatred and fear. Every government does this to some extent, but the ugliness that we’ve been living through these past couple of years is really unprecedented. When people are getting beat up on the street for wearing religious symbols; when people are afraid to leave their homes; when basic human rights and liberties are under attack, then it’s time for all of us to say: Enough.

The PQ’s policies are systematically driving people out of Quebec. Those with the most options — the educated, the bilingual, the wealthy — are leaving first, and thousands are following them as they see their jobs and prospects disappear. Some people are leaving for political and ideological reasons, yes, but most will leave out of economic necessity. We’ve all lived through this before, and with every wave of people leaving, it leaves fewer and fewer of us to fight at the polls. Don’t think this isn’t part of the PQ’s plan; Marois would love to drive everyone who doesn’t vote for her out of the province, so she can coast towards a majority. This is gerrymandering on a scale that even Tammany Hall couldn’t envision.

We can’t afford to be complacent. Marois has made pre-election promises adding up to nearly $2 billion in handouts — money we don’t have. Quebec’s population is aging rapidly, and our tax base is shrinking. Our infrastructure is collapsing. Job growth has stagnated or gone backwards. We can’t even afford to maintain the services we have, and our tax rates are at a tipping point. Unemployment is on the rise and investment has ground to a halt. We’re barrelling towards a healthcare crisis, with a massive shortage of doctors and resources. When even Jacques Parizeau is sounding the alarm, you know things are bad. And yet, the PQ’s strategy of distract-and-defend seems to be working, because nobody’s even talking about these issues. Instead, we’re talking about invented non-issues like what people are wearing on their heads.

The Charter of Values may seem silly and ridiculous. It might be a blatantly transparent way for the PQ to play divide-and-conquer politics while hoping to pick a fight with Ottawa. But to allow it to pass would be a travesty. It would be sacrificing our rights and liberties as citizens to the fear and racism of others.

This comes down to what sort of society we want to live in. Is Quebec a place of xenophobia, fear, hatred and divisiveness? Or is it a place of inclusiveness and progress? I love my city and my province, and I am really, really worried about our future.

The Liberal party is uninspiring at best. We’ll have to see what Couillard can deliver in terms of campaigning skills, but I’m not optimistic. He hasn’t shown much promise so far.

Still, the PQ is far, far worse. I’d go so far as to say its policies are truly evil. And, like it or not, a strong Liberal performance is the only way to hold the PQ in check.

I’m not a fan of strategic voting. It pains me to even have to write this plea. I’ll be holding my nose in the voting booth, to be sure. But I’ll be there, and I’ll be casting my vote for the only party that has a chance to unseat — or at least limit the damage — of the PQ. I sincerely hope that you will do the same.

“Testimony was given … in relation to the political prison camps of large numbers of people who were malnourished, who were effectively starved to death and then had to be disposed of in pots, burned and then buried … It was the duty of other prisoners in the camps to dispose of them,” he said.

The world stood by and watched this all happen. We knew about it. We talked about it. We reported it. But in our broken moral compass of the 21st century, “Never Again” apparently means “Never Again.. except when China is on the Security Council and doesn’t want us looking too closely at its North Korean ally.”

This quote by an unnamed UN official has got to rank up there among the world’s most ironic quotes in all of history:

“We’ve collected all the testimony and can’t just stop and wait 10 years.”

Why not? Isn’t that what we’ve done already?

I had a conversation with a good friend of mine today over hot beverages while trying to thaw out our toes. The discussion was about goals versus plans. We pretty much agreed that setting goals can be positive and constructive, but getting too set on specific plans can be negative and destructive.

So on that note, I’m making some New Year’s Resolutions this year. Because it’s good to have goals, even if I fully expect to mess them up, break them, diverge from the path many times over, and hopefully find something better in the process. Here goes:

1. Always say yes. This was my one resolution last year, and it’s been working pretty well for me so far. Saying yes to new ideas, new opportunities and experiences is rewarding in sometimes unexpected ways. (In the spirit of improv, I probably should amend this to “always say yes, and…” but you get the idea.)
2. Travel to at least 5 new places. A few travel plans got aborted this year, true. But temporary setbacks aside, my traveller’s spirit will prevail. I have lots of ideas already. Stay tuned.
3. Blog weekly. There was a time when I was blogging multiple times a day, but Facebook and Twitter largely taken over for short one-off posts and links, so blog posts take longer to write these days. Still, I blog in four different places, so I’m going to aim to update each of them at least monthly.
4. Learn a language. My many attempts at Spanish have yielded nothing but epic failure, and my Hebrew is getting rustier kol yom. I’m starting an ASL course in a couple of weeks, so maybe I’ll have better luck with a nonverbal language.
5. Spin, baby, spin. Every year, the lose weight/exercise resolutions go unfulfilled like stale clichés. Instead, this year I’m resolving to sign up for some spinning classes, to stay in cycling shape during the Bixi off-season.
6. Get at least 15 days on skis. The start of the season was promising, but the current deep freeze has put a damper on it. I’m at 2 days so far in December. Hopefully January and February will be better.
7. Go camping. It’s been a few years since I’ve been on a camping trip. This summer, I resolve to fix that.
8. Watch Team Canada win the hockey gold. This worked when I resolved it four years ago for Vancouver ’10. Hopefully it’ll work for Sochi ’14. Not that I’m superstitious or anything.
9. Win Impossible Montreal 2014. Can the Hunny Badgers defend our title for the third consecutive year? I have no idea, but I sure intend to have a lot of fun finding out.
10. Do everything in my power to get the PQ out of power. Come on, Quebecers, we deserve better than this sorry excuse of a provincial government. Let’s speak out against divide-and-conquer identity politics.
11. Ditto for the Harper government. The next federal election likely won’t be ’til 2015, but that doesn’t mean I can’t keep calling Harper and his cronies out on their crap whenever I see it.
12. Fail boldly. More improv wisdom. I will surely make mistakes this year. I resolve to make grand, decisive, epic mistakes.
13. Be there for the people who matter. I resolve to do a better job of putting family and close friends first in my life.
14. Take the road less travelled. Because it’s always more interesting than the beaten path.

Now, I’ve spent most of my career working in the customer service sector in some way or another. From my student days working at Fairview shopping centre folding sweaters, to my career in account services and strategic planning for various marketing agencies, I’ve spent most of my adult life trying to make sure that the customer was satisfied. It’s not easy, I’ll grant you. There are days when it’s trying, or when certain people make you want to tear your hair out. There are those clients who make you go home and cry and question your will to live. But on the whole, I love it, and I suspect most other people who deal with other human beings in some way feel the same. I get deep satisfaction from building those relationships, anticipating and exceeding expectations, and making people happy. The one thing that always gets to me is when I’m complimented for simply doing my job. It’s a bit of a head-scratcher: After all, compliments and thank yous are nice, but in today’s highly competitive world, shouldn’t good service be the price of entry?

Bad customer service is one of those universal things that can happen anywhere. People love to complain loudly about airlines, telecom companies, service providers, restaurants, hotels and stores where they had unfortunate experiences or were mistreated. They tell their family and friends. They take to social media en masse. This is hardly unique to Montreal.

What is unique here, however, is this sense that this is perfectly normal. and that nobody really needs to try harder or to do better. There are exceptions, of course. But in general, our service sector is among the surliest, rudest and most indifferent on the continent — and when called out for it, they tend to blame the customer.

The customer is always wrong?

We Montrealers have a love-hate relationship with our service industry. On the one hand, we bitch and moan about surly store clerks and wait staff. On the other hand, we have the unfortunate habit of viewing it as a point of pride. We’re not like those Americans who greet the public with overenthusiastic fakery, we boast. We’re better than that. Our service sector may be grumpy and indifferent, but câlisse!, at least it’s honest.

It’s yet another example of how Quebec is eternally trying, it seems, to emulate France. Rude customer service? Check. Eternal public sector strikes? Check. Ban on religious headgear? Working on it.

Of course, some people find the infamous French service sector arrogance to be endearing, largely because there’s a certain amount of dry humour in it. That’s where Quebec, and particularly Montreal, fall down on the job. It seems we’re trying to adopt the rude indifference without picking up on the cheeky wryness that make it all somehow work. We’re cursed with French arrogance and North American lack-of-humour: A deadly combination.

Or maybe it has nothing to do whatsoever with wanting to emulate France. Perhaps it’s just a symptom of a closed society desperately trying to avoid oppenness and progress. After all, we wouldn’t want to be Chicago or San Francisco or — gasp! — Toronto. We have our own businesses here, homegrown ones that are proudly francophone and pur-laine through and through. And far be it for us to require them to compete with the rest of the world. Nope, it’s our national duty as Quebecers to support them even when they have inferior products or indifferent service. To do otherwise smacks of a lack of so-so-solidarité.

Get less for more.

We Quebecers already accept that, due to our smaller population and higher taxes, we usually pay higher prices for less selection, and our service options are few and far between for both online and offline shopping. Americans and even many RoCers reading this blog are probably surprised to hear that things they now have been conditioned to take for granted from their shopping experiences — easy shipping, free returns, price matching and adjustments, knowledgeable sales staff — are simply not available in La Belle Province. Moreover, they’re probably taken aback whenever they walk into an establishment in Montreal only to be summarily ignored, or when they ask a question only to be greeted by a shrug or — worse — an angry rant about daring to speaking English. People accustomed to the friendly hellos and helpful manners found elsewhere in Canada are often shocked when they come here — not merely at the bad service, but at the low expectations for better.

Whenever I read a restaurant or store write a long rant in the media about how it’s been forced out of business by high taxes / unfair rent / low margins / evil American chains infringing on its territory / political decisions, I always stop and question it. After all, many of these are valid grievances, and merchants’ associations need to lobby, too. But all too often, these rants are the sour grapes of large companies that were driven out of business because of poor product offerings, lousy service or bad business practices. If people lose the appetite to eat or shop somewhere because they were mistreated by abusive staff, it’s not the government’s fault.

It’s worse in the public sector. Yes, bureaucrats have a bad rap everywhere, but in Quebec, the sense of entitlement can be particularly egregious. Want to renew your license, apply for a permit, buy a metro ticket, or avail yourself of a government service? You’d better hope you show up with unlimited time, patience and humour, and prepare to be yelled at, chastised or simply dismissed.

Unpleasantness isn’t a virtue.

We need to change this thinking. Unpleasantness isn’t a virtue, and being friendly or helpful aren’t crimes. Going the extra mile with a smile won’t turn us into a generic American city; it will simply make us much happier and more friendly versions of ourselves.

So, in answer to the authors of the Gazette article, I’d like to humbly propose my Top 5 ways not to be a horrible customer service person:

1. Smile. You may be having a bad day. You may think the customer is a complete idiot or is wasting your time. But never let ’em see you sweat. Besides, if you smile, people will smile back at you.
2. Tips aren’t automatic. You have to earn them. If you’re being paid less than minimum wage or taxed on money you haven’t earned yet, that sucks but it’s not the customer’s fault. Lobby to change the laws or the tax codes, but don’t expect to treat people like dirt and then earn a 20% tip for your troubles.
3. Learn how to tell a customer that they’re wrong while making them feel like they’re still right. This isn’t an intuitive skill for everyone, but it’s a vital one to be successful in any customer service role long term. People are only human and they may make unreasonable requests or mistakes.
4. Think about how you can build a long term relationship with every customer who walks through the door, whether they’re buying a $100,000 IT system or a $5 pair of plastic earrings. Here’s a hint: It starts by treating them like an actual human being.
5. And for the customers: Demand better. Remember you always have a choice. Don’t accept arrogance, indifference or mediocrity. Take your business elsewhere in the case of the private sector, and speak up publicly in the case of the public sector monopolies. Things will only improve when we start insisting on it.

Montreal may be famous for its poutine, smoked meat, bagels and cold winters. But a little warmth wouldn’t kill us.

But the service is in financial crisis.

Financial woes or mis-management?

How much crisis is the subject of some debate. Jacques Bergeron, Montreal’s auditor general, claims that Bixi is in fact in serious financial trouble, going so far a couple of weeks ago as to express doubts about its ability to continue operations. Bixi claims its problems are strictly related to cash flow, not profitability, and are merely a function of too much international success too fast. The truth is, nobody really knows the extent of the problem, because Bixi has delayed releasing its financial statements — something that a partially publicly-funded entity should not be allowed to do, and that smacks of either incompetence or cover-up (or some combination thereof). But what is known and generally agreed by all parties is that the system is running an operating deficit in Montreal and may require another bailout in order to continue.

Cyclists and motorists have debated Bixi’s existence since its inception. Users — myself included — have expressed our frustrations with some of the hassles and early hiccups of the system. Drivers bitch about Bixi the same way they bitch about all cyclists taking up valuable road and parking spaces that they believe belong to them by divine right. Hard-core cyclists have been known to gripe about casual Bixi cyclists for not bothering to invest in their own spiffy road bikes that cost hundreds of dollars and get stolen every time someone blinks. The system has been plagued with financial woes from the start, partly because of its disingenuous managerial structure, being run as a ‘private-public partnership’ that got Montreal into the dubious business of selling a bike system internationally for profit. We never should have been in this business to begin with, and Bixi has been trying to spin off its international arm, but a deal to sell it reportedly fell through earlier this year, leaving taxpayers on the hook for millions of dollars of expansion costs to cities like New York, London and Chicago.

Indeed, this debate sounds very much like déja vu from two years ago, when the city of Montreal loaned Bixi $37 million to bail it out of its operating deficit. You see, early proponents of the system had announced — to much fanfare — that Bixi would be financially independent and profitable all on its own. Hubris? Naive optimism? Outright lying? It seems hard to imagine, in retrospect, that any public transit system could be self-sustaining in that way. Bixi’s costs include the bikes and docking stations themselves, but also ongoing bike maintenance, repair, redistribution of bikes from full to empty stations via trucks, call centre employees, website operations, expansion and marketing. Even with Bixi’s decision to accept sponsor ads on its bikes (much to the chagrin of its often anti-corporation clientele), and despite its user fees, Bixi was still in the red.

To be sure, simple managerial incompetence could well be a factor here. Bixi started off as a small operation, run by well-meaning people who were perhaps less than adequate business managers. It could be a victim of its own success. Lots of small businesses in the private sector go through these sorts of growing pains; a hot start-up gets to the point where its founders don’t have the know-how or experience to manage it, and it needs to bring in outside managerial help or sell to a larger entity. Bixi now claims it is bringing in ‘restructuring experts’, something that could be a stall tactic or a legitimate strategy, but which begs the question of why nobody did this years ago. Say, back in 2011 when the city last bailed it out?

To this, I ask, how do we solve a problem like Bixi?

Is Bixi public transit?

But this time, there’s a mayoral election going on. And transportation is a hot issue for the candidates, making Bixi a political hot potato. The candidates all claim to like Bixi in theory, and see it as an essential part of the city’s transit network. But all believe that the murky ‘private-public partnership’ has gotta go, and fast.

If Bixi is indeed public transit, the argument goes, let it be managed by the public transit agency. Stop expecting it to make a profit — after all, the STM gets huge subsidies from tax dollars, because we recognize that it’s a valuable and essential public service. User fees only cover 46% of the STM’s $1.2 billion annual operating budget; the rest comes from provincial (13%), city of Montreal (30%) and regional/suburban municipal (7%) subsidies. The STM consistently runs a deficit — which topped $20 million in 2012 — and nobody suggests scrapping public transit. Indeed, the PQ just pledged $39 million to ‘study’ a metro blue line extension to Anjou that would theoretically cost more than $2 billion to build — an empty election promise that we all know will never happen. That $39 million could’ve wiped out most of Bixi’s debts in one fell swoop, but the PQ prefers to use it to try and buy votes.

Candidates: Give it to the STM to manage

All three leading mayoral candidates believe that the solution is to have the STM take over the Montreal operation of Bixi, and to spin the international arm off and sell it as soon as possible.

• Denis Coderre wants to make the STM a true umbrella organization for managing island transit, from buses and metros to cycling. His somewhat jumbled transit plan would also involve the STM taking over Stationnement de Montréal and managing the city’s parking system. A lot of his ideas sound zany and hubristic more than practical; he favours the metro expansion (which we can ill afford), and wants to use “technology” to direct drivers to available parking spots (which just sounds like a nightmare for public safety, with all those drivers looking at their devices instead of watching the road). But at least his plan takes multiple modes of transportation into account and attempts to balance them, in however cobbled a fashion.

• Richard Bergeron also thinks that Bixi’s Montreal operation should be managed by the STM, and that the international arm should be sold off as quickly as possible. Projet Montreal team sounded the alarm about Bixi being on the “verge of bankruptcy“. Bergeron’s party, which has been the most vehemently anti-car since its inception, is also calling for a tramway project that the other candidates dismissed as foolish pie-in-the-sky (and that invariably makes me think of the Simpsons “Monorail” episode.) My borough of Plateau Mont-Royal has been run by Luc Ferrandez, a Projet Montreal mayor (in)famous for his drastic traffic reduction measures — blocking off streets, drastically reducing free parking, angering merchants, and even picking a fight with the fire department over right-of-way priority access. I’m a transit and Bixi user, but even I think that Ferrandez’s confrontational style has gone too far. In a campaign speech, Bergeron claimed that his vision of the ideal city is “one where a grandmother can walk her 3-year-old grandchild to the daycare and cross the busiest street in Montreal without any fear at all.” To that, I ask, what about my grandfather, who is in a wheelchair and cannot walk or cycle but likes to visit me for brunch in the Plateau? A transit plan dedicated to reducing cars needs to target certain groups of people — those who are able to go car-free — while still providing necessary access for those people who need to drive.

• Marcel Côté, for his part, also agrees that the STM should manage the Montreal operation of Bixi, and that the international arm should be spun off to private investors. Côté claims that the city has no business being in business of international bike sales for profit. The Coalition Montréal transportation plan pooh-poohs the opposition’s focus on flash, and urges less lavish spending on projects that he claims the city can ill afford, like tramways and metro extensions. Instead, it favours more cautious maintenance of the transit network that we already have, and sees an STM-managed Bixi as an important part of that network.

But is it really a solution?

All three leading candidates believe that the STM would do a better job managing Bixi’s Montreal operations. But all fail to address the giant white elephant in the room: The STM is so incompetently managed that it makes the folks running Bixi look like geniuses.

• Near-daily metro outages due to “computer” problems. When the whole system goes down at rush hour so that the STM can reboot, it strands millions of people and makes them late for work, class, meetings, whatever. The outages have become so common that CHOM even recorded a “which line is down” audio clip to use to announce them. The STM is long on excuses and short on fixes, blaming everything from software bugs in its new control centre to outdated equipment to users themselves to the “complexity” of running the system. To that I say, hogwash; Imagine if any other essential system went down with anywhere near the frequency of the metro? Think of what would happen if the banking or credit card processing systems went down for even an hour? Or the cell phone network? Or the air traffic control network? You’d think that nobody at the STM ever heard of backups and redundancies to avoid system-wide outages every time you have to hit CTRL-ALT-DEL (or the equivalent). In any case, the STM hasn’t even managed to solve the logistical problem of keeping its own trains up and running; what on earth would make anyone think that they could keep the Bixi network operating, too?

• Customer lack-of-service is what passes for service at the STM. The unionized employees act as though a smile would cost them their lives. Stories of passengers getting beaten up or being refused service for daring to speak English, or thrown off busses in the middle of the night with a sick child for failing to pay with exact change, abound. The Bixi call centre agents are sometimes varying degrees of helpful, but at least Bixi has a call centre. To file a complaint or ask a service question to the STM, you have to send a letter in writing, which gets swallowed up into some bureaucratic void, never to be heard from again. The level of customer non-service is a joke, and someone wants to give them control over the one quasi-public transit piece that we have in this city that actually pretends to care about its customers?

• Communication is required for Bixi to work. Stations get temporarily relocated for construction or special events; questions need to be answered. After a slow start, Bixi has been getting better at answering customer questions on its Facebook and Twitter pages. There’s still a long way to go on this front. But putting it in the hands of the STM would be a giant step backwards. After all, the STM can’t even manage to communicate service outages to users stranded on the metro. Its inane switch to four separate twitter feeds for each line of the metro — each equally uninformative — is just one more example of how it doesn’t understand customer communication. While Bixi has released mobile apps showing the location of bikes and empty docking stations, the STM has been promising realtime bus location information via GPS since 2009… and it’s still nowhere in sight. Whenever there’s a metro shutdown, frustrated customers ask the ticket booth employees for information on alternate bus and transport routes, and none of them ever have any information to provide. Communication done by the STM is a perversion of the word.

Bixi is my backup transportation whenever the metro goes down. Having them both run by the same people would be a recipe for disaster.

So what are the alternatives?

• Option 1: Status quo.
  Most people would dismiss this as a non-starter, but should they be so quick to do so?  If you believe Bixi’s claims, this is a temporary cash flow issue due to the rapid expansion costs associated with the sale of the system to international cities. Bixi claims that it had hired a restructuring expert and will be restarting the process of looking for a buyer for its international arm. There’s no time frame being provided, and it begs the question of how Bixi expects to stay in the black in the meantime. But even if the city or the province throws more money at it in the form of another bailout, would that be the worst thing? It would keep Bixi afloat, and would still cost less than the money we waste every day on metro expansion ‘feasibility studies’, charter of value nonsense, the OLF, and a host of other questionable spending projects. At least there is a tangible benefit being provided here. And it would keep Bixi out of the clutches of the STM. The trouble is, people are understandably wary of throwing more tax dollars at a sinking ship, since we’ve heard this song and dance before.

• Option 2: Privatize it completely.
  Get the city out of the business altogether, and turn Bixi over to the private sector to run as a for-profit enterprise. This would force it to sink or swim on its own merits, and to seek out private investment to help with any cash shortfall. It would get taxpayers off the hook for the risks associated with the international sales, and would no doubt please all the anti-cycling detractors who see it as a silly waste of money and a threat to their SUV-driving ways. But it would also probably spell the end of Bixi, since the service clearly can’t operate at a profit entirely through user fees. Bixi provides a public good that benefits the entire city in the form of reduced emissions, reduced road congestion, and a much improved multi-modal public transit network. Privatizing it would be killing it off for failing to do something it never should have been expected to do in the first place. Which is why I agree with all the candidates that this option ought to be off the table.

• Option 3: Subsidize it, but keep it managed separately from the STM.
  This is actually my preferred option. Instead of more loans and bailouts, let’s create a regular annual subsidy to Bixi to allow it to break even by generating only part of its revenues via user fees — just as the STM does. Spin off the international arm as soon as is realistically possible, and then set up a separate agency to run the Montreal operation as a public transit system that both complements and competes with the STM. Add oversight and transparency (including open books), and keep the management agency as small as possible to avoid bureaucratic waste. But for the love of all things bicycle, keep it out of the hands of the STM! Just because transit is public doesn’t mean it needs to be centrally run by an incompetent monopoly. While it may seem counter-intuitive to set up yet another public transit agency in Montreal, we all should’ve learned our lesson from the municipal mergers by now: Bigger is not always better. More choice, even if it’s a choice between separately run public services, will nearly always benefit users.

There’s been a lot of talk by all the mayoral candidates about transportation infrastructure in this campaign. I’d love to see some reasoned debate on this issue. Because I really do like Bixi and I rely on it as a critical part of my strategy for getting around between April and November. I’d hate to see it go bankrupt, but I’d also hate to see it disappear into the STM’s mismanagement vortex.

So, what say you, candidates?

Now, the long-awaited new Wireless Code announced by the CRTC after months of public hearings promises to address a few of the most egregious issues. Among them:

• Canadians will be able to cancel their plans after two years with no penalty, even if they signed a deal for longer.
  This is all well and nice, considering that the three-year plan cycle was stifling innovation. But considering that there really aren’t any better options out there, cancelling and going to a competitor is illusionary freedom at best.

• Caps on extra data and roaming charges to $50 and $100 respectively within a given billing cycle.
  This is perhaps the biggest win for consumers; stories of $22,000 phone bills or other ridiculous overage charges have abounded in the media lately, embarrassing providers and frustrating consumers. Even smaller amounts are ridiculous: A friend recently returned from a trip to the UK to discover a $1,287 phone bill, all for committing the cardinal sin of having forgotten to purchase a data plan, and having accessed Google Maps a few times while abroad. Such charges far exceed any reasonable costs that the providers have, and amount to a punitive tax on the unsuspecting for no reason other than they’ve been allowed to get away with it for far too long.

• Canadians will be able to unlock their devices after 90 days, or immediately if they didn’t purchase a phone on contract.
  Anyone who wanted an unlocked device was already doing so on the grey market for a few dollars. It’s useful for people moving out of the country or for those of us who travel a lot; Canada remains one of the only countries in the world where you can’t get off a plane and pick up a local SIM card for a matter of a few dollars to use during your stay. (I do this all the time with my unlocked phone; it’d saved me thousands in roaming charges in countries from France to Israel to Vietnam.) But for most Canadians, with no competition to speak of in the market, unlocking your device will only allow you to switch to an equally bad provider, which is really no choice at all. All this means in practice is that providers will raise the prices of the phones in the first place, arguing that they can no longer subsidize them to as great a degree.

• Contracts must be in plain language, with wording explained clearly and with the option to opt out of all changes.
  This ought to have been the price of entry and a given for anyone doing business. The fact that it needed to be said was sad. A step in the right direction, to be sure. But the Code doesn’t set out any restrictions on what the wireless providers can and cannot put in the contracts, as long as it’s spelled out in plain language.

What’s missing from this Code? Quite a lot.

• There’s no mention of the fundamental unfairness of charging for incoming calls and text messages — a particularly egregious issue considering how much spam and how often my phone rings with unsolicited telemarketing calls. When I complained recently to Rogers about the dozens of robo-calls I’ve been receiving lately (“Congratulations! You’ve won a trip!”), I was basically told that I had no choice but to pay for the calls. There’s also the fact that we take the double-charging (paying for both outgoing and incoming minutes) as a given here in Canada, when most people from other countries would find that shocking.

• There’s next to nothing being done to address the lack of competition in the marketplace. Bell, Telus and Rogers collectively own the vast majority of the wireless spectrum. Efforts in recent years to open up parts of the spectrum to bidding from smaller players are failing, since the small players are being sold one by one to the big ones. Virgin Mobile is owned by Bell; Fido is long owned by Rogers; Telus is in talks to buy Mobilicity; Public and Wind are both up for sale. Only Videotron here in Quebec is making a go of it, since as a larger cable company it can afford to compete, but its service and offerings aren’t exactly advantageous compared to the Big Three. And anyway, Rogers and Videotron have a network sharing agreement that will effectively prevent them from actually competing. With so few choices, we all lose, regardless of market regulation or consumer codes. Since, after all, the Big Three can charge whatever they want, as long as they spell it out in plain English.

Ultimately, this Wireless Code is Too Little, Too Late. It will get us to where we needed to be as a country five years ago, but it does very little to address the future. And we will continue to fall behind the rest of the world in terms of mobile adoption rates and technical innovation.

But, it’s a step in the right direction.