Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Alejandra Gomez and Greisa Martinez Rosas offer a reminder that Donald Trump's attempt to pit immigrants against other workers serves only to distract from the reality that the capitalist class is callously exploiting both. And Amanda Taub reports on the protection racket diplomacy which has been tested first in the U.S.' threats to abandon Ukraine. 

- Jill Filipovic writes about the adolescent masculinity that represents the common thread of Trump's various factions and plans. David Dayen offers some hope that Trump's initial plan for a coup against U.S. democracy has failed as most institutions have survived the first wave of attacks, while Brian Beutler discusses how his unabashed villainy has helped to avoid a takeover without resistance. Adam Serwer points out how one of Trump's core goals is to reverse the gains of the civil rights movement. And Beatrice Peterson reports on the mass firings of intelligence community employees who dared to participate in LGBTQ+-oriented private chat conversations, while Madison Pauly reports on the McCarthyist demand that workers out their LGBTQ+ colleagues to enable their being purged from the civil service as a whole. 

- Alice Southey and Tabatha Southey write about the need to stop treating Trump's constant threats to take Canada by force as a joke or a thought experiment. David Moscrop points out how the external menace makes it easier to unite around what makes Canada worth defending. And Nora Loreto discusses how much of our sovereignty has already been sold off by our ruling class, while Taylor Noakes rightly notes that Trump's consequence-free negation of free trade agreements (including the one he himself negotiated) shows how little they were worth in the first place. 

- Crawford Kilian offers some lessons for both the U.S.' democracy and our own. Geoff Bickerton argues that the CBC provides us with an important trusted news source at an extremely low cost - which is particularly vital as the U.S.' media and information ecosystem is dominated more and more by the world's wealthiest and most narcissistic few. And Carine Abousief discusses the need to make our health care system more resilient against U.S. threats (rather than instead making it even more dependent on foreign actors).  

- Finally, Danyaal Raza points out how public health care in Ontario is under threat as Doug Ford seeks another term in which to neglect and/or privatize services. And Shellene Drakes-Tull calls out Ford for his own determination to sell out as much of the provinces as he can for the benefit of his cronies both north and south of the border. 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Sarah Bartsch et al. study the costs and benefits of face mask use, and conclude that even without factoring in improvements to public health mask mandates produces positive outcomes from a financial perspective, while Caroline Alphonso reports on Ronald Cohn's exhortation for Ontario not to abandon its protection through masks. Evangelos Oikonomou et al. examine yet another acute and lasting symptom of COVID-19, as it impairs the ability of patients' arteries to increase blood flow. Patrick Martin writes about the growing evidence that the Omicron BA.2 variant may be the most dangerous version yet even as governments stick to a "let 'er rip" policy toward it. 

- Kelly Grotke discusses how Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine is an all-too-logical extension of the privatization of political power. And Jillian Kestler-D'Amours calls out Canada's petro-provinces for seeking to use a war rooted in resource politics to line the pockets of the fossil fuel sector. 

- Fiona Harvey discusses the meager response to the IPCC's latest and most urgent warning about a the need to immediately stop our climate breakdown. Emily Chung summarizes the state of fossil fuel subsidies in Canada. And Randy Robinson highlights how the spike in fuel prices is traceable to our avoidable reliance on dirty energy, not to carbon prices which (a) have changed minimally if at all and (b) make up only a small portion of any price as a whole. 

- Tara Carman writes that the choice to stop funding co-operative housing and other non-market options in the 1990s continues to reverberate in a lack of affordable housing today. 

- Finally, Nicole Williams reports on the Ford government's decision to let penalties arising out of the #FluTruxKlan's takeover of Ottawa expire, confirming their deference to white supremacist occupiers at the expense of the people who saw their city taken over. 

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Linda McQuaig criticizes the Cons' use of the tax system to try to silence charities who don't match their political message:

PEN now joins Amnesty International, the David Suzuki Foundation, Canada Without Poverty, the United Church and other groups that, having criticized an array of Harper policies, have been obliged to devote precious resources to defending themselves from a special probe of charities ordered by the Harper government.

This beefing-up of tax audits of charities is particularly striking when compared to Harper’s laid-back approach to auditing the real bad guys: corporations and citizens using offshore tax havens to cheat the government out of billions of dollars in revenue.

Indeed, the allocation of an extra $13 million to carry out audits of charities has taken place even as the government slashes the overall Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) budget by $250 million over three years and lays off hundreds of auditors.
...
Internal CRA documents, obtained under access-to-information by Sen. Percy Downe, reveal that an infusion of $30 million by Ottawa in 2005 to counter “aggressive international tax planning” resulted in the collection of an extra $2.5 billion over four years.

By contrast, putting extra resources into auditing charities will almost certainly produce no additional revenue.
...
(W)hile there aren’t enough auditors to go after many of the wealthy Canadian corporations and individuals hiding money offshore, the government managed to find two auditors to spend three days this week at PEN’s little Toronto office — the beginning of an audit that will go on for many months.

The Harperites may be inept at using audits to collect vast sums of revenue hidden by the rich — but they sure know how to beat up on defenceless groups trying to promote the public good.

- And Dean Beeby breaks the news that the Cons aren't satisfied going after charitable organizations, and instead want to be able to compile their own list of individual donors as well. But there is some push for disclosure where it's actually needed as a check on undue institutional influence, as MoveOn is calling for corporate spending in U.S. politics to be subject to public scrutiny.

- Bill Curry reports on the C.D. Howe Institute's recommendation that the federal government focus on economic development rather than deficit scolding - with Joe Oliver naturally responding that he has no interest in job creation if it might conflict with his political goals. And Rick Goldman comments on the futility of using austerity policies in the name of fighting deficits when they ultimately cause more harm than good even by that measure.

- Steven Chase discusses the latest application of the Baird Doctrine that bluster matters more than action in foreign policy - as a much-trumpeted aid announcement for the Ukraine four months ago has led to zero actual contribution from Canada.

- Finally, David Atkins connects the U.S.' drift to the right with participation in party primaries - as the Tea Party and other right-wing groups have driven Republican turnout (and thus policy oriented toward its base) while Democrats have been increasingly staying on the sidelines over the past 40 years:

When conservatives don't get what they want, they tend to double down at the ballot box. When progressives don't get what they want, many of us tend to storm away and fantasize about engaging the system outside of electoral politics somehow. This is part of why conservatives have been successful in moving the country to right.

I've brought these points up again and again. Politicians don't care about people who don't vote, and the Tea Party gets coddled because they actually vote in primaries and Democrats tend not to.

But, of course, Democratic politicians also bear a lot of the blame. It's awfully hard to get motivated to vote when you know that not much is going to change regardless of the outcome.

Even so, you can't lay the entire blame for the problem at the feet of centrist corporate Democrats. The trend toward lower turnout started in 1970, hardly the heyday of the DLC. Yes, Democratic politicians need to do a better job of advancing progressive priorities and building base enthusiasm. But progressive voters also need to come out and actually vote, too.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Tim Harper slams the Cons for yet another omnibus abuse of parliamentary democracy:

Stephen Harper didn’t invent prorogation and omnibus legislation, but he has made two arcane polysyllabic political terms part of our everyday lexicon, improving our vocabulary but diminishing our democracy.

His shut-it-down and take-it-or-leave-it approach to procedure and legislation has gone viral, with the Ontario legislature now sitting dark, prorogued by Dalton McGuinty.

This is the second chapter of a very cynical story by the Harper government, NDP House leader Nathan Cullen said, but it’s not clear whether the opposition response will be different in chapter two.

The last omnibus budget bill began the process of gutting environmental regulations and this one takes the process another step further.
...
Whether these changes are good or bad isn’t the point. The point is that they cannot be properly scrutinized by the people sent to this place to hold a government to account.

New Democrats, with their opposition partners, went as far as they could in opposition last spring, given the reality of a majority government.

The Conservatives have clearly determined that a lost night’s sleep in the Commons is an easy price to pay for passing legislation their way, and the opposition may have to look for another way to engage Canadians this time around.

 - Meanwhile, plenty of journalists are rightly testing Jim Flaherty's nonsensical claim that brand-new attacks on environmental laws were somehow included in a March budget that mentioned nothing of the sort.

- Lest there be any doubt, there's every reason to criticize the McGuinty Libs for treating the Harper Cons' anti-democratic cynicism as the new normal. And both Thomas Walkom and Andrew Coyne duly blast McGuinty and the general degradation of parliamentary democracy as a result.

- No, we shouldn't be the least bit surprised that the Cons' strategy of treating everything as an opportunity for partisan gain includes foreign election monitoring.

- Finally, Josh Mandryk criticizes the Cons' attacks on unions and workers - and points out the privacy implications of the Cons' attempt to silence political countermovements:

Far from atypical, (C-377) is but the latest instance in a well-documented pattern of the Conservative government lashing out against groups seen as standing in its way.

Worse than the character assassination of former Opposition leaders Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff has been the systematic attack on its opponents in civil society. From slashing funding to women’s groups, to suppressing dissenters in the federal bureaucracy, to attacking environmental charities as “foreign-funded radicals,” this government has shown an unprecedented willingness to come down on groups who either actively or passively oppose its agenda.

And now they’ve come for the trade unionists.
...
Two examples help illustrate just how invasive the bill is.

First, suppose you pass away while an active union member and your spouse receives a death benefit from your union’s pension plan. Bill C-377 would require your spouse’s name and address to be posted online, along with an explanation that he/she has received a sizeable payment as a result of your passing.

Or suppose you have a disability or require medication for a serious illness not covered by your province’s health-care plan. If you receive more than $5,000 in benefits from your union’s plan, your name and address, along with an explanation of why you’ve received that money, would be published online for your family, friends and employer to see.
...
By demanding carte blanche financial disclosure with little justification, Hiebert appears to be swinging aimlessly in hopes of finding dirt on the labour movement.

Unfortunately, he and the rest of the world will have to dig through personal information about millions of Canadians before they find it.

Parliament In Review: October 18, 2011

There hasn't been as much reporting on the Cons' re-introduction of copyright legislation as there was at some other points when previous incarnations were up for discussion. But Tuesday, October 18 saw second-reading debate in Parliament on the bill - and a few twists on the issue.

The Big Issue

Not surprisingly, the discussion of copyright legislation was highly contentious at times. But the exact position taken by a couple of the parties may not have been exactly what some observers would expect.

The main point of attack for the NDP was to highlight how the Cons' bill harms creators rather than users, with Pierre Dionne Labelle, Charlie Angus, Alain Giguere, Marc-Andre Morin and Rejean Genest among many speakers focusing largely on the creators' perspective. Jinny Sims pointed out the combination of a massive number of people involved in cultural industries, and the already-low pay received for that work.

Meanwhile, James Moore made the remarkable claim that the Cons re-introduced exactly the same bill as before out of respect for the consultation that had been carried out on the previous incarnation, rather than in utter defiance of it. Needless to say, that makes Angus' challenge to the Cons' willingness to accept amendments look all the more important - though I'm sure the story will change once there's actually an opportunity to give effect to public concerns.

Randall Garrison warned about the "book-burning" provision of the bill to delete educational content after 30 days. Scott Simms pointed out that the lack of media coverage doesn't mean MPs aren't receiving massive amounts of public input. Giguere criticized the Cons' bill as "giving the digital industry complete ownership of Canadian culture". Jonathan Genest-Jourdain pointed out how the bill would affect the sharing of aboriginal knowledge. Geoff Regan criticized the fact that the Cons' bill is designed to cater to not just U.S. interests, but obsolete U.S. interests. And Angus slammed the Cons for their concerted effort to get Canada placed on a global piracy watch-list.

Duly Noted

The other main topic of discussion was a take-note debate on the situation in the Ukraine based on Peter Van Loan's motion. And there was nothing but agreement in MPs' concern about the prosecution and conviction of Yulia Tymoshenko.

But that doesn't mean there weren't a few points of debate. NDP MPs called repeatedly for action from the Cons, and noted in particular the need to incorporate democracy and human rights into free-trade talks with the Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Helene Laverdiere noted that democracy extends much further than the ballot box alone. And one of the more interesting undertones of the debate was the question of silencing opposition parties - with the NDP rightly criticizing any such effort, while Con MP Leon Benoit actually considered it to be entirely appropriate through some means.

And as a point to file away for later, Peter Van Loan helpfully described his idea of an utterly illegitimate test of the merits of an issue:

There are clear signs that Tymoshenko's case has failed to follow a fair judicial process, like many other such politically motivated charges and trials being brought against former members of the opposition.

This is a glaring example in the Tymoshenko case. The prosecution requested the appearance of 32 witnesses and experts. The prosecution was granted all 32. The defence, on the other hand, asked for 30 witnesses and experts. The defence was only granted two.

Which, needless to say, is not a standard the Cons are prepared to apply here in Canada.

In Brief

Nycole Turmel challenged Stephen Harper to deal with inequality in Canada in light of the Conference Board of Canada's observation that income disparity is increasing more quickly here than in the U.S., while Charmaine Borg raised the need for a strategy to deal with poverty. Pat Martin questioned why the U.S. would have worked so hard in the past to (unsuccessfully) attack the Canadian Wheat Board if it didn't produce benefits for Canadian farmers, while Robert Chisholm noted that European sources consider Canada to be the "loser" in signing onto CETA. Peter Julian pointed out that the federal government's own report into innovation showed that a business-first strategy had proven to be a miserable failure, with Canada ranking last among the countries reviewed in a number of categories; Gary Goodyear responded by saying the report was "great". Joe Comartin challenged the Cons' anti-union private member's bill as improper in potentially imposing new taxes on union members, and Wayne Easter argued that the Cons' Wheat Board legislation violates Parliamentary privilege. And Wayne Marston re-introduced legislation to protect workers' pensions when employers go out of business.