Doug Ford (A Canadian Precursor to Trump) Declared Leader Of The Ontario PC Party

[Solauren]

While Ford being in charge of Ontario is a concern,it's not that bad

#1 - The rest of the PCS are not going to let him do anything that could harpoon possible re-election.
#2 - The NPD only got 300,000 or so votes less then the PCS over all.
#3 - We're one scandal away from Ford being booted out and Christine Elliot taking charge

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, its not the end of the world. But it is a warning, that thuggish, far Right "populism" does have some weight in Canadian politics, and cannot be safely ignored.

[Coop D'etat]

I'm going to make some points


There is a tendency in Canadian politics to when a conservative party wins to tally up the votes from both the Liberals and NDP, declare that the left-wing and anti-conservative vote and claim its anti-democratic that the left wing are out of power. While I understand how this sort of thinking starts, its ignorant of how Canadian politics actually works. Canadian Liberal parties and the NDP are not equivalent flavours of center-leftism, but very different parties that have different electoral bases and usually have different ideological priors. Its true that in power they may have broadly similar policies, but the same actually applies when comparing liberal and conservative governments in Canada, the policy range here for parties popular enough to be in power is pretty narrow here, regardless of the hyper-ventalating you see partisans exhibit after loosing an election.

The upshot of the Liberal parties and the NDP being signficantly different is that you can't assume that all the votes for one would prefer a the other over a conservative government. The liberal-NDP swing vote tends to be the largest block of swing voters but they aren't the only swing block. There are also significant conservative-liberal swing votes who wouldn't consider any NDP government, and there are signficant chunk of voters who defy the simplistic right-left axis that people cling to and swing between conservative parties and the NDP. So when a Liberal party or an NDP party see its votes collapse you'd expect to see something more like 2/3rds of that vote go to the other major "left" party and about 1/3rd go to the conservativ side. Most voters aren't committed ideologues and don't vote based on where parties are on an imaginary left-right line, their behaviour is far more complex.

Applying this to the recent election results, Doug Ford would probably easily win a head to head match up between Wynne or Horwath in this electorate, so I'm dubious about claims of illigetimacy of the electoral system based on the anti-conservatives being more popular on aggregate. It's also a common bete noire amoung politics nerds to complain about the disproportionality of FPTP systems, but the kind of proportionality they are asking for (% of power based on % of vote) is essentially impossible in a West Minister style Parliamentary form of government and using various PR system produces its own perverse results. I'm particularly not convinced that these systems produce any better quality of government than the system we use currently.

As for the triumph of Fordism. Firstly, despite the temptation to tie everything in politics these days to Trump, Fordism isn't equivalent to Trumpism. For one thing, the Fords have significant support from minority immigrants and has effectively no "alt-right" ties. Populist, ignorant and likely to govern incompetently yes, but implying this is a win for the racist right wing is to assume the rules of American politics apply to Ontario in a way that ignores what the actual local conditions are.

Finally, this election was a sharp wakeup call for how badly the Ontario Liberals and NDP needed to get their houses in order prior to this election and need to reform themselves. The Liberals were in power for far longer than they deserved and Wynne was massively unpopular as premier due to the incompetence of herself and her innner circle. Her faults were compounded by her arrogance and ego, when she didn't acknowledge the reality of her unpopularity a year ago to step down and let the party renew itself by selecting a new leader. Instead she fought of the people inside her party calling for her ouster and lead her party to a predicable debacle. Meanwhile, the NDP was pretty bad at positioning themselves to win power when presented with a once in a generation opportunity to do so. Horwath was a reasonably good standard bearer for her party, but her bench strength at the MPP level was bad. The NDP didn't do enough to make sure they were running good candidates in the ridings they could win and did't look to have the pool of good potential ministers for a government and that hurt them a lot when they were trying to present themselves as the option for reasonable people rather than being just as bad as the other two parties.

[Wild Zontargs]

A reminder that if the PCs hadn't immediately thrown Patrick Brown under the campaign bus over questionable and sensationalized allegations of "sexual misconduct" claimed to have taken place a decade ago, we'd have a centrist PC for Premier, or at the very least establishment PCs in the form of Mulroney or Elliott if his ouster had pissed off 77 fewer party members:

It may not quite be that the campaign didn’t matter so much as that very little that happened in the campaign could compete with the turmoil before it. For two years before 2018, the Liberals under Wynne were becoming steadily less popular. The NDP under Andrea Horwath was all but ignored in political coverage. And the PCs, under a wiry runner from Barrie named Patrick Brown, were slowly setting themselves up to be an alternative to the Liberals.

Brown had been an unnoticed back-bench MP in Ottawa for most of the time Stephen Harper was prime minister. His entry into the Ontario race to succeed Tim Hudak, a diligent student of politics who just couldn’t connect with voters, seemed at first to be of only anecdotal interest. But Brown had been assigned a bit part in the Harper Conservatives’ ethnic outreach strategies while in Ottawa, and he took that same attitude to provincial politics, attracting voters of South Asian origin in particular.

Next he set about building an election platform that was surprisingly centrist in orientation, going so far as to accept a federal carbon tax to fight climate change—along with the substantial revenues that would come with such a scheme.

Brown’s analysis was that the PCs had lost elections in 2007, 2011 and 2014—despite growing discontent with the Liberals—because some element of their platform had always seemed too extreme to voters. Back when the Conservatives used to win elections in Ontario, after all, they did it under amazingly boring centrist leaders like Bill Davis. Brown’s willingness to accept a carbon tax was a totem of his eagerness to play in the same turf.

A few PCs hated the idea, but anyone who objected too vociferously, or who wanted to spend too much time talking about social issues like abortion or immigration, was ruthlessly sidelined under Brown. That created a lot of pent-up resentment in the party, but it also allowed Brown to attract interesting candidates of the sort who normally only enter politics when they sense a cabinet post might be their reward: the lawyer Caroline Mulroney, member of one of Canada’s political royal family, and the Toronto businessman Rod Phillips, for starters.

Then, of course, on Jan. 24 news broke of allegations of sexual assault against Brown. He resigned as Conservative leader before the night was through. The Conservatives had to pick another leader in just a few weeks. One by one the candidates disavowed the carbon-tax plank that had been the source of billions of dollars of revenue in Brown’s platform. Less spectacularly, the party threatened to tear itself apart from within, as supporters and detractors of Brown fought for control over the nomination process and the party hierarchy.

[bilateralrope]

but the kind of proportionality they are asking for (% of power based on % of vote) is essentially impossible in a West Minister style Parliamentary form of government

Why not ?

New Zealand operates with a Westminster style parliament. We have MMP, with the proportional vote being the main determiner of how many seats each party gets and the electoral vote being responsible for all the perverse effects I'm aware of.

and using various PR system produces its own perverse results.

Such as ?

I'm particularly not convinced that these systems produce any better quality of government than the system we use currently.

I won't claim that PR produces a better quality of government. But they do represent what the people want better. The example I like to use, because it has happened, is a party who would be the first choice of less than 10% of the voters. But their support is evenly spread across the country. No regional based election system gives them a voice. So it's a choice between proportionality, or telling that 10% of the population that their voice doesn't matter as much as a smaller percentage of people who all live in a single electorate.

[AniThyng]

.
As for the triumph of Fordism. Firstly, despite the temptation to tie everything in politics these days to Trump, Fordism isn't equivalent to Trumpism. For one thing, the Fords have significant support from minority immigrants and has effectively no "alt-right" ties. Populist, ignorant and likely to govern incompetently yes, but implying this is a win for the racist right wing is to assume the rules of American politics apply to Ontario in a way that ignores what the actual local conditions are.

Is this one of those things where it turns out that if you take away racism and anti immigration from the platform, many minorities actually do support conservative policies?

[Coop D'etat]

.
As for the triumph of Fordism. Firstly, despite the temptation to tie everything in politics these days to Trump, Fordism isn't equivalent to Trumpism. For one thing, the Fords have significant support from minority immigrants and has effectively no "alt-right" ties. Populist, ignorant and likely to govern incompetently yes, but implying this is a win for the racist right wing is to assume the rules of American politics apply to Ontario in a way that ignores what the actual local conditions are.

Is this one of those things where it turns out that if you take away racism and anti immigration from the platform, many minorities actually do support conservative policies?

Exactly this. The heartland of "Ford Nation" in Toronto Municpal politics was the suburbs of the city which included many immigrant communities. This appears to have translated to the Provincial election. Take away the anti-immigrant/racist bigotry and these people start voting based on other characteristics, like degree of religious belief, economic class etc.

There's also a tendency to try an import a narrative of whites verses people of colour into the political analysis that no longer holds up when your conservatives by and larger aren't running on white supremacy. Then each ethnic community votes according to their own issues and not as a political block of "people of colour." So what matters to the Chinese community will be different from what matters to the Punjabis, which will be very different from the Carribean immigrants. Lumping them together as "immigrants" or "people of colour" isn't a very effecive method of analysis. So a conservative politician might do very well with one ethnic group and get very little support from another. In Ford's case, he appears to have done roughly equally well with whites and visable minorities as a total. I would wager that involved doing very well with demographics like suburbarn Chinese, Korean, and South Asians, but probably much less well with inner city African and Black Carribean populations and First Nations people.

[The Romulan Republic]

A reminder that if the PCs hadn't immediately thrown Patrick Brown under the campaign bus over questionable and sensationalized allegations of "sexual misconduct" claimed to have taken place a decade ago, we'd have a centrist PC for Premier, or at the very least establishment PCs in the form of Mulroney or Elliott if his ouster had pissed off 77 fewer party members:

I'm not familiar with the Patrick Brown case, but please tell me your argument isn't "We ought to sweep sexual abuse allegations under the rug."

[Wild Zontargs]

A reminder that if the PCs hadn't immediately thrown Patrick Brown under the campaign bus over questionable and sensationalized allegations of "sexual misconduct" claimed to have taken place a decade ago, we'd have a centrist PC for Premier, or at the very least establishment PCs in the form of Mulroney or Elliott if his ouster had pissed off 77 fewer party members:

I'm not familiar with the Patrick Brown case, but please tell me your argument isn't "We ought to sweep sexual abuse allegations under the rug."

Nope, but this one was possibly false, probably exaggerated for/by the media, and almost certainly used as an excuse (rather than an actual motivating reason) to replace Brown. Anyone who could become PC leader was nearly guaranteed to become Premier, so it was the perfect time for a coup. If the party had allowed even the slightest delay before shit-canning him, producing even the barest appearance of due process, they wouldn't have pissed off the rank-and-file, which means Ford almost certainly wouldn't have won the leadership, and we wouldn't have him as Premier.

[Zaune]

Frankly, if some of what my old Occupy buddies are saying is true then Ontario might have been better off with Brown even if he really does like to get handsy with pretty young female interns or whatever.

[The Romulan Republic]

Nope, but this one was possibly false, probably exaggerated for/by the media, and almost certainly used as an excuse (rather than an actual motivating reason) to replace Brown. Anyone who could become PC leader was nearly guaranteed to become Premier, so it was the perfect time for a coup. If the party had allowed even the slightest delay before shit-canning him, producing even the barest appearance of due process, they wouldn't have pissed off the rank-and-file, which means Ford almost certainly wouldn't have won the leadership, and we wouldn't have him as Premier.

Okay, and as I said, I'm not really familiar with this case, so I'm not going to offer an opinion on whether Brown was guilty. Though I'll reiterate my usual position that if there are multiple accusers who are otherwise unconnected/have no clear reason to collaborate, then at least some of the accusations are probably true. I'm not saying that there's no one messed up enough to make a false groping allegation, even knowing that they'll probably be grilled just as relentlessly as the person they accused, but the odds of getting a bunch of people making the same false allegations are surely much lower than the odds of one person having groped. Maybe not enough to qualify as "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a court of law, but enough when deciding whether you want someone representing your party in an election.

I would also say that your use of the term "due process" is misleading, because from what you've said, this was not a court proceeding, just the party kicking him out. I'm not aware that the party is obligated to follow "due process" in the manner of a court when deciding who it wants representing it as a candidate.

Finally, I would say that if Ford really did get the nomination because the party voters were "pissed off" over a possible/probable groper getting the boot- well, I'm not surprised, since the entire basis of the Alt. Reich is pretty much "Women and minorities are objecting to the way they're treated? It must be a lie to persecute innocent white men! Make America Ontario Great Again!" But if that is the reason, I'd say that it provides a not-very-flattering insight into the reactionary motives of a lot of Ford voters. And that its a pretty damning indictment of the Ontario PC, if the best/only alternative that they had to Doug Ford was a guy with a groping scandal.

Frankly, if some of what my old Occupy buddies are saying is true then Ontario might have been better off with Brown even if he really does like to get handsy with pretty young female interns or whatever.

Well, yeah, probably. There are different degrees of asshole out there, and as detestable as it is, "probable groper" is far from the worst.

But like I said, its a pretty damning indictment of the PC if the best candidate they could muster is a probable groper.

[Coop D'etat]

A reminder that if the PCs hadn't immediately thrown Patrick Brown under the campaign bus over questionable and sensationalized allegations of "sexual misconduct" claimed to have taken place a decade ago, we'd have a centrist PC for Premier, or at the very least establishment PCs in the form of Mulroney or Elliott if his ouster had pissed off 77 fewer party members:

I'm not familiar with the Patrick Brown case, but please tell me your argument isn't "We ought to sweep sexual abuse allegations under the rug."

Nope, but this one was possibly false, probably exaggerated for/by the media, and almost certainly used as an excuse (rather than an actual motivating reason) to replace Brown. Anyone who could become PC leader was nearly guaranteed to become Premier, so it was the perfect time for a coup. If the party had allowed even the slightest delay before shit-canning him, producing even the barest appearance of due process, they wouldn't have pissed off the rank-and-file, which means Ford almost certainly wouldn't have won the leadership, and we wouldn't have him as Premier.

The due process for being removed from a party leadership is the members of your caucus deciding whether you're a political asset or a liability as leader. As soon as the rumours hit, Brown became a liability so he was turfed. That's due process for this kind of thing.

And the party-rank and file weren't at all concerned about the process by which Brown was removed in the leadership election, the base never really liked him because he was taking them to the the sensible center to avoid the PCs frequent botching of winnable elections by including something nutty in their plaform that turned off the electorate (see John Tory and Hudak). The PC base is pretty nutty though and tend to want the most obnoxious SOB that speaks to their issues as leader. Hence Ford.

Anger about "due process" wasn't a thing here. It might be a bugbear for certain people in general, but it wasn't a live issue in the leadership campaign.

[Wild Zontargs]

I would also say that your use of the term "due process" is misleading, because from what you've said, this was not a court proceeding, just the party kicking him out. I'm not aware that the party is obligated to follow "due process" in the manner of a court when deciding who it wants representing it as a candidate.

I would assume that the party does have rules around the removal of the leader, and (given that they allegedly did shit like sending out "Brown's" resignation letter before Brown could even read it) they probably ignored some of their own rules. That aside, giving the appearance of treating him fairly instead of knifing him in the back and dumping him in the street tends to lead to better relations between the party members and the party leadership. Looking like you're a bunch of backstabbing assholes tends to get people to vote for "none of the above", which is what Ford was during the leadership race.

Finally, I would say that if Ford really did get the nomination because the party voters were "pissed off" over a possible/probable groper getting the boot- well, I'm not surprised, since the entire basis of the Alt. Reich is pretty much "Women and minorities are objecting to the way they're treated? It must be a lie to persecute innocent white men! Make America Ontario Great Again!" But if that is the reason, I'd say that it provides a not-very-flattering insight into the reactionary motives of a lot of Ford voters. And that its a pretty damning indictment of the Ontario PC, if the best/only alternative that they had to Doug Ford was a guy with a groping scandal.

OK, hold up.

1. Being pissed off over an opportunistic coup triggered by a #MeToo allegation is not the same thing as being pissed off over "a possible/probable groper getting the boot". While both have the same trigger, they have vastly different motivations and implications.

2. The PCs aren't "Alt. Reich". A significant part of their party base are non-white immigrants from socially conservative cultures. The PCs were popular across genders, ages, educational levels, economic classes, and races (April polls, June polls). Ford won by courting immigrants, not by being racist. The big push for re-writing the sex ed curriculum is coming from immigrant communities:

Immigrants have increasingly shaped our communities, our schools and our self-conception as a country. So, it was only a matter of time before they began shaping our politics, too. It is unlikely Ontarians would be debating the province’s new sex-education curriculum at all if only Canadian-born voters were concerned. Resistance to the new curriculum has been strongest among immigrant parents. Some even pulled their kids out of school in protest.

Ground zero for the anti-sex-ed movement is Thorncliffe Park, in Toronto’s inner suburbs, where 70 per cent of the population was born outside Canada and almost 60 per cent of residents speak neither English nor French at home. They’re far more likely to speak Urdu, Farsi and Tagalog.

Campaign Life Coalition, the anti-abortion activist group that has led the fight against Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne’s update to the sex-ed curriculum, publishes some of its literature in 10 languages. The group claims to have signed up 9,000 new PC Party members during the leadership race to support Ms. Granic Allen as their first choice and Mr. Ford as their second.

“New Canadians are extremely important to CLC. It is probably our fastest growth segment in terms of general supporters and activists,” CLC spokesman Jack Fonseca said in an e-mail. “I do believe that their mobilization could shift public policy momentum on life and family issues.”

Not all social conservatives are religious. Chinese immigrants, whom Mr. Fonseca said have accounted for “a lot of growth” in his group’s membership, are among those least likely to practise a religion. But for most social conservatives, religion is the motivating factor in their political mobilization.

More than half a million Muslims immigrated to Canada in the 20 years to 2011, according to Statistics Canada’s National Household Survey. The 2016 census showed that Canada accepted more than 150,000 immigrants from Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria— all Muslim-majority countries – between 2011 and 2016. Tens of thousands more came from Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt.

Almost 200,000 Filipino immigrants came to Canada in the five years to 2016, replenishing the pews of the country’s Catholic churches. As with most Canadian Muslims, these Filipino newcomers take their faith ultraseriously.

This is multiculturalism in action. Many of the cultures don't agree with progressive views on things like sex ed. You can't just argue "but they're wrong!" without opening the door to the real Alt-Right to do the same.

[Wild Zontargs]

The due process for being removed from a party leadership is the members of your caucus deciding whether you're a political asset or a liability as leader. As soon as the rumours hit, Brown became a liability so he was turfed. That's due process for this kind of thing.

And the party-rank and file weren't at all concerned about the process by which Brown was removed in the leadership election, the base never really liked him because he was taking them to the the sensible center to avoid the PCs frequent botching of winnable elections by including something nutty in their plaform that turned off the electorate (see John Tory and Hudak). The PC base is pretty nutty though and tend to want the most obnoxious SOB that speaks to their issues as leader. Hence Ford.

Anger about "due process" wasn't a thing here. It might be a bugbear for certain people in general, but it wasn't a live issue in the leadership campaign.

Looking like opportunists just waiting for an excuse to knife the leader does tend to piss off said leader's supporters.

One of the senior conservatives who has endorsed Mr. Ford since Mr. Brown withdrew is MPP Toby Barrett, who was caucus chair for the former leader. He said many of Mr. Brown's supporters do not want to vote for anyone who may have helped undermine the former leader when he was trying to save his career.

Ms. Mulroney had called on Mr. Brown to step down, Ms. Granic Allen called the former leader "corrupt," while MPP Randy Hillier, who supports Ms. Elliott, filed a complaint with the province's integrity commissioner about Mr. Brown's personal finances.

"I don't think Patrick Brown's loyalists would be amenable to joining those teams," Mr. Barratt said, so he backed Mr. Ford, whose embrace of business he supports. "He also brings a tremendous amount of political experience in one of the hottest political arenas anywhere, the City of Toronto. It makes Queen's Park look staid and predictable."

Brown had the public endorsement of two MPPs and 17 PC candidates during his short-lived entry into the leadership race. His campaign officials suggested he had thousands of party members on his side as well.

Those Brown supporters now face a choice. Do they sit out the vote? Or do they choose among the four remaining leadership candidates to try to influence the direction their party takes, with the provincial election now less than three months away?

"The Patrick Brown loyalists can have a tremendous influence," said Haldimand-Norfolk MPP Toby Barrett. He was Brown's staunchest supporter in the PC caucus, but has now endorsed Doug Ford.

"There are a tremendous number of Patrick Brown loyalists out there, and in my view they will determine the results of this vote," said Barrett in an interview Wednesday with CBC News.

Only four of the 17 candidates who had publicly backed Brown's leadership have come out with new endorsements, all of them throwing their support to Christine Elliott. They are Goldie Ghamari (running in Carleton), Karin Howard (Ottawa South) Mohammad Latif (Windsor-Tecumseh) and Derek Parks (Thunder Bay-Superior North).

It looks like a lot of supporters of Brown from 2015 went to Ford in 2018, particularly in ridings near Brown's home riding. Given that Brown was very centrist, this can't be chalked up to ideology. Being pissed off at the party establishment seems much more likely.

[The Romulan Republic]

I would assume that the party does have rules around the removal of the leader, and (given that they allegedly did shit like sending out "Brown's" resignation letter before Brown could even read it) they probably ignored some of their own rules.

Could you please cite sources if you are going to allege that they violated their own rules?

That aside, giving the appearance of treating him fairly instead of knifing him in the back and dumping him in the street tends to lead to better relations between the party members and the party leadership. Looking like you're a bunch of backstabbing assholes tends to get people to vote for "none of the above", which is what Ford was during the leadership race.

Perhaps, but its a knee-jerk, reactionary response. And there is the flip side of the coin for the PC: appearing to condone or protect someone accused of groping would also look bad, to a lot of people. Kind of a no-win scenario, from a PR perspective. Do you look like "backstabbing assholes" to the people who think Brown is being mistreated, or do you look like you condone sexual harassment to everyone else? Neither of these is a desirable state of affairs.

OK, hold up.

1. Being pissed off over an opportunistic coup triggered by a #MeToo allegation is not the same thing as being pissed off over "a possible/probable groper getting the boot". While both have the same trigger, they have vastly different motivations and implications.

Question: is there a reason you referred to the scandal as "a #MeToo allegation" (while dismissing Brown's removal as an "opportunistic coup"), besides trying to undermine the credibility of the accusers, and to smear the whole Me Too movement by association? Your implication seems to be that anything that can be branded with the MeToo label is somehow frivolous or lacking in credibility.

And yes, you are correct that there could be multiple different reasons why someone would object to Brown getting booted. But it comes back to the same point, for me- if someone is a likely predator, and got kicked out on that basis (not condemned by a court, but merely denied the nomination of the party), that seems a pretty flimsy basis to lash out at the whole party by supporting someone like Ford- unless one dismisses the allegations of groping altogether, or condones the behavior. After all, the alternative reason you gave for being pissed off- that it was an "opportunistic coup triggered by a #MeToo allegation" seems to be based on the view that Brown's removal was unjustified because the accusations were lacking in sufficient credibility/weight.

2. The PCs aren't "Alt. Reich". A significant part of their party base are non-white immigrants from socially conservative cultures. The PCs were popular across genders, ages, educational levels, economic classes, and races (April polls, June polls). Ford won by courting immigrants, not by being racist. The big push for re-writing the sex ed curriculum is coming from immigrant communities:

Yeah, racism probably isn't as big a factor in Ontario politics as, say, in the deep red states of the US. That's not to say it isn't a factor- different people will support someone like Ford for different reasons, and even a not-overtly-racist conservative candidate who is seen as being opposed to "political correctness" will hold more appeal to racists than a moderate or progressive. Its also fair to say that a lot of people vote against their own interests, or simply have many competing reasons for the votes they cast, so a candidate having (or not having) support from large numbers of female or minority voters doesn't necessarily mean a damn thing.

But the more pertinent issue in this case is gender prejudice, not racial prejudice.

Immigrants have increasingly shaped our communities, our schools and our self-conception as a country. So, it was only a matter of time before they began shaping our politics, too. It is unlikely Ontarians would be debating the province’s new sex-education curriculum at all if only Canadian-born voters were concerned. Resistance to the new curriculum has been strongest among immigrant parents. Some even pulled their kids out of school in protest.

Ground zero for the anti-sex-ed movement is Thorncliffe Park, in Toronto’s inner suburbs, where 70 per cent of the population was born outside Canada and almost 60 per cent of residents speak neither English nor French at home. They’re far more likely to speak Urdu, Farsi and Tagalog.

Campaign Life Coalition, the anti-abortion activist group that has led the fight against Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne’s update to the sex-ed curriculum, publishes some of its literature in 10 languages. The group claims to have signed up 9,000 new PC Party members during the leadership race to support Ms. Granic Allen as their first choice and Mr. Ford as their second.

“New Canadians are extremely important to CLC. It is probably our fastest growth segment in terms of general supporters and activists,” CLC spokesman Jack Fonseca said in an e-mail. “I do believe that their mobilization could shift public policy momentum on life and family issues.”

Not all social conservatives are religious. Chinese immigrants, whom Mr. Fonseca said have accounted for “a lot of growth” in his group’s membership, are among those least likely to practise a religion. But for most social conservatives, religion is the motivating factor in their political mobilization.

More than half a million Muslims immigrated to Canada in the 20 years to 2011, according to Statistics Canada’s National Household Survey. The 2016 census showed that Canada accepted more than 150,000 immigrants from Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria— all Muslim-majority countries – between 2011 and 2016. Tens of thousands more came from Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt.

Almost 200,000 Filipino immigrants came to Canada in the five years to 2016, replenishing the pews of the country’s Catholic churches. As with most Canadian Muslims, these Filipino newcomers take their faith ultraseriously.

This is multiculturalism in action. Many of the cultures don't agree with progressive views on things like sex ed. You can't just argue "but they're wrong!" without opening the door to the real Alt-Right to do the same.[/quote]

You seem to be trying to move the topic sideways into another anti-multiculturalism/anti-immigrant argument. On the surface, its a clever argument. You seem to offer us progressives a choice: If you want to stop social conservatism, you have to embrace our xenophobia and oppose immigration.

The problem is, its a false choice, because one does not have to be afraid of or hostile to immigrants or minorities, or treat them collectively as a threat, in order to disagree with some minorities and immigrants on some issues. I don't have a problem with saying "social conservatism on sex and gender is wrong" just because members of a minority group support it. I don't think I'm a bigot if I simply disagree with certain Islamic teachings, for example. Because even if I disagree with certain aspects of someone's beliefs, I still acknowledge that they are people, who have as much right to be here and to express their beliefs as I do. I'm not living in terror of the immigrants or the Muslims or the Catholics, because I don't regard these groups as homogenous blocks who will all inevitably vote the same way and infect "our" politics with their views. They are human beings, as susceptible to persuasion and negotiation as any other. I'm not afraid to welcome them to our country, and then argue out any differences we may have in a free exchange of ideas. This is what it means to believe in democracy.

[Wild Zontargs]

I would assume that the party does have rules around the removal of the leader, and (given that they allegedly did shit like sending out "Brown's" resignation letter before Brown could even read it) they probably ignored some of their own rules.

Could you please cite sources if you are going to allege that they violated their own rules?

There is no provision in the PCPO Constitution for forcing a leader to resign, nor a duty to behave in a particular manner. There is a procedure for replacing the leader:

24.1 At the first general meeting of the Party following an Ontario general election in which the Caucus does not form the Government of Ontario, and only at such meeting, the delegates shall be asked by secret ballot: "Do you wish to have a leadership election?"

24.2 In the event that more than 50% of the votes cast are in the affirmative, the Executive shall call a leadership election and such election shall occur at the earliest convenient date as determined by the Executive.

I do not have access to any internal documents (if any) governing what did happen.

Question: is there a reason you referred to the scandal as "a #MeToo allegation" (while dismissing Brown's removal as an "opportunistic coup"), besides trying to undermine the credibility of the accusers, and to smear the whole Me Too movement by association? Your implication seems to be that anything that can be branded with the MeToo label is somehow frivolous or lacking in credibility.

The Canadian media characterized the allegations against Brown as #MeToo. They have not been proven, so they are allegations. The circumstances in which Brown was removed, and the speed with which it was done, appears to have been an organized, insider-led movement using the allegations as an excuse. His staffers, in particular, aligned themselves with the individual who would become the presumed leader (absent Ford's victory) before even consulting with Brown. That would be an "opportunistic coup".

And yes, you are correct that there could be multiple different reasons why someone would object to Brown getting booted. But it comes back to the same point, for me- if someone is a likely predator, and got kicked out on that basis (not condemned by a court, but merely denied the nomination of the party), that seems a pretty flimsy basis to lash out at the whole party by supporting someone like Ford- unless one dismisses the allegations of groping altogether, or condones the behavior. After all, the alternative reason you gave for being pissed off- that it was an "opportunistic coup triggered by a #MeToo allegation" seems to be based on the view that Brown's removal was unjustified because the accusations were lacking in sufficient credibility/weight.

And yet, Brown's 2015 supporters, despite supporting a vastly different platform than Ford's, supported Ford in the 2018 leadership race.

But the more pertinent issue in this case is gender prejudice, not racial prejudice.

Even immediately before the election, with Ford being hammered by gender-specific attacks on all sides, 1/3 of Ontario women intended to vote PC.

You seem to be trying to move the topic sideways into another anti-multiculturalism/anti-immigrant argument. On the surface, its a clever argument. You seem to offer us progressives a choice: If you want to stop social conservatism, you have to embrace our xenophobia and oppose immigration.

No, I'm trying to head off a "because racism/sexism" argument, particularly when you're using "ALT-REICH" at the drop of a hat. We don't get to just say "no, you're wrong" in a multicultural democracy. Unless you can convince your opponents to agree with you, or you have sufficient support without them to enforce your side's views through legislation, they get a say too. If enough Ontarians don't want the new sex ed curriculum, it goes bye-bye, regardless of what the "right" answer is.

Also, watch your use of "us" and "our"; I'm out in Left-Libertarian land.

[AniThyng]

Hold up a bit here, is there any part of the PC platform at all that is anti immigration or racist such that support for them among certain minority groups can be accurately described as "voting against thier own interests"?


Please ignore the below if irrelevant, I'm just extra interested in this election because of the recent Malaysian ones and how to democracy.

I'm also kinda curious about how one can effectively mobilise against some Islamic politics without being accused about being a bigot because of the power of the accusation. It has a very chilling effect, to be honest. ( Because remember, in a society where Islam and not Christianity or secularism is dominant, Islamists *are* the "right wing". )

[AniThyng]

Just disregard my whole second part in the above post, it's a tangent here I wish I could delete now

[Wild Zontargs]

Hold up a bit here, is there any part of the PC platform at all that is anti immigration or racist such that support for them among certain minority groups can be accurately described as "voting against thier own interests"?

No. Here's the platform. The closest thing you could argue is "Restore Funding to Anti-Gang and Anti-Gun Units", and that would require insisting that those programs are racist. There are even planks dedicated to concerns raised by Indigenous groups in the North (Revenue Resource Sharing) and socially conservative immigrants (Restore Ontario’s previous sex-ed curriculum until we can install a new one that is age appropriate and based on real consultation with parents). Then there's the plan to increase opportunities for immigrants to get jobs in Ontario: "Help fill the skills gap by increasing access to apprenticeships and reforming the foreign credential recognition process to help qualified immigrants come to Ontario and contribute to the economy to their fullest potential immediately."

Please ignore the below if irrelevant, I'm just extra interested in this election because of the recent Malaysian ones and how to democracy.

I'm also kinda curious about how one can effectively mobilise against some Islamic politics without being accused about being a bigot because of the power of the accusation. It has a very chilling effect, to be honest. ( Because remember, in a society where Islam and not Christianity or secularism is dominant, Islamists *are* the "right wing". )

We're having that problem right now. The various levels of government are very concerned with Islamophobia, and we're having the debate over whether and when criticism of Islam is racist or hateful. There have been calls to look into the subject, but there's no consensus, not even on the definition of the term.

[Tribble]

IIRC in 1990s Ontario sex ed homosexuality was rarely mentioned apart from "homosexuals exist and lots of them have AIDS".

So great, the PC Party isn't racist, they're just against a minority group that other larger minority groups tend to dislike as well. So much better.

[AniThyng]

IIRC in 1990s Ontario sex ed homosexuality was rarely mentioned apart from "homosexuals exist and lots of them have AIDS".

So great, the PC Party isn't racist, they're just against a minority group that other larger minority groups tend to dislike as well. So much better.

Well arguably it is objectively better in the sense that certain minority groups now feel confident enough to vote on issues other than defending themselves on the basis of race...

[The Romulan Republic]

There is no provision in the PCPO Constitution for forcing a leader to resign, nor a duty to behave in a particular manner. There is a procedure for replacing the leader:

24.1 At the first general meeting of the Party following an Ontario general election in which the Caucus does not form the Government of Ontario, and only at such meeting, the delegates shall be asked by secret ballot: "Do you wish to have a leadership election?"

24.2 In the event that more than 50% of the votes cast are in the affirmative, the Executive shall call a leadership election and such election shall occur at the earliest convenient date as determined by the Executive.

I do not have access to any internal documents (if any) governing what did happen.

Okay. But that doesn't provide a very compelling argument that the party violated its own rules, or that Brown was the victim of a major injustice. Certainly not enough to make me sympathetic to spite votes for Ford.

The Canadian media characterized the allegations against Brown as #MeToo. They have not been proven, so they are allegations.

But what does your bringing the MeToo label in have to do with this discussion? What does the term "MeToo" have to do with the credibility of the allegations or the justification of Brown's removal? Because it seems to me as though you are (unfairly) invoking the MeToo association as a way of dismissing the credibility of the allegations as a basis for Brown's removal.

I certainly acknowledge that the allegations are unproven, and are not contesting that point.

The circumstances in which Brown was removed, and the speed with which it was done, appears to have been an organized, insider-led movement using the allegations as an excuse. His staffers, in particular, aligned themselves with the individual who would become the presumed leader (absent Ford's victory) before even consulting with Brown. That would be an "opportunistic coup".

Or people in the party deciding (reasonably) that they did not want to join their fortunes with those of someone accused (accurately or not) of groping. Labeling it "an opportunistic coup" is making an implication about the motives of the people involved, one which you have not provided evidence to substantiate.

Should they have done it in a more deliberate and up-front manner? Maybe so. But going from there to "There was a conspiracy to remove him which just used the allegations as an excuse" appears to me to be moving into the realm of speculation.

And yet, Brown's 2015 supporters, despite supporting a vastly different platform than Ford's, supported Ford in the 2018 leadership race.

That would seem to lend credence to the idea that voters backed Ford as a backlash over the Brown's removal, rather than support for Ford's policies (though of course there are other possible reasons). But it doesn't invalidate my main point here, which is that this seems to me to be a really weak reason to vote for someone like Ford, unless one thinks that the allegations against Brown were lacking in credibility, or not serious enough to justify his removal.

Even immediately before the election, with Ford being hammered by gender-specific attacks on all sides, 1/3 of Ontario women intended to vote PC.

And 2/3rds didn't. What of it?

See my pervious point regarding the complexities of why people vote, and how a candidate waving "I have x-number of (insert group) voters" means very little. Hell, lots of (mostly white) women voted for Trump. All that means is that they valued their racism, or their hatred of Hillary/the Democrats, or whatever, more than they valued the rights of women. Waving around "we got X number of women voters" means very little here, in my opinion.

No, I'm trying to head off a "because racism/sexism" argument, particularly when you're using "ALT-REICH" at the drop of a hat.

As to your reasons for bringing up immigration, I'll acknowledge that I may be too quick to view immigration simply in Left vs. Right terms, and I apologize if I misconstrued your position. That said, I don't really feel that going into a discussion about the supposed failings of multiculturalism, and the supposed threat immigrants pose due to cultural conservatism, is particularly on-topic or particularly accurate. And since you brought those views in to the discussion, a defense of immigration from a Left wing perspective was necessary.

I also think that its contradictory to call yourself a Libertarian but oppose immigration, but then, I am of the opinion that Libertarianism (of any stripe) suffers from an inherent self-contradiction on the subjects of immigration, globalization, and national sovereignty.

I happily acknowledge that the PC is not the Republican Party (thank God), and that they do not peddle the kind of blatant racism we see from the likes of Donald Trump. But many of the things being said and done in American politics right now would have been mostly unthinkable to people even five or ten years ago. There IS an undercurrent of racism, xenophobia and even Neo-Nazism, on the Canadian Right as well as on the American Right. I (to my regret) know some of these people in real life. Hell, I'm related to some of them. Its not as prominent here, yet, but it is here, and it is growing in strength. The PC may not be overtly racist, but if it is socially conservative on sexual and gender issues (even by Canadian standards), it will hold some appeal to the Alt. Reich* crowd, and if it benefits from their support, there will be incentive for it to cater to their views in the future. This gives them a foot in the door. Give those fuckers an inch, and they will take a mile, burn it down, and salt the Earth.

In any case, I do not see "They're not racist, they're just outraged over someone accused of groping losing the nomination" as a resounding endorsement.

We don't get to just say "no, you're wrong" in a multicultural democracy.

Strictly speaking, in a democracy, you can say pretty much whatever you want. Actually getting others to go along with it is the tricky part.

Unless you can convince your opponents to agree with you, or you have sufficient support without them to enforce your side's views through legislation, they get a say too. If enough Ontarians don't want the new sex ed curriculum, it goes bye-bye, regardless of what the "right" answer is.

Indeed. But that's not a debate I'm afraid of having, and its not a debate that we have to, or should exclude immigrants from in order to win. That's all that I'm trying to say.

Also, watch your use of "us" and "our"; I'm out in Left-Libertarian land.

My apologies. As I said, I'm used to thinking of immigration in terms of being a Left/Right issue, and perhaps that is overly simplistic.



*I call it that because "Alt Right" gives it a sense of normalcy, of respectability, that it does not deserve and should not possess. Especially considering that it was basically created by American Neo-Nazi Richard Spencer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

White supremacist Richard Spencer initially promoted the term in 2010 in reference to a movement centered on white nationalism and did so, according to the Associated Press, to disguise overt racism, white supremacism, neo-fascism and neo-Nazism.

Its Nazism rebranded for the 21st. Century, to fool people who are angry and looking for a target to lash out at but would not feel comfortable identifying with something openly calling itself Nazism into supporting it.

It has expanded far beyond hard core Neo-Nazis and white supremacists, of course, but that's kind of the point- its meant to give Neo-Nazism a foothold in mainstream politics by duping people who would not otherwise support it into finding common cause with it. Something at which it has, regrettably, succeeded very well at to date.

[The Romulan Republic]

Let's just revisit this:

IIRC in 1990s Ontario sex ed homosexuality was rarely mentioned apart from "homosexuals exist and lots of them have AIDS".

So great, the PC Party isn't racist, they're just against a minority group that other larger minority groups tend to dislike as well. So much better.

No. Here's the platform. The closest thing you could argue is "Restore Funding to Anti-Gang and Anti-Gun Units", and that would require insisting that those programs are racist. There are even planks dedicated to concerns raised by Indigenous groups in the North (Revenue Resource Sharing) and socially conservative immigrants (Restore Ontario’s previous sex-ed curriculum until we can install a new one that is age appropriate and based on real consultation with parents). Then there's the plan to increase opportunities for immigrants to get jobs in Ontario: "Help fill the skills gap by increasing access to apprenticeships and reforming the foreign credential recognition process to help qualified immigrants come to Ontario and contribute to the economy to their fullest potential immediately."

You might want to rethink the "Ford/the Ontario PC isn't racist" argument:

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark ... ekers.html

Some highlights:

Blaming Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for creating "a mess," Premier Doug Ford's new Progressive Conservative government has withdrawn Ontario's co-operation from helping Ottawa with asylum-seekers.

But Trudeau emerged from a 40-minute meeting with Ford at Queen's Park suggesting the rookie premier does not understand the complexities behind the migrant crisis currently straining Toronto shelter resources.

Oh he understands alright. He understands that attacking foreigners appeals to insecure cowards who want a thuggish white male strong man to Make America Canada Great Again.

As first disclosed by the Star, Ontario Children, Community and Social Services Minister Lisa MacLeod advised federal Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen on Wednesday that the province was stepping back from its involvement in alleviating a crisis sparked by President Donald Trump's policies on migrants.

MacLeod said Thursday that Trudeau made a "choice" in welcoming the illegal border-crossers and the province should not have to foot the tab for that.

Note that they are specifically targeting people trying to escape persecution by the Trump regime.

"He was the one that tweeted out that everyone was welcome here, and, as a result of that, we've had thousands of people cross the border illegally and its putting a strain on many of our public resources," the minister said.

My cousin, who is a far Right Trump-apologist with neo-Nazi friends, used almost this exact argument on me a few days ago.


We've seen this before. They'll keep escalating the xenophobia, more and more conservatives will sign on because they see it as a winning issue, others will back them because they're frustrated with Trudeau/the status quo and are facing economic hardship, and Trumpism (in other words, fascism) has its foothold in Canada. We just saw this happen in the US- the writing was on the wall for years, but everyone kept saying "They're not racist, they're not really fascists, it won't be that bad, it'll all blow over, he's just new to the job." And it is genuinely chilling to me to see the same pattern repeating in Canada, and once again people are saying "Don't overreact, it could never happen here."

So no giving Ford the benefit of the doubt. Too many people gave Trump the benefit of the doubt for far too long, and now they're putting children in cages.

[Wild Zontargs]

"We want skilled immigrants; we don't want to be responsible for housing, feeding, and clothing "asylum-seekers" illegally entering from a safe country after your dumb ass invited them" isn't racism.

[The Romulan Republic]

"We want skilled immigrants; we don't want to be responsible for housing, feeding, and clothing "asylum-seekers" illegally entering from a safe country after your dumb ass invited them" isn't racism.

You are literally repeating the argument I've heard from the Neo-Nazi types here almost exactly.

Lets break down the problems with this one by one:

1. You apparently assume that "asylum seeker"="unskilled".

2. You put "asylum-seekers" in quotes, implying that they're not really legitimately seeking asylum, and then make the laughable claim that the US under Trump still qualifies as a safe country for asylum seekers (hint: their standard policy for asylum seekers, even those who come to the border and apply legally, is imprisonment).

3. Who the fuck cares if they're coming here illegally? Maybe they would be coming here legally if Canada repealed its outdated policy of regarding the US as a safe country, and turning asylum seekers coming from the US back at the border.

4. You and I both know that anti-immigrant sentiment is heavily tied to racism. The two are not inherently synonymous, but in practice overlap to the point that racism is the primary driver of anti-immigrant sentiment.

There is no sound economic or legal argument for why allowing these people to enter will be bad for Canada. It is simply assumed, and repeated ad nauseum, that they are criminals who will hurt the economy, because they are foreign and mostly non-white, and thus assumed to be parasites.

If you care about affordable housing, demand more affordable housing (something conservatives like Doug Ford would probably oppose funding). If you're worried about unemployment, rail against automation and support basic income. If you're worried about crime, maybe don't push desperate refugees to the margins of society, leaving them with no legal options. Or, you know, read the statistics that show that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes after arriving in the country than citizens.

Immigrants are not the cause of any of these problems.