City
Stephen Harper & The City of Toronto -
Torontonians should be careful when they make remarks like, "Dangerous Albertan".
In the Stephen Harper piece that appeared on this site, a reader, responding to the post, called Stephen Harper a "Dangerous Albertan". Pardon me? Is there a developing gang culture in Western Canada that I am currently unaware of? Did Mr. Harper catch an antibiotic resistant strain of the Avian Flu in the West Edmonton Mall? Is it contagious? Is he currently hiding in an office building at Church & Wellesley with a rifle?
Fully aware of the fact that because of it's multi-cultural flavor, forward thinking youth and recent electoral history, Toronto is an adamantly Liberal city, I still think this is a patently dumb statement. Since there is no catchy phrase for the analogy I'm about to put on the table, I'm going to create one right now.
Toronto has "Can't See The Stars" syndrome.
Looking up at night sky in Toronto you'll be lucky to see the faint trace of stars. That's reality. When we start making sweeping remarks about Stephen Harper and his presence as a native of Alberta, it speaks to the fact that - figuratively - we lack the ability to focus on anything outside of our city.
During the 2003 Fringe Festival I saw a musical comedy - the name escapes me - that chronicled the history of Canada. It was all going swimmingly until a song alluded to Stephen Harper's vision of Canada by flashing a Canadian flag with a swastika super-imposed over the traditional maple leaf. Ok, that's fine. Good humor. What was not fine was the reaction in the theatre.
Raucous applause, knowing laughter and just general - palpable - arrogance.
Just curious - What do you think the reaction would have been if they did the same joke with Paul Martin, punctuated by a Canadian Flag with two men being married outside of a free abortion clinic in place of the maple leaf?
Now please, before you fill out my application for the Third Reich, ask yourself if there is a tangible difference between the two jokes? Both are grossly exaggerated, stereotypical and above all, bias views of two opposing political parties.
Then ask yourself, not as a Torontonian, but as a Canadian: What do I know about the political ideologies in my country?
Of the 9 provinces outside of Ontario, the Conservative Party of Canada controls five. Not zero, five. I would be interested to know, is that a higher number than you thought? Furthermore, can you name all of the provinces without producing the same expression as Nick Lachey when he's asked a question about his soon to be ex-wife?
Living in such a phenomenal city is a privilege. With apologies to our friends in Vancouver, Montreal and Timmins, Toronto is by far and away the most powerful, influential and important city in this country. If you work in finance, advertising, marketing, film or television, (just to name a few industries) you don't have to be here, but eventually, if you are interested in being recognized as a fundamental cog in your respective profession, you probably should be.
All of this, every last bit of it, brings responsibility.
There is a marked difference between accepting and embracing the liberal climate of Toronto, and allowing that climate to make you ignorant and isolated from the rest of Canada.
So if we are going to call Stephen Harper a "Dangerous Albertan" and toss around metaphors comparing him to George W. Bush, and by blanket association, Hitler. At best, we should be able to back it up with literal, traceable evidence. At worst, we should realize that we sound profoundly ignorant to the rest of Canada.
SA
Discussion
36 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Witness in Ontario. I don't think the PC PC party of Ontario will be changing its name any time soon. They may have a basic ideology in common, but to many there are still stark differences between the PC parties and the CPC.
It's just boogie man politics.
and besides, harper is from toronto.
Understanding diversity doesn't change the fact that Stephen Harper's policies are way out of step with what we believe.
I don't think many people would be too offended if Paul Martin was compared to Hitler (except Paul Martin, that is), but it wouldn't make as much sense. Standard xenophobia of the Conservatives draws easier connections (real or imagined). And what other major political party has come out against gays? (Don't give me the BS that it's a matter of Democracy, can we vote on whether or not Christians can marry? How would everyone feel if we voted to ban Muslim marriage?)
And do you realize that you're accusing people of being ignorant of the rest of Canada, in favour of a Christian based party that seeks to rule over a multi-faith nation?
I don't care where he's from, he's a dangerous man who'll dismantle the welfare state (health care, privatizing crown corporations, tax-cuts over social spending, if you want something 'traceable'). Respecting the rest of Canada doesn't mean holding back criticisms of the people you're fundamentally opposed to. Difference of opinion across the country doesn't invalidate our ideologies.
And, tacked on at the end, Liberals are still ahead of the Conservatives, even after the sponsorship scandal. They've screwed up so bad, and people will still vote for them over the Conservatives. The Liberals, NDP, and Bloc, three left-ish parties, command 64% of the support. Calling Harper dangerous is more in step with the country at large than supporting him.
Harper is a dangerous man from Alberta. He'd be dangerous from Toronto too.
Since you seem to understand it - or at the very least, have a strong grounded opinion about it - you're more than welcome to compare Stephen Harper with whomever you see fit.
Good response.
SA
You have alot to learn about Politics my friend. First, the Conservative party always has had hold on the western voters, its not just a Stephen Harper hold. You also made a comment about the Conservatives came out against gays, well your incorrect. Its not just the Christian religion that opposes gay marriage, its the Muslims, the Jews, as well as the Christians. Its not just the bible that does not allow it!! Harper isnt dangerous by any any stretch of the imagination, dangerous people are those lefty extremists, and New Deomcrats who spend money they dont have then bring the country into a recession, and have the Conservativessave bail them out, sound familiar? I can tell that your not voting for Harper, but maybe if you had any sense of what his tax cuts would do you would. Half of the Liberal voters, are unintelligent, unemployed, and yes, ignorant to the rest of Canada. And the fact that the Liberals have screwed up so bad and people are still voting for them speaks volume about Liberal voters, yea id vote for a guy who stole hundred of millions of dollars, and then lies about his invovlement. Gimme a break Paul Martin, go marry your boyfriend.
I just had to throw that in.
I am taking a Political Stance, vote Harper, and a better Canada.
I'm Out
Tim
"A better Canada?" For who?
Nope. Harper still doesn't cut it in my book.
No, I'd say it means that there isn't a viable third option. And if it "speaks volumes," it says more about Harper's inability to connect with Canadians than anything.
To say that the Tories have come out against homosexuality is completely false.
The Tory stance is officially neutral to homosexuality, leaving it up to individual members to decide for themselves.
i agree with ryan. with his conservative social views, harper and his party is just not a viable option no matter how unimpressive paul martin or the liberal party is.
Go marry my boyfriend? Are you fucking kidding me? What are you four?
And if you're going to call a huge chunk of the population idiots, you think you'd do it with proper grammar.
"Alot" is not a word.
Who the hell are the New Deomcrats?
And when have the "Conservativessave" bailed anyone out.
About me being an idiot - the recession happened on Mulroney's watch.
The American national debt tripled during Reagan’s presidency (was he a conservative? I forget).
The longest period of sustained growth in American history was from 1945 to the 70s - time characterized by New Deal and Great Society programs - the welfare state was huge. The depression happened under the watch of strict economic conservatives - low taxes and business solutions.
For various reasons, I have no defence for Bob Rae, but I will point out that when the Progressive Conservatives 'bailed us out,' a big chunk of the larger world’s economy had turned around as well, not just Ontario's. On a national level, the Liberals were in charge. Internationally, Clinton took over for Bush, and Blair for Thatcher.
I'm not prepared to say that liberal (small l) economic policies will inevitably lead to a good economy, other factors affect it, but conservatism hardly has the monopoly.
I never denied the fact that Conservatives have always had a hold on the West (for a long time at least).
You haven't provided compelling evidence that the Conservatives aren’t against gays. The argument would be that they're concerned with gay marriage and not gays in general - but what other conclusion would you draw? We let atheists, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists marry. Marriage has not been a specifically religious thing for a very long time.
Sure, other religions are also opposed to gay marriage - but what's it matter? Equal rights isn’t a matter that should be up for votes. If Hitler had put exterminating Jews to a vote, would that have justified it?
If you want to defend enshrining Christian values - why stop at gays? Why not ban Hindus for not recognizing the one, true God? Why do we extend a live and let live policy only so far?
Let's talk about the post first. The basic message was a good one: don't condemn groups of people based on a representative sampling of one.
What's interesting about the article is that the author engages in the very thing he condemns. He chastises the negative stereotyping of Albertans, principally by negatively stereotypes Torontonians.
And here's a first piece of advice: try to avoid mass generalizations. They don't make for good argument.
The second piece of advice is this: try to avoid Hitler references. Hitler (the Third Reich, Stalin, Idi Amin, Baby Doc, etc.) are such extreme examples that any analogy with politicians in a liberal democracy such as Canada is bound to fall well short. You discredit yourself, sir, and your argument by taking such an incredible leap, even in refutation.
Finally, there is some great dialogue on this blog, but not a whole lot of respect for facts. To say that a recession happened on someone's watch, or that Christianity opposes homosexuality both trivializes global economics (as if a country's economic performance were a matter of whim and not subject to myriad external forces) and ignores the fact that many Christian sects not only embrace gay-straight equality but have actively supported gay marriage and other forms of equal rights. As, by the way, have some Jewish and Muslim sects, whatever the conservative dogmatics might say.
Anyway, I suppose the real point here should be this: Toronto and Alberta are both incredibly diverse polyglot communities containing both liberal and conservative, majority and minority, religious and non-religious, brilliant and idiot elements. Stephen Harper speaks for the Conservative Party, not Alberta. And the author of this article speaks only for himself.
The impetus for this article (and its analogies) was generated from the negative response Harper received in the previous post's comment section and the reaction the swastika joke generated at the Fringe Festival.
Those two examples, as far as I'm concerned, are a strong, viable indicator that a significant portion of Toronto lacks any reasonable understanding of the Conservative party. And instead, acquires the vast majority of their knowledge through misguided and inappropriate stereotypes.
Having a strong political stance is admirable - irrespective of where that stance lands you on the political spectrum - but it also requires you to understand the political standards and values you oppose. Otherwise, it's like saying the Leafs are going to win tonight, without first examining their opponent. (My apologies for the Sports reference. It is Saturday, after all.)
Thanks for the dialogue folks.
SA
That's terrific you can take shots at typos. New Democrats, I was referring to the NDP.
Clinton, is hardly an economics genius, and did not by any means spur the economy.
Trying to take shots at Ronald Reagan, even Democrats know he was one of the greatest Presidents ever. When Mulroney took over from the Liberals, the country was in one of its worst financial states ever, you should understand that.
Now, the stock market and the economy are booming after recovering from the greatest hit ever, September 11, 2001, This economic development is thanks to a great republican George W. Bush.
Gays shold not have the same rights with regards to marriage. That's not a religious comment, however, I do a agree with minimal separtion between "church and state."
I'm finished.
Tim
You're right, Hitler is an overused and mostly ineffective comparison to draw. I do find it useful in demonstrating the point that equal rights should not be at the will of public opinion.
(I'm not entirely sure if this point was directed at me or Tim, but) I'm not saying that the actions of a president, or group of leaders, turned around the economy (with the recession in the 80s, FDR took pretty drastic action with the depression - but again, there are arguments on both sides made by people smarter than I. Seems like the war did more but the New Deal did something - to me). What I'm saying is we've had good economies under liberal leadership. And conservative ones too, for that matter. The debate's not so cut and dry about who ruins the economy.
I apologize for any confusion, but I don't believe Christianity is absolutely against homosexuality (I haven't gone back and read over what I've read, but I don't think I've said that either). There's a huge spectrum of opinions in religion - some of the opinions furthest to the Left come from the Church. Most communist and socialist groups here in Toronto are supported, in one way or another, by the Church.
What I am saying, is the Conservatives are against homosexuality. I hope I've demonstrated why I believe that well enough that I don't have to repeat it. They've come at it from a sideways angle, but the message is clear (in my mind, at least). It's not an issue of democracy.
And for Tim. I find you hilarious. If you're going to make a statement like "Half of the Liberal voters, are unintelligent, unemployed, and yes, ignorant to the rest of Canada," you should at least use a spellchecker. It's like me punching someone in the nose for being to violent.
To clear it up, I know who the New Democrats are, you spelt it "Deomcrats."
And if it makes you feel any better, I picked three errors in a post that had about 80 of them. But who am I to criticize? My grammars hardly perfect. It was a cheap shot, but I felt it justified at the time.
Reagan's pretty easy to take shots at actually. He's an easy target. When there was concern that American's weren't getting enough greens, he tried to have ketchup declared a vegetable. And his spending - he made huge cuts in taxes while actually increasing spending (mostly on military). It doesn't add up. But, if you like him or not really depends on where you're coming from. He was incredibly charismatic, and he struck resonance with a lot of people. I wouldn't say he was one of the greatest presidents, but he's certainly been one of the most influential. As we get a little more distance it's likely he'll be thought of as in the top two most influential presidents of the 20th century (along with Franklin Roosevelt).
If you want to argue the economy of today, you should find someone else to do it with. I'm no economist (but seriously, are you?). I think we'd run into a wall at a fundamental level, probably predictably enough - what makes a good economy? You can probably guess where I stand.
And in all seriousness, who is saying gays should not deserve the same rights in marriage not a religious statement? What's a secular argument for that in a multi-cultural country? Is it because they can't naturally procreate? Or does it only go so far as you don't like 'fags'?
The recession you refer to, may have happened on Mulrouney' "watch" but the economic engine of this country (Ontario) was under rule by whom???? OOHHHHH that's right, the tax and spend Liberals, and then Bob Rae's NDP.
The reality is, that the recession, which ALWAYS starts in the economic captial of a country, started in Ontario, and for good reason, because the provincial Liberals and NDP perpetuated it.
The worst Ontario can hope for now, is Liberals in Ontario, paired with Liberals in Ottawa - mark my words as we are spun into years of spending and high taxation.
I might become unemployed just so I can begin to see the light.
the recession I refer happened in the US and England at the same time. Did this have nothing to do with it? Or does Ontario control them to?
The fact that you even think or believe that the dominance of a certain party in your region (or mine) means that "most if not all" the people hold the same views is naive at best. Check out how our first-past-the-post system works and you'll find something called "nuance".
Although I realise that your lack of humour is personal and that you can't possibly pretend to speak for all Westerners, it is a shame that you think a vote for the Liberals is a vote against The West.
You want Western Canada to be a seperate country?
Go.
And don't come crying back ala Conrad Black when your oil runs out.
I am all for the Republic of Upper and Lower Canada. plus the maritimes.
All westerners have in common is a disdain for Toronto.
No one here cares/thinks/worries about the west.
we don't hate you guys. In fact we hardly think about you guys at all.
You want to go?
Go.
I'm a westerner, but these cheap shots about the easterners and westerners are a bit much. When I worked in Ontario I met a lot of decent people I respect. Instead of hating each other let's just stick with the heart of the matter. I think people are too scared to vote for a different party because it's better to vote for the devil you know over the devil you don't know (clich� ?). Well now that we have let the liberal party beat Canada to a pulp with scandals, it's time for change.
Since the majority of bloggers here have brought up gay marriage, I thought I would go on my own rant. I'm not against homosexuals. I like them and I have a cousin that is gay, but I do think homosexuality is a bad choice. It's as equally a bad choice as violence, stealing, swearing, deceit, greed and lust. I have certainly sinned a lot in my life and I am not letting myself off the hook. Obviously I am a christian and I can't stand ANY self righteous christian or non-christian that puts themselves on a pedestal.
Cheers,
Attack away! :-)
Bryant
I'm a westerner, but these cheap shots about the easterners and westerners are a bit much. When I worked in Ontario I met a lot of decent people I respect. Instead of hating each other let's just stick with the heart of the matter. I think people are too scared to vote for a different party because it's better to vote for the devil you know over the devil you don't know (clich� ?). Well now that we have let the liberal party beat Canada to a pulp with scandals, it's time for change.
Since the majority of bloggers here have brought up gay marriage, I thought I would go on my own rant. I'm not against homosexuals. I like them and I have a cousin that is gay, but I do think homosexuality is a bad choice. It's as equally a bad choice as violence, stealing, swearing, deceit, greed and lust. I have certainly sinned a lot in my life and I am not letting myself off the hook. Obviously I am a christian and I can't stand ANY self righteous christian or non-christian that puts themselves on a pedestal.
Cheers,
Attack away! :-)
Bryant
http://rickmercer.blogspot.com/
He often fills me with hopeless despair, but he's no Chairman Mao.