Alt-Reality and the Coming Realignment

It's been a difficult time for me, since November the 8^th.  I, like so many others, had bought into the mainstream media story that Democratic Party nominee Hilary Clinton had the U.S. Presidential election in the bag.  Sure, I was aware of a late-election surge for Republican Party nominee Donald Trump, thanks in part to FBI Director James Comey's leaked letter about possibly needing to revise his statement to some Congressional Committee or other about Clinton's emails, based on what the media was reporting to be new information obtained from the Federal Bureau's investigation of Anthony Weiner.  I knew it was going to be close – but my faith in Americans to do the right thing remained strong, and although I made plans to stay up late to watch the election results roll in (and to see whether or not Trump was going to concede in the face of those results), I really secretly thought I'd be turning in before midnight.

At least I got that last part right.  I turned the television off and shut the cover to my laptop at a little after 11pm.  At that time, the analysts and pundits were talking about battleground Michigan, but Flordia and Ohio had already fallen to Trump.  And although Pennsylvania hadn't been called for either candidate, Trump's lead seemed pretty strong there.  In Pennsylvania.  I knew it was all over, and not worrying about whether Clinton would concede, I decided to get a good night's sleep – knowing that I was going to need it, just thinking about the next four years.

But I didn't have a good night's sleep.  I tossed and turned and dreamed in fits and starts that Clinton had managed to pull off some sort of bottom of the ninth rally – maybe taking New Hampshire and Nevada, and thanks to the good people of Detroit, Flint and Philadelphia, maybe she had managed to eke out a victory in Michigan and Pennsylvania.  The American people know best, surely. President Trump?  It can't be a reality.

Unfortunately, President Trump was the reality I woke up to.  On my way to work I tweeted that I had just seen Mr. Spock with a beard, because I was certain that I had started this day in another dimension.  The real world was still carrying on as it should somewhere else – with President-Elect Hilary Clinton doing media interviews on breakfast television.  It was just me that somehow got stuck in another universe.

No Skin in the Game

Let me back up a moment, because I think that those reading this blogpost might be under the illusion that I wanted Clinton to win the election.  This is where things get complicated for me, but luckily on the level of actually being able to affect any outcomes, I didn't have any skin in the game.  As a Canadian, I did not cast a ballot in the election.  And as a Green, I think it's fair to say that had I been able to vote, it would not have been for Hilary Clinton.  Therefore, it's difficult for me to even project myself into the U.S. election, beyond acknowledging that had I been a participant, I would have been wasting my time and would have had zero impact on its outcome anyway.

Of course, that's really no different than many of the millions of Americans who voted for Clinton.  More Americans actually voted for Clinton than for Trump (see: "Final Vote Count 2016," Snopes.com, November 13, 2016. The Snopes article also provides insight into claims made by Trump supporters that it was Trump, not Clinton, who ended up with more votes - more on fake news in another blog!), but because of the U.S.'s antiquated and unfair electoral system, the States gets President Trump with a smaller number of votes.  Sure, it's all perfectly legal.  Just for those voters in states like California and Washington where they're still counting ballots – well, I think they know clearly that their votes mattered as much as the imaginary vote that I would have cast for U.S. Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

Climate Change on my Mind

You see, my issue is climate change.  It's not the only issue that I care about, but it's one that I care about deeply.  I think I have a pretty good grasp of the implications of climate change, and I'm extremely concerned about the lack of action we've taken to address what we know will be the impacts of a warming planet.  With that in mind, for me, what happens in the U.S. matters significantly.  The U.S. sidelined itself by not ratifying Kyoto.   Under President Obama, who promised that his presidency would see the rise of the oceans begin to recede, the U.S.  actually regained its status as one of the world's largest oil and gas producers (see: "Despite Protests, Oil Industry Thrives Under Obama Agenda," Bloomberg.com, January 5, 2015).

With climate change in mind, it's clear to me that the Democratic Party has been a disaster for the planet.  Years of saying one thing and doing another under Obama have clearly (to me) been lost years in the global fight against climate change.  Sure, there have been a number of small victories and tentative steps forward (cancelling the Keystone XL pipeline was mostly symbolic, but it was the right symbol; the Paris Climate Change treaty is a little more substantive, as is the recent Canada-U.S. Agreement to limit fugitive methane emissions). So the Democrats have been a disaster – but perhaps not a complete disaster.

The Republicans, on the other hand, have been a complete disaster for the planet.  There are still actually a significant number of elected Republicans who don't believe in the reality of climate change, and instead subscribe to conspiracy theories which they've mainstreamed for the U.S. (and partially for Canada's) right wing.  If the Republicans ever seized power with a climate change denying President and both houses of Congress under their control, well, it probably would be game over for the planet.

Uhm, ya, so about that....

Looking for Hope Amidst Planetary 'Game Over'

Anyway, all of that's to say that I'm coming at this election from a bit of a different place than most.  I couldn't vote, and even if I had voted, I would have done so knowing that my vote wasn't going to matter.  I've believed that both candidates would fail to take meaningful action on an issue of importance to me.

Strangely, though, the idea of President-Elect Donald Trump gives me hope.  Don't misunderstand me:  my hope doesn't reside in the person of Donald Trump or any of his “policies” whatever it is that they might eventually amount to.  My hope is that the very presence of Trump at the pinnacle of world power might finally lead to real progressive, democratic reforms.  And real action on climate change.

Now, I don't expect the U.S. to march off and change its unfair electoral system.  But Trump's presence in the White House might give Trudeau and Canada's lawmakers pause, and stiffen the Liberal's resolve towards making 2015's federal election the last unfair election in this nation.  The prospect of a frowning, flag-wrapped Trump wannabe in the form of Conservative Party leadership candidate Kellie Leitch might just be enough to convince the Liberals that it's time to try out proportional representation (because it's become increasingly clear that actually listening to Canadians wasn't going to be enough for Trudeau).

No Avoiding Seismic Political Shifts

I think we're going to see some pretty interesting things over the next four years, many of which are likely to be uncompromisingly negative.  Trump, who thinks climate change is a Chinese conspiracy (see: "Yes, Donald Trump did call climate change a Chinese hoax," Politifact, June 3, 2016) isn't likely to go along with the Paris agreement.  He is likely to do a great deal of damage to the environment and the atmosphere.  That's a huge problem.  Who are Americans going to look to for leadership on climate change (and on what's likely to be a number of other pretty big issues)?  A failed and flailing Democratic Party that's in the hands of business elites?  Maybe initially.  Bernie Sanders tried it that way. 

Ultimately, I think it's going to become increasingly clear to Americans that the Democratic Party isn't their friend, and has consistently failed to look out for the interests of Americans.  Either the Democratic Party is going to undergo some sort of internal transformation, or the animosity is going to boil over and we'll see something else emerge as one or two political entities. 

21st Century Fascism - American-Style

Republicans might love the idea that the Democratic Party is about to dissolve, but they shouldn't feel too comfortable.  Trump is no conservative, even if there is some overlap of his issues and what's important to conservatives.  Which side of the issues will moderate and conservative Republicans find themselves on?  Trump's agenda is nationalistic in its outlook – I would call it more Mussolini-style fascist than Ronald Reagan-conservative.  Republicans might quickly find themselves having to choose between their values (economic and social) – and continuing to go along on the populist Nantucket slay ride that Trump took them on.  Without an election for a couple of years, it's not clear to me that Trump is going to get the (relatively) free ride from his own Party that he enjoyed throughout the campaign (and no, I didn't miss the whole Republican 'Dump Trump' brouhaha – but it really did seem to fizzle in the end, didn't it?).

Republicans are ultimately going to have to search their own souls and decide whether they want to be conservatives or fascists.  Yes, fascists (I'll be doing a follow-up blogpost at some point in the near future about why I think it's important to call Donald Trump and his ilk what they really are – and about why I clearly believe they are 21^st Century fascists).   And I suspect the Trump bandwagon isn't going to be as crowded with Reagan Republicans going forward.

The Failure of Liberalsim

What's happening in the U.S. is all a part of a global realignment of political interests, due to a rising understanding that liberals and conservatives have both been implicit in the promotion economic and political systems that disenfranchise and impoverish the majority of citizens.  I realize this may sound unbelievable to many, but liberals like Hilary and Bill Clinton, Justin Trudeau and - yes - Alberta NDP Premier Rachel Notley - have been a part of the growing problem, rather than offering much in the way of solutions.  Sure, maybe liberals haven't been as nasty as conservatives, but in some respects, they've actually been more successful than the right-wing at moving neoliberal economic interests forward.  Don't believe me?

Back to Obama and the growth of U.S. Oil and gas.  What about Prime Minister Trudeau, who seems poised to permit massive carbon bombs in the form of B.C. Pacific North West LNG and an anticipated Kinder Morgan Trans-Mountain approval?  Or Bill Clinton's deregulation of the banking industry.  Or the growth of generational national debts?  And none of that even touches on issues of systemic corruption which successive "liberal" governments in both nations (and let's not forget Tony Blair in the U.K. while I'm ranting) which we've come to accept as "business as usual".

No, for too long, conservatives and liberals have put their own interests at the forefront – interests that revolve around the profitability of multinational corporations at the expense of the rest of us. They have not been champions for the average person. Their pursuit of neoliberal economic policies has been reactionary, rather than progressive, when one considers the growing wealth gap between the rich and the rest of us.  What both liberals and conservatives have chosen to champion is the opposite of sustainability.

Renewing Progressive Political Choices

In Canada, it's my hope that the NDP finally gets its act together and figures out that it really does, after all, want to be a champion of the common person.  And for the Green Party, it's my hope that it comes to realize that it has a partner in an NDP which has (ultimately and finally) rejected liberalism.  Greens and New Democrats both need to acknowledge that the only way forward is through the rejection of our neoliberal economic system and poll-driven populism.   The coming realignment may see Greens and New Democrats working together to defeat liberals like Justin Trudeau and Rachel Notley (yes, I said Rachel Notley again – that was not a mistake).

Our problem, going forward, is that fascists like Trump would be even worse when it comes to sustainability – and I'm not just talking about the environment or resource extraction or climate change here.  Trump might want to tear up international trade agreements (although I don't really think he actually will), but he's certainly not going to do away with the the elite-enriching neoliberal economic system and move towards co-operativist capitalism.  More likely, America will end up with a true kleptocracy, where national wealth is laid out like a buffet at a wake, with rich industrialists helping themselves to all the goodies while the body of the 99% lies in state.

It's a brand new world now.  When the mainstream media in the States are routinely interviewing David Duke and the leader of the U.S. Nazi Party for their reaction to Trump's transition team appointments (see: "White nationalists see advocate in Steve Bannon who will hold Trump to his campaign promises," CNN, November 15, 2016) – there can be no doubt that we all woke up on the morning of November 9^th in an alternate universe.  But perhaps it's a universe in where the stars will realign – and maybe, just maybe, we might ultimately end up better off for it. 

Admit it: Leonard Nimoy looked alarmingly sexy with a beard.

(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own, and should not be considered consistent with the policies and positions of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

The Future is Clean & Electric - No Need to Expand Ontario's Natural Gas Delivery System

The following was submitted as a Letter to the Editor of the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal.  It was published on Sunday, November 20th, online as: "Don't expand reach of natural gas."

-----

Re: “Natural gas: most important investment in rural Ontario,” letter to the Editor of the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal, from Neil Currie, General Manager, Ontario Federation of Agriculture; November 12, 2016.

For Canada to meet international commitments made in Paris in 2015 - to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and hold global warming at between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius – there must be a concerted effort to curb the use of all fossil energy.  In this new reality, there is no case that can be made for expanding the use of fossil fuels in preference to relatively clean electrical energy.  Ontario has invested heavily in expensive but clean nuclear power.  Recently, Ontario inked a deal with the Province of Quebec to import clean hydro-electricity.  With Ontario’s on-going investments in the renewable energy sector, and with the closure of coal-fired electrical generation plants, our province has been a leader in clean electricity.  However, more work needs to be done if Ontario is going to continue to do its part to help reduce emissions from dirty fossil fuels.

Real climate champions don’t build fossil fuel pipelines.  That’s the message being received by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier Kathleen Wynne.  While fossil energy will continue to have a role to play in Ontario’s energy mix in coming decades, it must be one of decreasing importance over time.  Building new pipeline capacity for an expanded natural gas delivery system – one which is intended not just to compete with clean electrical energy, but in some cases to replace it – is just not in the cards. Those concerned about the climate crisis as I am sincerely hope that our leaders understand the new reality which Canadians find ourselves in.

While the price of natural gas may be low in comparison to electricity at the moment, keep in mind that it is artificially so thanks to the real costs of carbon pollution never having been included in the price tag.  In part, Ontario’s Cap & Trade program, which will put a price on carbon pollution, will begin to incorporate a small part of these costs – costs which are currently being paid for by taxpayers rather than by polluters.  When the price of carbon pollution rises to $50 a tonne, natural gas will look a lot less attractive as an inexpensive energy source.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture is right to be concerned regarding rising energy prices experienced by all Ontarians – and especially by those living in rural areas.  However, in light of Canada’s climate change commitments – and indeed because of the very real crisis which climate change poses to our health and the well-being of our economy – the solution can’t be to travel back in time to the previous century and build more extensive fossil energy infrastructure which will only ultimately exacerbate the problem of climate change.  Clean, renewable, local electrical energy is the choice for the future – and it’s the only choice that our governments should be considering investing our hard-earned tax money in.

(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own and should not be considered consistent with the policies and/or positions of the Green Parties of Canada and Ontario)

Misrepresentation of Greens’ Position on Trade Smacks of Desperation

The following has been submitted to the Sudbury Star in response to a column by Michael Den Tandt published in the print version of the Star (referenced below) and online elsewhere as, "CETA critics have distorted vision of Canadian economy," the National Post, October 27, 2016.  This submission was published on Saturday, November 5th as, "Column: Columnist misrepresents Greens' trade position"

----

Recently, Postmedia columnist Michael Den Tandt took exception to Elizabeth May and the Green Party of Canada’s unrelenting opposition to CETA - the Canada-European Union Trade Agreement (“Canada-EU deal alive, to Greens’ dismay,” the Sudbury Star, Thursday, October 28, 2016). In his drive-by smear of May and the Green Party, Den Tandt left readers with the impression that Greens want to establish an agrarian society that looks like the Shire from J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings”, if the Shire were run by Soviet Commissars.  Den Tandt appears to have used little of actual substance in support of this notion, citing only the Green Party’s continued opposition to pipelines and trade agreements.

Had Den Tandt bothered to read “Vision Green”, the Green Party’s in-depth policy and priority handbook (available online for over a decade), he might have been surprised to discover that Greens don’t actually oppose trade deals.  What the Green Party, and a growing number of other individuals and organizations take issue with are the corporate rights provisions that have been inserted into agreements, even though they have little to do with “free trade”.

The Green Party of Canada has always embraced the concept of “Fair Trade” – trade that emphasises national and regional sovereignty, human rights, and the environment.  Fair Trade doesn’t prioritise the rights of multi-national corporations over those of democratically elected governments and the people who produce the goods and services that fuel our globalized world.  Greens have long championed sustainable economic development that enhances our local quality of life as a priority over shifting local wealth into the hands of rich multinationals.

Fair trade is obviously a threat to the successive Liberal and Conservative governments that have bound and continue to bind Canada to trade agreements that are not fair or equitable.  Liberals and Conservatives both have embraced agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the recently signed CETA, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The Green Party’s fundamental issue with these “free trade” agreements is the inclusion of investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions, like NAFTA’s Chapter 11.  ISDS provisions take decision-making control out of the hands of democratically elected governments.  Secret corporate-appointed star chambers rule on how labour laws and environmental initiatives might infringe on corporate profits. Thanks to Chapter 11, Canada has the dubious distinction of being the world’s most-sued country through trade tribunals, with most actions initiated by corporations impacted by federal and provincial environmental regulations (see: "NAFTA's Chapter 11 Makes Canada Most-Sued Country Under Free Trade Tribunals," the Huffington Post, January 14, 2015.

Free trade obviously isn’t working out the way that many had hoped.  While there have been some undeniable successes, these have been offset by the growth of inequality through a widening of the gap between the wealthy and the rest of us. Public opposition to these agreements is growing.   In an effort to confuse and mischaracterize, neo-liberal apologists use terms like “creeping protectionism” and “backlash against international trade” to suggest that their opponents want to shut down trade between nations. Denigration of their opponents’ arguments through fact-free commentary seeks to marginalize a sustainable economic narrative that runs counter to the flagging neo-liberal agenda.

Elizabeth May and the Green Party have always had a strong vision for a truly sustainable Canada.  It is a vision that obviously causes discomfort to those in power, wedded as they are to an economic system that poisons our environment and disenfranchises people. As we move further into the 21st Century, it’s going to become increasingly clear that on a planet of finite resources, the status quo of infinite growth simply can’t be sustained.  Greens, with the help of many others, have already acknowledged these limits to growth, and are moving forward by laying the foundations for an equitable and sustainable society.


(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own and should not be considered consistent with the policies and/or positions of the Green Parties of Canada and Ontario)

The Climate File Heats Up

“You can’t be a climate leader and build pipelines.”  In a moment of role reversal, that’s the message students will be delivering to teacher-turned-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau when they descend on Parliament Hill next week.  In advance of a decision on Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline (see: “Expect a Kinder Morgan Surprise from Trudeau’s Liberals,” Bill Tieleman, the Tyee, September 6, 2016), students from across Canada will be educating the Liberal government that the voice of millennials – along with their votes – shouldn’t be taken for granted (see: “Students to Trudeau: Climate leaders don’t approve pipelines,” Derrick O’Keefe, ricochet, September 21, 2016).

It’s been a dizzying month with climate-related headlines dominating the national newsmedia. Canadians have been inundated with talk of targets, taxes and treaties.  Elected officials and political pundits have offered opinions, spin, and in some cases, thoughtful analysis of proposed initiatives and government flip-flops.  The picture that’s starting to emerge is problematic.  Despite the government’s lofty rhetoric about “real change”, meaningful measures to slow the climate crisis are being offset by decisions that take us in the opposite direction – one where continuing conflict can be expected.

The Liberals have been engaged in a year-long process of backing away from their election campaign promises.  After going to Paris and signing on to a treaty to hold warming at 2 degrees Celsius, with an aspirational goal of 1.5 degrees C proposed by Canada’s very own Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna (see: “COP21: Catherine McKenna endorses goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C,” CBC, December 8, 2016), the Liberals opted not to tinker with the National Energy Board hearings on the Trans Mountain bitumen pipeline (see: “NEB pipeline process a ‘sham’, Liberal plan not much better, Vancouver mayor says,” CBC, May 20, 2016).  Although promising more ambitious emissions reduction targets than those offered up by the previous Conservative government (see: “Liberals’ climate-change targets will be tougher than Tory version, McKenna vows,” the Ottawa Citizen, November 9, 2015), McKenna recently announced that the Liberals would instead be adopting Stephen Harper’s low-ball targets (see: “Liberals cave on climate - leaving weak Conservative targets in place,” the Green Party of Canada, September 19, 2016).

Just days before ratifying the Paris treaty, Trudeau dropped a carbon bomb in the form of federal approval for British Columbia’s fracked natural gas megaproject, which is destined to become the single largest greenhouse gas emitter in Canada (see: “Liberals approve controversial natural gas project on B.C. coast," the Toronto Star, September 27, 2016).  B.C.’s Pacific NorthWest LNG project was greenlighted after Trudeau backtracked on his platform promise of a social license requirement for communities impacted by energy development proposals (see: “Federal government’s ‘social license’ for pipeline ‘permission’ cuts out local communities,” the Vancouver Sun, September 21, 2016). Growing animosity between the federal Liberals and indigenous peoples has led to more than 50 First Nations from across North America signing a historic treaty aimed squarely at the tar sands (see: “Tribes Across North America Unite in a ‘Wall of Opposition’ to Alberta Tar Sands,” CommonDreams, September 22, 2016), and to legal challenges to the B.C. LNG approval (see: “First Nations split on Ottawa’s Pacific NorthWest LNG decision,” the Globe and Mail, September 16, 2016).

A small, but important step forward, was Trudeau’s announcement of a plan to compel the provinces to put a price on carbon pollution, or have the feds impose a carbon tax (see: “Trudeau says Canada to implement carbon tax,” the Associated Press, October 3, 2016).  However, the fed’s price – just $10 per tonne starting in 2018 - is woefully inadequate, and will not lead to any changes in consumer behaviour (see: "Don't fixate on carbon pricing: Mark Jaccard (updated)," Vancouver Business, September 21, 2016).

Putting a national carbon price, however, is the very least that Liberals could have done to show progress on the climate file.  Recent polls show that a national carbon price is popular, especially if it’s coupled with pipeline development (see: “Climate, Carbon and Pipelines: A Path to Consensus?” Abacus Data, October 18, 2016).  Alberta NDP Premier Rachel Notley has already insisted that her province will participate in the federal climate program only if the federal Liberals approve a new bitumen pipeline somewhere (see: “Rachel Notley says support for Trudeau carbon plan requires feds to act on pipelines,” Global News, October 9, 2016).

And here’s where the problems really start.  Bolstered by polls and blackmailed by friendly premiers, Trudeau might be thinking that his bare minimum approach to the climate crisis is social license enough to kickstart tar sands-expanding pipeline projects.  Of course, it all flies in the face of the best available science which clearly indicates that if we’re going to meet our Paris commitments, we’re going to have to leave dirty fossil fuels in the ground (see: “The Sky’s Limit: Why the Paris Climate Goals Require a Managed Decline of Fossil Fuel Production,” Oil Change International, September 22, 2016).

That’s why you can’t be a climate leader and build pipelines. Trudeau’s final test of leadership may come as early as December.  If Trudeau approves Trans Mountain, he will shred the last little bit of credibility the Liberals have left on the climate file. 

(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own and should not be considered consistent with the policies and/or positions of the Green Parties of Canada and Ontario)

Originally published in the Sudbury Star as, "The climate file heats up," in print and online as "Sudbury column: The climate file heats up," October 22, 2016, without hyperlinks.

Save the Elephants

African elephants are in trouble.  Habitat fragmentation, in part due to urbanization, desertification and climate change, has constricted their range, leaving some isolated elephant groups vulnerable to local extinction events. But it’s the illegal slaughter of elephants for their ivory tusks that’s been the primary factor leading this iconic species toward its final demise.

Save the Elephants - Veronica May - Age 5

Poachers are now killing elephants at a rate faster than they can reproduce. The Wildlife Conservation Society recently released a scientific study which suggested that it may take a century for African forest elephants to recover from poaching experienced just since 2002.  That’s despite the global community having come together in 1989 to ban the international ivory trade after elephant populations plummeted from 1.3 million to just 600,000 (see:“’A Good Day for Elephants’: Ban on Domestic Ivory Trade Passes,” CommonDreams.org, September 11, 2016).   But demand for ivory fashion trinkets is insatiable, and so the extermination of elephants for their “white gold” continues.  There are probably less than 400,000 African elephants now surviving in the wild.

Many Canadians were likely aware that it has been illegal to buy and sell African elephant “blood ivory” for some time.  Most, however, probably didn’t know that in many parts of the world, active domestic markets for ivory have been allowed to persist.  These domestic markets offer poachers a legal veneer to ultimately supply a stubbornly robust black market with illegal ivory.  The U.K. Guardian reports that illegal ivory tusks can sell for as much as $1,100 a kilogram in China – a nation that recently vowed to shut down its domestic ivory market (see: “Who Buys Ivory? You’d Be Surprised,” National Geographic, August 12, 2015).

But not all nations are in agreement that domestic markets should be closed.  Earlier this month, at a meeting of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a motion to close domestic markets was adopted through a near unanimous vote.  Only 4 nations refused to be a part of the international consensus. South Africa and Namibia, two African countries with large elephant populations, were joined by Japan in their call for continued, regulated domestic markets. 

The fourth nation to defy the will of the international community – to stand with those favouring the continued condemnation of African elephants as a species by providing cover for black market ivory trade? Canada (see:“Vancouver – Global March for Elephants and Rhinos Press Release,” September 15, 2016). 

Yes, that’s right. Canada.

As someone concerned with the loss of global biodiversity, and especially of megafauna, I’ve often been asked why should Canadians care about what happens to rhinos, lions and tigers – animals that live far away, in lands not under the control of the Canadian government.  Since Canada can’t decide what happens in far-off places like Kenya or Gabon, why get upset over the extinction of elephants?

Clearly, what Canada does, matters.  Canada can choose to be a leader and use its influence on the international stage to work toward positive, sustainable outcomes.  Or, as has so often been the case lately on a wide range of international environmental issues, from abandoning our climate change commitments in the Kyoto Accord, to removing ourselves from the international treaty on desertification – Canada can continue to be an impediment to progress.

The Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) COP17 conference gets underway in Johannesburg, South Africa today. It’s hoped that the IUCN’s motion to close domestic ivory markets will spur CITES towards legally binding action.  Canada hasn’t yet stated what position it will take at CITES. 

Canadians will be putting pressure on the Trudeau government to be a leader in the fight to save elephants.  In solidarity with over 130 communities around the world, citizens in Sudbury will be taking to the street today, as part of the Global March for Elephants, Rhinos and Lions (see: “March Against Extinction,” (see “2016 March Locations”), Global March For Elephants And Rhinos). The march starts at noon at the Elgin Street entrance of the Sudbury Community Arena.

(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own and should not be considered consistent with the policies and/or positions of the Green Parties of Canada and Ontario)

Originally published in the Sudbury Star as, "Saving world's elephants important to Sudburians," in print and online as "Sudbury column: March today for world's elephants" September 24, 2016.

Update: for more information about outcomes at CITES, here's an excellent article from The Guardian.  Spoiler Alert - Elephants were *not* saved.  See: "The seven big decisions made at the Cites global wildlife summit," the Guardian, October 5, 2016.

Conservatives: It's Time to End Your Toleration for the Intolerable

Toleration – it’s a great thing.  Maybe it’s even a Canadian value.  But it’s not always ok to be tolerant, especially when what you are tolerating is something odious.  The Conservative Party of Canada is a big-tent national political party.  It is, for the most part, a pretty tolerant party.  Perhaps it is a little too tolerant towards those who promote their own brand of intolerance.  And that’s a problem for Conservatives.

Case in point.  In any other political party, an MP who expressed a clearly homophobic point of view – the desire to remove certain legal rights from people based only on their sexual orientation – well, that would be intolerable.  I can tell you that if a member of my own party were to express that kind of homophobic nonsense to me, I would be the first in line to petition my Party’s council to have that individual removed as a member.  Taking rights away from an identifiable group of people through discriminatory legislation – to me, that’s intolerable.  It’s borderline hate speech to advocate that sort of thing.

This past week, Conservative MP Brad Trost published a meme on Twitter in which he expressed that marriage is the union between a man and a woman, and that he would “fight for you” because he’s “100% CONSERVATIVE”.  I didn’t realize that being a homophobe was a specific criterion to prove one’s Con cred, but since I expect that many members of Trost’s own party were also unaware of that qualification, I’ll leave that aside for now.

What’s problematic here is that Trost – who isn’t just an MP, but also someone who has declared that he is running for the leadership of his Party – is actually in a unique position of power whereby he has the ability to introduce legislation and debate in parliament the merits of his homophobic screed.  Should he ever become leader of his Party, he may one day end up as Canada’s Prime Minister – although even I think that’s a long shot.

Let me be clear, Brad: Marriage in Canada is *NOT* limited to unions between a man and a woman. Marriage has as much to do with gender of the two individuals who engage in that act as their ethnicity or religion - which is to say, marriage has nothing at all to do with gender.

Can you imagine seeing a similar ad which reads, "Marriage is the union of one white person and another white person"?
 

I understand that the media may have had some questions for Mr. Trost along the lines of, “Does this homophobic meme mean that you’ll be trying to change Canada’s laws and maybe even the Constitution and remove the marriage rights that tens of thousands of Canadians currently enjoy just because you’re a homophobe?” 

MP Brad Trost (Saskatoon-University), homophobe

The CBC reports Trost’s campaign manager’s response: “[Mike] Patton [Trost’s campaign spokesperson] said Trost doesn't agree with the way parliament voted on same-sex marriage, but because a majority of MPs voted in favour of the change, he wouldn't take steps to reverse it.” (see: “Conservativeleadership hopeful Brad Trost draws ire for same-sex marriage ad,” the CBC, September 15, 2016).  This apparently after an earlier answer flirted with the use of the Constitution's "Notwithstanding" clause.

Apparently, despite the meme, Trost doesn’t have the courage of his own pathetic convictions to pursue a change to our laws.  By posting this meme, it seems that he just wants others to think he has the courage to stand up for his own pathetic, homophobic convictions.

So, he’s not just a homophobe – he’s also apparently an unprincipled one.

And he’s running for leader of the Conservative Party.  So he’s accepting campaign contributions to produce ads which are homophobic in nature in order to raise awareness about his campaign – even though these ads are about issues which he lacks the courage of his own pathetic convictions to pursue.  I can’t help but wonder what Trost’s financial backers must think of this strategy – and whether it’s a good use of their money.  

Members of the Conservative Party of Canada: are you really OK with this?  Do you believe that this is a wise use of public funds?  Do you agree that it’s ok for someone in your Party to promote homophobia through publicly-subsidized ads – in the midst of a leadership campaign, no less?

This would not be tolerated in any other mainstream Canadian political party.  Why is it ok that it’s happening in yours?  Please, Conservatives – find the courage of your own convictions and in the name of tolerance, get rid of Brad Trost’s brand of intolerance – while do all of us Canadian taxpayers a favour.

(Opinions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be considered consistent with the policy and/or positions of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

Note: an earlier version of this blogpost referred to tax receipts being given to those who donated to Trost's leadership campaign, as well as my opinion that this may have constituted tax-payer funded hate.  Since then, it has been brought to my attention that contributions to leadership campaigns at our federal level of government do not receive tax receipts. Even though the Conservative Party will undoubtedly spend money promoting (to a degree) Trosts's leadership through the use of taxpayer subsidized contributions (as the Party will do with all leadership contestants), my original blogpost drew a direct link between tax receipts and leadership campaigning, and was thus in error.  The case for taxpayer-funded hate speech remains, but clearly to a much smaller degree.  Trost's odiousness among his own Party was the primary emphasis of this post anyway - so I feel that the changes I've made here since its original publication do not detract from that primary thesis.

Canada's Green Party Falling Victim to the Progressive Dilemma

I have been asked by a few Green party members and supporters for my opinion on the current strife within the Green Party over the recently adopted motion to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement.  I have been relatively silent on this matter – not out of any particular principle, but rather, I think, out of great deal of sadness.  The very moment that I read that the BDS motion was being proposed for consideration of the members, I felt a profound sense of sadness and loss – I knew that the party I had enjoyed for the past decade was going to soon be over.

Not the Green Party, per se – but the general sense of unity that the Party has had since I became a member in 2007.  Sure, there have been a number of hiccups, and anyone who is even slightly engaged would realize that prominent Greens have come and gone, for many reasons.  And certainly, we’ve never quite lived up to our hopes and expectations.  But for the most part, our aspirations have remained in place – and even those who may have left the Party for their own reasons, some continue to wish us well because of our shared values, if not how we have chosen to pursue them.

But the current crisis is different.  It is existential.   It is polarizing.  And it is, in my opinion, one which will severely wound, if not destroy the Party that I have devoted my limited time and energy to over the past decade.  I know that I should be angry, but because I feel that I understand both sides, along with the mushy middle, instead of anger, I feel only regret and sadness.  But the fact is, this moment was going to come anyway – if not now, and if not over BDS, than at some point in the near future.  In fact, viewing this current crisis as a unique one-off doesn’t do it justice.  The crisis is one of many waves that parties like ours will have to endure over time, or be swept away by.  Each wave erodes us a little more, but we have time to reinforce the base before the next wave strikes.  What’s not clear is whether we’ll be motivated to shore up the base or let the structure collapse when struck by the next wave.

BDS is the first wave.  It may swamp us all together.  How can I feel anything but a sense of sadness and loss?

Greens and BDS

I understand that some of those who support the BDS movement likely do so out of a desire to delegitimize the state of Israel as a political entity, rather than out of a desire to influence Israeli government policy. In short, I know that there are racists and anti-semites who support BDS.  But I also know that BDS is not inherently an anti-semitic or even an anti-Israeli initiative – and certainly I believe that the vast majority of Greens who voted for the Party to adopt this initiative as policy were not and are not anti-semites. Canada's Green Party is not the first Green Party to have signaled its support to the BDS movement, either, as we follow in the footsteps here of both the US and UK Greens.

However, there are some Greens, like British Columbia Green leader Andrew Weaver, who believe that BDS supporters are an “extremist fringe” (see: "B.C. Green Party considering name change, as federal leader May fires shadow cabinet trio," the Vancouver Sun, September 13, 2016).  Of course, language like this shot across the bow of a national party that just adopted BDS as a policy initiative is, to say the least, unhelpful and divisive.  That being said, I do agree with part of Weaver’s assessment – BDS and its supporters are on the fringe of Canadian political culture.  But  it’s not an “extremist” fringe in the sense that we often use that term to invoke the notion of intolerance.  BDS is actually firmly entrenched now on the progressive fringe of Canadian politics.  It’s still a fringe idea – but it will, in my opinion, trend towards the mainstream over time.

But “fringe” ideas aren’t generally an election winner for any political party, and B.C. Green leader Weaver, whatever his personal feelings about BDS actually are, is going into an election next year with the goal of increasing Green seats in the legislature.  That the federal party membership has decided to champion BDS is, frankly, not helpful to the electoral success of Weaver and the B.C. Greens, no matter how much Weaver succeeds in separating his party from the national party with the same colour in its title.

The Existential Debate - Realo v. Fundi

All of this is to say that I understand Weaver’s frustration, and that of national leader Elizabeth May, who has done more to mainstream the Green Party than anybody else in the nation, in my opinion.  May wants the Greens to be at the table (and she has succeeded in being present at the table in a big way on a matter of critical importance to Canada, the Green Party, and the fight against climate change, by literally occupying a seat on the 10-member Electoral Reform Committee).  May believes, like I do, that Greens can have more influence inside of our parliamentary institutions than by remaining on the outside.  Why else would she have moved completely across the country to run in a B.C. riding a little more suited to Green success than her Nova Scotia home?  While it’s true that having to relocate to Sidney on Vancouver Island might not exactly be a negative experience, I’m using it as but one example of the personal sacrifices that May has made to advance the interests of the Green Party.

In the current crisis which has enveloped the Green Party, May and Weaver find themselves playing familiar roles – perhaps not all that familiar to Canadian Greens, but roles which those in other Green Parties  - or indeed, in other progressive political parties – would ably recognize.  In this crisis, May and Weaver are “Realos”  - while those who are supporting BDS can be ascribed the role of “Fundis”.  These roles were not ones that either side auditioned for – but they are nevertheless apt descriptions of those who are willing to find a little compromise if it leads to a little more power and influence, versus those who believe that values are bedrock and can’t be displaced.

The terms “Realo” and “Fundi” come from the late 20^th Century factional conflicts within the German Green Party.  Those conflicts arose over issues other than BDS – but ultimately, the conflict was one more about power and influence, and the role of Greens in the national political culture (see: “Fundi,” Wikipedia entry; and, see: “Fundi v. realos in war for party,” the Guardian, September 21, 2005 – an opinion piece which in part examines the realo/fundi divide then present in the UK’s Liberal-Democratic party, with a reference to rising realo star Nick Clegg. As an aside, 11 years later, Lib-Dems must be wondering whether their pursuit of realo politics proved best for their party – and for the UK).

The Realo v. Fundi debate is one which all small political parties are likely to get caught up in – and certainly that’s an almost absolute truth for political parties who count themselves as “progressive”.  Since the very notion of “progression” involves an orderly forward movement, it’s not as if there should be an expectation that progressivism will ever stand still.  Even the most progressive political parties will discover that there is always something more worth fighting for, as we stumble forward in time and towards greater equity and universal human rights.  This progression creates a challenge for progressive political parties – and can potentially precipitate a crisis in those parties seeking to move from the edge and into the mainstream.

The Progressive Dilemma

Look, truly progressive political parties will always find themselves on the edges of mainstream acceptance, simply because they are out in front of public opinion on progressive issues.  By the time that their signature policy proposals enter mainstream thinking (think here of the Green Party and carbon pricing, if you’d like), there are other, newer issues appearing on the progressive radar that will remain outside of the scope of mainstream thinking – up until they don’t.  Progressive parties like the Greens understand this.  Hell, we keep saying that we want the other parties to adopt our policies.  And, eventually they have – and eventually, they will.

So why the hell are Greens so concerned about mainstreaming?  Yes, it’s nice to have a voice at the table and to be able to influence public policy from inside the room.  But, frankly, what’s more important to most Greens?  Ditching our values in the pursuit of power, or remaining true to our values and accepting our role as outsiders?

Conflict in the NDP

Ultimately, this is an existential question all Green parties (and all progressive parties) are forced to face.  In Canada, the New Democratic Party too is faced with an existential dilemma, although it would be unfair to characterize that as a “new” experience for the NDP.  Indeed, that Party has been locked in the constant push-pull of the values vs. power debate for decades.  The primary difference right now is that those on the value side seem to have a little more momentum behind their point of view, after the power-seekers dropped the electoral ball in 2015.

In some ways, we Greens have it easier than the NDP.  We’re hung up on BDS, while the NDP has to deal with the Leap Manifesto, BDS, and, quite likely, a number of other socio-economic issues that boil down to whether globalized capitalism continues to make sense in the context of the 21^st Century.  Of course, the NDP has already ditched their leader, and they have forced themselves to accept a day of reckoning next year, when a new leader who will presumably embody the direction desired by the grassroots is chosen by the members (with the hopes that the new leader will be able to convince the elected New Democratic caucus to come along for the ride – something U.K. Labour leader Jeremy Corbynn, elected with a 60% first ballot mandate by the grassroots, difficult to do).

But then again, the NDP probably has less to lose than Greens by having this debate.  Because the NDP is an established, mainstream political party, even if incrementally progressive policies are adopted, if they can be spun the right way, the NDP will retain a significant portion of its base – and that’s nothing to sneeze at.  For example, the NDP could decide that it’s time to start the conversation about leaving fossil resources in the ground (as Leap suggests) and re-examining global trade deals (in keeping with Leap and anti-capitalist interests), and still present themselves to the general public as being fairly balanced and level-headed.  Debates, of course, will continue to rage along these fronts, but generally, the NDP could find itself playing the role of a real progressive political force again, after having largely abandoned that role in the pursuit of power since Jack Layton took its helm.

Of course, the significant risk to the NDP would be abdicating any realistic hope of obtaining power – their message will still be somewhat off-key with Canadians, as progressive messages tend to be, at least for a while.  Of course with a new leader getting a feel for the job, and with a popular Justin Trudeau leading the nation from what the mainstream media refers to as a “centrist” point of view, it’s highly unlikely that the NDP has much of a shot at the golden ring in 2019 anyway. 

A Lack of Political Capital with Canadians

Greens, on the other hand, don’t have the political padding to engage in half-measures after a day of reckoning. While those New Democrats who end up on the losing side of the Leap debate might be mollified into accepting the direction of their party with the knowledge that the NDP will retain a good portion of its’ mainstream political capital, the same can’t be said of Greens because the Green Party has never had any mainstream political capital.  Greens who find themselves on the losing side of the current schism will be less inclined to return to the flock.  Greens have always had a tendency to wander away from the Party when lesser sleights have occurred.  And what we’re talking about here is really more of a cultural rift than a sleight.

Unlike Leap, and even unlike the anti-capitalist movement in general, BDS tends to be cast in a much starker light.  While you can have a sliding scale of opinions on the role of corporations in democratic processes, it’s hard to find oneself in the middle on BDS – you’re either in favour of it, or you’re against.  Yes, there is some space left for a nuanced position – and many tepid supporters of BDS try to inhabit that space – but for the most part, the mainstream political culture in this nation (and especially the mainstream media) doesn’t allow for that kind of occupation.  Today, the frame around this issue is firmly in place, and while I expect that the frame will come under pressure and eventually crack (as it does for all progressive issues), it’s not going to happen any time soon.  BDS is not at a mainstream tipping point.

I think most Greens get this – even those who support BDS, and who want to speed Canada up towards that tipping point.  They know Canada isn’t there yet.  And I think most Greens would concede that if the Green Party championed BDS, we will advance its cause (and let’s be frank here – by adopting BDS as Green Party policy, we WILL be its champion, no matter how little we might want to talk about it – by virtue of the fact that others will always be talking about it and us, we’ll really have no choice but to be BDS champions, whether we like it or not).  And advancing the cause of BDS is really anathema to some members of the Party, who view it either as an pseudo anti-semitic  cause, or whose opinions are informed by the mainstream cultural perception that it’s a pseudo anti-semitic cause.

Clearly, BDS is a far more divisive issue than Leap, or Socialism a debate on cultural values.

The Green Party is, therefore, not even remotely well positioned to handle this discussion that we have found ourselves in the midst of.  I believe that we are about to tear ourselves apart over BDS because the Green Party itself is at a crossroads.  Do we stay true to our values at the risk of marginalization, or do we abandon those values and those who value them in the pursuit of mainstream political acceptance in the pursuit of a narrower political agenda?

Just How Progressive Does the Green Party Want to Be?

I’m certainly not in a position to answer that question. I have my own opinions, and in part my opinion is informed by BDS – an initiative that I tepidly support, but one which I understand to be toxic for the Party at this time (full disclosure: I voted “Yellow” in the online polling for the policy that the Ottawa BGM ultimately adopted without revision in August).  But I’m just one guy – and a guy who likes to describe himself as being the most rabidly partisan Green Party member that the party has.  I enjoy being a partisan – and I think that alone identifies me as the voice of a minority opinion within the Party.  My partisanship alone, though, doesn’t mean that my values are in any way compromised.  It just means that I’m likely to find myself more on the Realo side of the debate than I am on the Fundi .  I continue to believe that it’s better to be on the inside than the outside of political decision making, and I see real value in electing more Green MP’s on that basis.  But I acknowledge that not all members of the Party see things that way, and I think that there is merit to the argument that would leave the Party on the outside.

This current crisis, however, is truly an existential one.  No matter how the crisis is now resolved, there will be casualties.  It is the nature of existential crises to find victims fallen to friendly fire.  While we may all want many of the same things, those small number of issues that divide us will prove to be fatal at some level.  Either the agitators on one side or the other will eventually rebel or be expelled, leaving the Party a wounded reduction of its former self, or the civil strife will consume the Party completely.  This is not an apocalyptic prediction, by the way.  It’s a constant.  This will happen, unless reconciliation is sought and accepted – and frankly, given the polarizing nature of BDS, there can be no reconciliation.

Survival Not Assured

For me, there are several questions.  The first is, can the Green Party survive this existential crisis?  I suspect it can, but the wounds are ones which may not heal.  I believe the Realos like May and Weaver have the upper hand, largely because I believe too that the broader base of the Party who, like me, are mostly disengaged on the issue of BDS for whatever reason, will not be willing to sacrifice the potential for future electoral successes to an issue that doesn’t stir us, even if we realize that it should.  

But the Fundis here do have a stronger moral case, and there must be a good number of them, judging by the strength that the BDS policy motion received in pre-BGM online polling and at the BGM itself.  BDS supporters might be members with a minority view in the party, but right now that statement isn’t supported by the evidence.  We may never truly know what the majority opinion is on BDS – but ultimately that’s not important.  What is important is that there is a significant number of Greens that have embraced BDS – and more Greens are sticking their necks out and choosing sides, thanks in part to the current crisis.  This means that every day we diminish opportunities for reconciliation – to find a mushy middle, even on an issue as divisive as BDS. 

But I still hold some hope that we may be able to do so, even if it means that we lose the support of Greens like Weaver.  But the fact that Weaver and the B.C. Greens are facing an election next year makes the task of reconciliation that much more difficult, because it’s clear that Weaver, at least, has no desire to find a “mushy middle” at a time when he’d rather be talking to British Columbians about what the Green Party can do for them, rather than defending Green candidates from charges of supporting anti-semitism.

My second question is, if the Green Party can somehow keep a good part of itself together, will it emerge from the end of this exercise as a political entity that I want to support?  I say “entity” because it may very well be that, while remaining ostensibly a political Party in name, what comes out of the other side of the civil strife snake might be unrecognizable as a political party as we view parties today.  If, for example, the party opts to pursue as a primary goal something other than the election of Greens to parliament, it will be unclear to me that the appellation of “party” would be appropriate.

I'm Here for the Climate Change - Cheque, Please!

Ultimately, though, that’s for Greens to decide.  The power-struggle is on, and there’s really no way now to get around this. While I have hopes that the December General Meeting in Calgary might achieve some sort of compromise on the matter, I can’t see that happening. 

So, I’ll sit and watch and wait for a while longer yet.  But ultimately, I’m here for the climate change and for the democratic reform.  If the vehicle I’ve chosen to invest my time and treasure in ultimately goes off the rails, I’ll have to look for an alternative form of transport to take me to the hub of those issues.

(Opinions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be considered consistent with the policy and/or positions of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)