Post 151—“Reportedly”—CBC’s Macdonald’s Rumour Mill

A warning for this post: It’s not for the faint of heart. I’m giving it all I’ve got!

CBC News of January 30, 2017, featured an “opinion column”—that’s how it was classified by CBC—on the January Quebec mosque shooting, an event that generated a lot of news for CBC, “news’ meaning money. The writer is Neil Macdonald, who is an “opinion columnist” for CBC. If you watch CBC news at all, I am sure you’re familiar with him. I got to know him mostly from his Washington DC news—or is his work there more opinion oriented as well? As I read his piece, I was reminded of my friend (somewhat) Ezra Lavant, whom Neil actually sarcastically mentions in his article. Why did he remind me of Ezra? That was before I came across reference to him in the article. Neil reminded me of him because the two are equally sarcastic. But because Ezra directs his blunt sarcasm against the CBC and its cohorts, he is berated by some of his colleagues as a trash journalist. Since Neil uses his sarcasm in the service of the leftist media establishment, his is acceptable.    

The title of Neil’s column is “Simple truth is Canada's mass shooters are usually white and Canadian-born.” It is interesting that the title falls short of the full statement, probably because Neil’s editor wanted to play down Neil’s offensive remark somewhat, by leaving it in the text but omitting it from the title. Probably no one would take offence at this title, but the complete charge is something else. I quote a couple of sentences:  

The suspected shooter is Bissonnette. Not an immigrant. Not a Muslim. Probably a Christian, judging from his name. And, reportedly, a big admirer of Trump.

Just about every single one in our modern history has been a Canadian-born, Canadian citizen, and usually white and Christian.

Judging from his name, Bissonnette is probably a Christian?  Welcome, Macdonald, into the Church, the Body of Christ!  Well, judging from your name, right? I am glad to learn you are a Christian!  We can use some more Christian journalists, but it seems you still have a few things to learn before your faith and profession are integrated. Or are you like so many secularized Christians who separate their faith from their occupation?  I offer to become your mentor!

But Neil, on what basis do you suggest Bissonnette is a Trump admirer?  “Reportedly”—does that mean more than rumour?  Perhaps I don’t know the difference between rumour and opinion. Are they the same? Can you write an opinion in the national news agency, paid for by my dollars, on basis of “reportedly” and nothing more factual?  Hmmm. I learn new things every day. I have yet to meet a Canadian Christian who admires or even just likes Trump. Please introduce me to one….  Of course, I live in Vancouver, which could be different from the rest of the country. Since you’re a Christian, at least by name, you should have easy access to them and ask.

But then that second quote—“usually white and Christian.”  Wow!  What is your definition of a Christian? His name? His great uncle a pastor? In the centuries-old line of the Scottish reformer John Knox?  You saw him once in church attending a wedding or funeral?  Perhaps attending the memorial service for the victims of this Quebec killing?  Well, no, now I’m getting downright silly.

You, my readers, can access the entire article of Neil at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/canadian-mass-murders-1.3958772 and read it yourself. The next post will deal further with my “Christian brother’s” (?) “reportedly” allegations.

Post 81--Better Help to Refugees

Douglas Todd of the Vancouver Sun (VS) wrote a very sensible column under the title “Poviding better help to refugees” (Nov. 28, 2015, D5) that I am going to partially summarize for you. And unless I come across something else spectacular on the subject of refugees, I will try to let the topic rest for a while after this one. Notice the careful nature of this promise? “I will try….”

Todd reports how almost every Canadian supports Trudeau’s efforts to welcome refugees, thousands of them. There’s a lot of Canadian compassion floating around in Canada’s frigid airspace, along with sympathy. Many people look at it as a “feel-good policy,” a phrase Todd borrows from Oxford’s economist Paul Collier.

You see how we all borrow from each other? I borrow from Todd, who borrows from Collier and others whom you’ll meet in this post. Except perhaps for the most brilliant among us, we all do so borrow. It’s a borrowing world. We are “homo mutuatis,” a "somewhat Latin" for “borrowing man,” a phrase I just concocted from a more classic expression. And sorry for the exclusive male reference. That’s just the way Western cultures formed their languages in the past. There might be some alternatives: “Thinking person” would be something like “persona mutuatis,” while “thinking woman” might come out as “femina mutuatis.”  Don’t mind me. I just like to play around with such expressions, even when I’m not sure of their exact forms.

All this “feel good” stuff turns it into an emotional issue for many. Now there’s nothing wrong with emotions, but when it beclouds reasonable judgement, it can become dangerous, especially if it involves the destinies of many thousands of people and even of nations. When I expressed my misgivings about the 25,000 goal and the need for proper vetting to a retired professor for whom I have high respect, he dubbed my reaction as “paranoia.” Me paranoia?  Me, who has lived for 30 years in a country that now has some 80 million Muslims, who has throughout all these years kept a research eye on events around me and collected research materials on the subject all these years, me who ultimately published a series of eight volumes on Christian-Muslim relations in that country and numerous other articles? (Go to www.SocialTheology. com/Islamica.htm.) That went too far for me and, though I hid my reaction from him, I felt insulted at his unthinking (?) dismissal of my experience and surprised that someone of his stature could be so misled by emotions as to isolate him from larger reality. Remember my earlier warning that compassion, like love, should not be blind. As to the impossibility of proper—and, thus, safe--vetting, also remember that letter to the Prime Minister in Post 78. 

But maybe I am doing the same thing, when I so dismiss the man’s opinion about paranoia. He is an experienced psychologist and thus knows a thing or two about paranoia as I do about Christian-Muslim relations! Now where do I go?!

But sympathetic as most of us are, polls also indicate that roughly half of us question the Government’s asylum programme.  We mostly approve of their intentions but doubt the way it is being done. The CBC, being aware of the deep suspicion floating around in our collective mind, has gone out of its way to make the process of accepting individual refugees transparent, In the meantime, even the Government itself has already scaled back from its campaign promise of 25,000 by end 2015, which, truth be told, could only be described as something close to ridiculous. Germany and Sweden, two countries who are accepting far more refugees per capita than we are, Todd reminds us, are having second thoughts about their “carrying capacity.” Sweden, in fact, has since “closed its borders.” 

Todd also adduces the opinions of recognized experts on refugees such as Michael Teitelbaum of Harvard and Collier, whom you’ve already met. Since the number of refugees accepted by the West, though perhaps overwhelming for the host countries, in reality represents only a tiny fraction of displaced persons, the money spent on that fraction would go a lot farther if spent on helping “the ten million Syrians who are living safely, but in poverty, in refugee camps or on the margins of society in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey.” The West, according to Teitelbaum, needs to far more support the UN refugee agency, which is “chronically underfunded.” Todd quotes Teitelbaum that this is “hardly a humanitarian” situation. “It is well established that most refugees would prefer to stay near their home countries in hopes of returning when conditions stabilize.”  “The same funds now spent on refugees “could protect far more people in need.”  Germany alone has budgeted $ 7 billion for its refugee programme. That’s more than one-third of the amount needed by the UN to adequately fund its programme for the entire global refugee situation. That one-third would proportionally help a lot more people than Germany’s expected 800,000.  The same would be true of the Canadian budget.

Collier describes Western refugee policies as “often short-sighted.”  “Encouraging the mass emigration of their most enterprising young people” is not helpful in the long run. Canada today is struggling with a lack of skilled labour and professionals. Perhaps behind the scenes of government our refugee approach is less compassion than a cynical and calculated effort to supply our own manpower needs.  Who knows? Governments are extremely clever in their public relations. 

I am reminded of the colonial era during which Western governments hoodwinked their citizens with the ideology of a God-given “white man’s burden” for other races and nations.  In reality it was our own economic self-interest that was the real motivation. Believe me on this one, for here, too, I published a dissertation on the subject, a summary of which can be found on my < www.SocialTheology.com/boeriana.htm >.  

But then again, perhaps the Canadian Government’s motive is a combination of compassion wedded to self-interest, but that would then be short-sighted compassion for thousands of individuals while it short changes their home countries. No doubt someone will come out with a book explaining the full picture for us. I am eagerly waiting….

In the meantime, let us welcome with Christian grace and compassion all the refugees Canada is accepting. I am happy I am member of the Vancouver Christian Reformed Church that “happens” to be next door to the world’s very first refugee welcoming centre that is soon to open its doors to the incoming crowds and that does not constitute a welcome into a refugee camp. Even if their arrival is/were (The correct form of the verb depends on your opinion of the situation!) the result of short-sighted policies, since they’re coming, let us embrace them wholeheartedly. They need all the love and compassion with which many Canadian hearts are overflowing. Let's not waste that.

Unfortunately, the name of the highly respected long-established organization that will operate the centre is “Immigrant Services Society”—ISS! The greatest of people, but that name! My advice? Change that name! Don’t fill your incoming guests with fear and suspicion even before they cross your threshold! Let them feel welcome, loved and secure at that moment.

Post 64--Competition between Government and Tax-paying Citizens

  

I had a few other subjects in mind for the next posts, but the issue of competition between Canadian governments and their citizens popped up again, unannounced and unexpectedly. The last post, you may remember, dealt with competition between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), a so-called “crown corporation” with special ties to the Federal Government (FG), and private broadcasters. The CBC receives hefty subsidies from the FG but also advertises like any other medium house, often against their private competitors who support them through their taxes. I have expressed my deep displeasure with that arrangement. 

Today this same topic intrudes again as I read yesterday’s VS today. This time the issue is between BC Government Liquor Stores (GLS) and private wine stores. Please understand, I am hardly a wine bibber and so this does not personally apply much to me, except that every individual in any given jurisdiction is affected when major economic shifts occur. There is always a ripple effect. Furthermore, sometimes I wonder whether we all would not be better off without all that alcohol stuff, given the misery and suffering it creates form day to day. Yes, I do take a drink very sporadically and sometimes actually enjoy it, but wines, hardly.

A major shift has occurred in the alcohol world of BC. Whereas formerly, liquor was sold only in GLS-es and bars, with the exception of wine that was also for sale in private wine outlets, recently, the gates have been opened with the result that liquor is now available in all kinds of places. That spells serious competition for the wine sellers, but it’s private vs private. That’s the nature of our economy. Not a problem to me, though such major adjustments spell serious challenges to which those sellers have to adjust. Again, that’s our economy for you. Change is as common as stability. You have to learn to cope. It’s the name of the game. Nothing guaranteed.               

The problem is that the GLS has increased its business hours to include Sundays and statutory holidays.  Patrick Greenfield, owner of a wine store complains that his Sunday sales are down considerably. On Good Friday 2015 they were down by 40% for him. Another owner, John Clerides, said his Sunday sales have fallen 15-20 percent since FGS opened Sundays. Greenfield complained, “It’s hard to compete with the government, which seems to have a ‘bottomless chequebook,’ noting the millions of dollars being spent to add refrigeration facilities to government stores.”  He continues, “It’s hard when the government is (both) your competitor and your supplier,” without even talking of its control over legal power. It’s not a “level playing field,” for GLS doesn’t “face the same consequences.” For one thing, not every store needs to show a profit, for it can be carried by the entire network. 

Clerides has applied to the Government—the very department that makes the rules and from which he gets his supplies—for “the right to sell beer and spirits in his store so he can better compete against government stores,”but that request was turned down.  It has, he surmises, “obviously” fallen on deaf ears. Why is that not surprising?

You see the mess such an arrangement creates?  Someone please explain to me why the Government is into liquor sales. Has anyone ever defined the role of a government, especially in a “free” Western society? I checked the internet about the history of this mess, but perhaps lacked the patience to pursue it long enough, for I did not find any reference to this history. If it were important enough to me, I might even go to the Public Library for literature on the subject. As it is, I am left guessing. One of my guesses is that it is one of these brilliant NDP achievements with its union friends blocking any move towards a freer market.  Well, yes, they have a good thing going for themselves, what with government salary and job security as good as guaranteed. I am almost jealous! 

But what of its citizen tax payers?  It is unconscionable that these entrepreneurs are forced to purchase their supplies from their competitor, who has virtually unlimited power over the market and part of whose income comes from those very taxes. No government should be allowed to compete with its citizens and no citizen should be saddled with such a competitor-master. I am not anti-government and certainly not anarchist. I'm just a plain old conservative with a Christian twist. Note the small "C," though I am also (still) a large "C-er."

The same argument can also be applied to private schools vs public schools, but that’s a much more complicated issue that I’ve touched upon before and, no doubt, will again in the future. 

I think I will visit my neighbourhood wine store and buy a bottle just to show my support. It would be the first time in my life, not of buying wine but of buying in a private wine shop. 

[With thanks to Bruce Constantineau for his VS article “More choice is a bad thing for private liquor stores” (Aug 15, 2015).]

Post 63—SumOfUs: Protecting the Spoiled CBC

             SumOfUs is a movement of consumers, workers and shareholders speaking     
             with one voice to counterbalance the growing power of large corporations. 
             Join us on our journey as we seek to make the world a better place for 
             ourselves, our children and all who share our planet.  

That’s how this organization introduces itself on the Internet. I’m not sure I’m a member, but I do receive emails from them regularly and every time they urge me to vote for this or that anti-corporate cause. Apparently the organization is capable of arousing millions of people around the globe into action. It really is quite remarkable how it can mobilize those millions to change the actions and policies of various megacorps. I am really quite impressed with them, though I’m not sure I know enough about them to recommend them to you or, to the contrary, to warn you against them.  

I know quite a bit about that corporate world actually and am very aware of the oppressive shenanigans they pull off against the peoples of the world, including their own fellow citizens. If that sounds like a boast, I claim the right to that boast after I wrote a 220-page book on the subject under the title  Caught in the Middle: Christians in Transnational Corporations. The entire book is within your immediate easy reach for free on my website. Just go to < www.SocialTheology.com/Boeriana.htm > and do a search (^F) there.

A few days ago, SumOfUs sent me a message under the heading “Terrifying news for the CBC.” For the non-Canadians among my readers, “CBC” is the acronym for “Canadian Broadcasting Corporation,” the semi-government-owned and, if you can believe them, most popular and most effective broadcaster in the country. It’s what we call a “crown corporation,” by virtue of which it is heavily subsidized by the Federal Government. I may as well be upfront by immediately confessing I’m not all that fond of it, even though I do watch it quite frequently, along with other Canadian channels.

So what’s this “terrifying news?” Allow me to quote SumOfUs’ own “alarming” statement:

Documents were just leaked from the top-secret Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations -- and the news is bad for the CBC. If the TPP passes, Crown corporations like the CBC could be required to operate entirely for profit. And worse -- this move could force the CBC to be privatized.

The mission of the CBC is to tell the bilingual and multicultural story of Canada – not just to exist for corporate profit. Canadian politicians are extremely vulnerable to public pressure right now as they head into one of the longest election campaigns in Canadian history -- let’s make sure our CBC is protected and not sold off for profit.

To make sure readers get the full impact of this horrible scenario, they repeat, “Leaked documents show CBC could be forced to operate solely for profit if the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal passes,” all of it in bold letters. 

Ah, yes, this could turn out to become a Canadian nightmare.  But the axe was not restricted to CBC. Canada Post and “other crown corporations” are also slated for the same treatment. Now I could be motivated to protect Canada Post, since it delivers where private carriers won’t be seen, but to me the CBC is a very different kettle of fish.

I have long been annoyed by this govt-funded CBC. You want a completely govt-funded CBC, but it isn't even now. It advertises like any other medium and, worse, it advertises against the very people who pay the taxes that support it.  I am talking about the private TV and radio stations against which it advertises and competes. Govt should not be competing with and advertising against its own tax payers. Months after this post was published, Andrew Coyne, one of my favourite journalists, wrote that the CBC should be defunded. "This disparate treatment" can no longer be tolerated, he wrote. Among other things, it leads to a sense of superiority vis a vis the private competition (Vancouver Sun, February 18, 2016,  p. B2).

Besides, “for-profit” is not the only alternative. Let CBC become a not-for-profit but privately funded medium. Then it will have to be more concerned to appeal to the public, all the public. Certain religious groups are either ignored or given mostly--mostly, not totally--negative coverage.  I have occasionally watched some of their “comical” programmes, but almost without exception turn them off in disgust at the poor, not to say, brutish, taste displayed on the screen, again often at the expense of certain groups in society.  As it is, it can afford to ignore or lambast without consequences for itself. 

Still another alternative is for government to give some support to all radio and TV channels on condition that they include certain types of programmes alongside those of their own choice. Treat them all alike. Now that would be true pluralism. However, that would be impossible for sure. Coyne writes that if the government subsidizes some, in the name of fairness, it would have to subsidize all, but "that way lies madness." Therefore, if it cannot subsidize all, it should subsidize none.

SumOfUs, you are giving a false picture by suggesting that a purely capitalist system is the only alternative. I am not sure of your motive. Are you getting some kind of support from CBC either in the form of money or favourable coverage? I don't believe you are giving a one-sided picture because you can't think beyond your nose; you're too smart for that. So, there must be a reason, possibly the one I just hinted at. 

In closing, I cannot resist making a statement I’ve made many times in different contexts. If you’re criticizing corporations, don’t forget the largely faceless and nameless people behind them—the shareholders. Some of them may be members of SumOfUs, but it is those shareholders with their demands for and expectations of dividends that drive the corporations.   SumOfUs should consider targeting those shareholders, that is, the ordinary citizens, and hold them also responsible for the distortions they introduce into society.

But perhaps you would like to hear to hear more from the horse’s mouth. That is to say, from the same sources from which SumOfUs got their info. They kindly have left us with the address of their sources, which I herewith pass on to you:

TPP Trade Deal Proposal Would See CBC, Canada Post Exist Solely For Profit, Huffington Post, 30 July 2015.
Analysis of Leaked TPPA Paper for Ministers' Guidance on SOEs, Professor Jane Kelsey, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, 28 July 2015.