GlobalNews.ca

Local News

  • Evolution of same-sex marriage support

    Posted May 14 2012 09:33 PM by Herman with comment(s)

    by Eric Sorensen

    The dust is settling after the fight last week over evolution.

    Not evolution as in the origin of the species, rather, the fight over Barack Obama’s change of mind on same-sex marriage.

    For the past few years, Obama’s position was, in his words, “evolving.” Before that, Obama stood for the traditional definition of marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.

    And that wasn’t the beginning of his transformation: Obama devolved, before he evolved.

    As a candidate for the Illinois State Senate in the 1990s, Obama responded to a survey question by checking off his support for same-sex marriage. Sometime between his candidacy as a liberal Democrat for state office and his campaign for national office, Obama shifted to the more conservative position.

    As recently as four years ago, Obama stood for the traditional definition of marriage, doubtless in part because to do otherwise would have cost him critical support in his run for presidency. That political calculation in 2008 seems quite understandable in light of the backlash we see now in 2012.

    Even though gay marriage is more accepted now, polls suggest Obama will lose some voters who were his supporters until now – notably in the African-American community where there is less acceptance of gay rights than in the general population.

    So Obama has come full circle. (Or more than full circle...if we went back even further in time, Obama might have been against it before he was for it, before he was against it and then for it once and for all...which is a word-twisty way of saying that at the time of Obama’s childhood, you would have been hard-pressed to find anyone, anywhere who would have supported the notion of gays being allowed to marry. In that respect, there’s been a lot of evolving going on.)

    In the aftermath last week, it was expected that Obama wouldn’t play it up as an issue. But now that he is “all-in” on gay marriage, the president may yet make it a defining part of his campaign. (He appeared on The View this week, and you know that he knows they will ask him about it.)


    U.S. President Barack Obama reveals he supports same-sex marriage during an interview with ABC's Robin Roberts in the White House briefing room on May 9. Photo by Carolyn Kaster, The Associated Press.

    The fact that Mitt Romney is not pushing back hard suggests he recognizes this may not be the winning issue for Republicans like it has been in the past. This consideration applies specifically to a key group of voters up for grabs in November: independents... a.k.a. moderates.

    As the term suggests, moderates are not fixed in their opinions about everything and forever. They evolve.

    We have already seen such an evolution in Canada. About a decade ago, a Liberal majority government had no intention of recognizing same-sex marriages. Now a Conservative majority government has no intention of not recognizing gay marriage.

    The change came almost overnight when Canada’s Supreme Court deemed same-sex marriage a fundamental recognition of equal rights. Canadians said, “In that case, I’m for it.” Not all Canadians, of course, but enough to tip the scale from minority acceptance to majority acceptance in the country.

    At one time, Canada’s small 'c' conservatives would have pushed hard to reverse what was happening. They would have warned against the disintegration of society. They would have expected a Conservative prime minister to restore what they view as traditional values, especially with the backing of a Conservative majority government.

    Well, we have a Conservative majority, and there has been no groundswell to untie the marital knot between gay couples.

    I don’t know where Stephen Harper comes down personally on the issue, but he has made it clear he’s not turning back the clock on this one. Maybe he recognizes the demographics: more young people than old people support the rights of same-sex couples, so the trend, over time, is pretty obvious.

    The trend is not as far along in the U.S. But it’s moving inexorably in the same direction.

    In 2004, Republicans proactively put anti-gay marriage initiatives on the ballot in battleground states believing it would boost the Republican turnout in the presidential election. Today, while there remains deep opposition among conservatives and the Christian right, Mitt Romney and the Republican brain trust seem wary of getting too worked up publicly on this issue. And that is new.

    Sure, it’s about not alienating the evolving moderate viewpoint of independents who will decide the November election. But maybe Conservatives are evolving in their own way.

    While Obama and many liberals have changed their views on gay rights and now argue for them, Romney and many conservatives are not changing their views...but they aren’t arguing as hard as they used to.

    Eric is Global National's Washington Bureau Chief. Follow him on Twitter: @ericsorensendc.

    Check out GlobalNews.ca's special coverage of the U.S. 2012 election.

  • The Lords and legalities

    Posted May 03 2012 05:09 PM by Herman with comment(s)

    by Sean Mallen

    In view of Conrad Black’s release from prison, I became curious about his current status in the upper house of the British Parliament. You will recall that he had a nasty and public spat with former Prime Minister Jean Chretien over Mr. Black’s desire for a peerage, ultimately renouncing his Canadian citizenship so that he could become Lord Black of Crossharbour in 2001.

    I called the Lords' press office where a very helpful fellow enlightened me as to the Baron’s (he holds that title too) current status.

    It seems that his lordship has not taken an official leave of absence, although, being in a Florida slammer, he clearly has been in no position lately to be attending debates.

    Nor has he been suspended. In order for a peer to be sanctioned, someone has to make a complaint and it seems no one has.

    Merely being convicted of a criminal offence does not automatically lead to suspension, let alone expulsion.

    It is not so unusual for a Lord to be locked up. The best-selling novelist Jeffrey Archer (Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare) is one of the better known nobles to do time after his perjury conviction in 2001. Now a free man, he retains his title and seat.

    In fact, Lords are very rarely kicked out. It is a complicated process, requiring legislation to be passed through both houses of parliament. The last time it happened was in the post World War I years, when a couple of peers were given the bum’s rush for having fought on the German side...which gives you a sense of the level of offence required.


    Conrad Black is shown leaving U.S. Federal Court in Chicago on July 23, 2010. Photo by Ryan Remiorz, The Canadian Press.

    The Lords' press officer said Lord Black has not sent any advisory about any intention to return and take up his seat. We are told he plans to live in Canada for at least a year, thanks to the immigration permit he has been granted.

    It is also reported he would like to regain his Canadian citizenship, which would reopen the old debate from the Chretien years about whether citizens of our country can or should be allowed to hold British titles.

    Not that Lord Black does not relish a debate.

    In a massive, moving and memorable scrum in Toronto shortly after his corporate troubles surfaced, I remember sticking a microphone in his face and asking whether he intended to apologize to the Hollinger shareholders for his actions.

    “Oh you’re just being tendentious,” was his retort, causing all the reporters in the scrum to run for their dictionaries afterwards.

    “OK, I apologize,” he continued.

    But I digress.

    While Canadian law might have some trouble with him retaining his title, the British are indifferent. Many foreign nationals hold peerages.

    In any case, once a Lord, always a Lord (barring Acts of Parliament).

    “You can’t quit being a Lord,” the press officer told me.

    Having thanked him for a fascinating lesson, I was about to hang up when he offered one more bit of pertinent information. Under legislation passed by the previous Labour government, Lords are considered residents of the U.K. for tax purposes, no matter where they actually live.

    Which means, even if Conrad Black is a full-time resident of Toronto, Lord Black of Crossharbour will still be expected to pay up to Her Majesty’s tax collectors.

    Sean is Global National's Europe Bureau Chief, based in London. Follow him on Twitter: @SMallenGlobal.

  • Canada's Stanley Cup conundrum

    Posted April 27 2012 04:20 PM by Herman with comment(s)

    by Eric Sorensen

    It’s been a bad week for Canadian hockey fans.

    In fact, it’s been a bad two decades when it comes to the Stanley Cup.

    Ottawa’s playoff departure is no real surprise, but with Vancouver’s early exit from the NHL playoffs, Canadians are left to ponder what has happened to Canada’s franchises in the NHL. It’s still April, and hockey will be played into June with no Canadian teams.

    Our next chance for a Stanley Cup is 2013 – a full 20 years since the last Canadian team won the Cup, which was Montreal in 1993). Twenty years! Before that, and all the way back to World War II, the longest drought for Canadian teams was four years. And that was the Cup run of the New York Islanders from 1980-83. That mini-dynasty was bookended by two Canadian dynasties – the Habs in the late '70s and the Edmonton Oilers in the mid-80s.

    Even set aside winning it all once in a while, how about as a group just being better than mediocre. More than half of the teams in the NHL make the playoffs. But only two of seven Canadian-based clubs got to this year’s post-season. Of the 16 teams that got in, Ottawa was 16th based on points. Pretty hard for a Canadian fan to win the Cup if you have to put your money on one team – the Canucks – to outplay all 14 American playoff teams, with all their Canadian talent.


    Members of the New York Rangers celebrate after defeating the Ottawa Senators 2-1 in Game 7 of a first-round NHL hockey Stanley Cup playoff series on April 26 in New York. Photo by Julio Cortez, The Associated Press.

    There are sports analysts who will know a lot more about this than I ever will. But I’ll make a couple of observations.

    First, the top players from the top hockey country in the world, Canada, tend not to play for Canadian teams. Our Olympic team featured Canadians from only two home-based teams: Roberto Luongo from Vancouver, and Jerome Iginla from Calgary. And the best Canadian to emerge from that Olympic team, Steve Stamkos, plays next to the palm trees in Tampa, Florida.

    Our very best seem to gravitate to bigger markets, or warmer climates, or greater dollars offered by American-based teams.

    But why? Is it that Canadian owners don’t have to spend as much to ensure fans will turn out? We’ll fill arenas for the love of hockey the way Chicagoans fill Wrigley for baseball without expecting or demanding a champion? How else do you explain the Toronto Maple Leafs? Not only have the Leafs not won the Cup since 1967 – they have not even been to the finals since 1967. We can’t still blame Harold Ballard. Small market teams may have an excuse. Toronto does not. Toronto is a major North American market. The Leafs should be the New York Yankees of hockey – in the centre of the hockey world, a contender year in and year out.

    Look at soccer: Spain is the reigning World Cup champion – the equivalent of Canada’s winning Olympic hockey gold – but Spain doesn’t settle for one quadrennial competition to showcase its best. Spain’s club teams are also among the tops in Europe year after year. The Leafs and the Habs were once the Barcelona and Real Madrid of hockey.

    Skim down the list of Stanley Cup winners through the years and you’ll burst with homegrown pride at the catalogue of Canadian success. Until 1993. After that, nothing.

    Canada still produces the best hockey players in the world. Why can’t we produce the best hockey teams...or at least get to the second round?

    Eric is Global National's Washington Bureau Chief. Follow him on Twitter: @ericsorensendc.

  • Of dogs and lampposts

    Posted April 27 2012 02:37 PM by Herman with comment(s)

    by Sean Mallen

    There was a lightly reported, but revealing moment at the end of Rupert Murdoch’s testimony to the Leveson inquiry on media and ethics this week. After inquiry counsel Robert Jay concluded his questioning, other lawyers were given a crack at the media baron. Stepping up with alacrity was John Hendy, the representative for the National Union of Journalists.

    He fairly lit into the founder of News International, citing reports that journalists working for his papers were routinely bullied into using questionable, even illegal tactics in pursuit of stories.

    “Never heard of it,” deadpanned the media baron. Suddenly the 81-year-old seemed decades younger. Nothing seemed to energize him more than another joust with the press unions, having waged and won epic battles with them in the 1980s.

    And the unions relished a chance to grill him. There was no love in the room.

    Mr. Hendy cited the case of one particular reporter who had claimed atrocious abuse.

    “Why didn’t she resign?” said the tycoon.

    There was a stunned pause. Here was vintage Murdoch.

    The judge leading the inquiry, Lord Justice Brian Leveson, gently, and tellingly, intervened: “Maybe she needed a job.”

    Titters resonated through the hall.


    Rupert Murdoch being driven from The High Court in London with his wife Wendi Deng Murdoch and son Lachlan after giving evidence to the Leveson inquiry on April 26. Photo by Ben Cawthra, Rex Features, via The Associated Press.

    While Rupert Murdoch in his Leveson testimony was by turns apologetic, forgetful and dismissive of the widely-held perception that he has had generations of British prime ministers wrapped around his finger, he was unapologetically proud of how he pummeled the press unions into submission. He believes his victories saved the print media in the UK, although he now fears the web poses an even greater threat.

    Even though vilified and somewhat drained by the phone hacking scandal (he claims it’s cost him $300 million, not counting the loss of the News of the World and the scrapping of his multi-billion dollar bid for controlling interest in the British cable company BSkyB, he remains by far the most powerful media proprietor in the country, if not the world.

    But not quite so powerful as he once was.

    It was fascinating hearing him talk this week about his relations with UK prime ministers going back to Margaret Thatcher. Remarkably, he claimed to have little memory of his meeting with the Iron Lady at Chequers where he discussed plans to buy the Times group of newspapers. One would think that having tea with one of the transformative figures of the 20th century at an historic residence might stick in the mind.

    Not Rupert Murdoch.

    Similarly at the end of phone conversation with former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown where they exchanged pleasantries about waging war on each other (a call Brown claims is fictitious), Mr. Murdoch signed off with: “Thanks for calling, Gordon.”

    There is no parallel in our history for the British breed of press baron, even if two of the most notable, Lords Thomson and Beaverbrook, were Canadian-born. All week we saw archival pictures and video of the smiling Mr. Murdoch posing with Thatcher, Brown and Tony Blair.

    Hard to imagine Brian Mulroney or Jean Chretien doing the same for, say, Conrad Black. Especially Mr. Chretien. Nor would we ever hear about Mr. Black being invited regularly 24 Sussex Drive for tea and consultation with the PM.

    The list of meetings Mr. Murdoch has had at Number 10 Downing Street is lengthy, and crosses party lines. Those dates are now likely to diminish even not completely disappear in the wake of the hacking scandal.

    The relationship between press and politician in the UK is in transition. But some aspects will undoubtedly prevail.

    A panel discussion on BBC Radio opened this week with a searing quotation from the noted American journalist H.L. Mencken: “Journalism is to politician as dog is to lamppost.”

    It is a credo among British reporters. In my previous gig in Canada, I hosted the political talk show Focus Ontario, and liked to think that I was an incisive interrogator of our decision makers. But I usually would let them finish their sentences before interrupting to challenge.

    In the UK, I would be considered hopelessly timid. Here, talking over top of a politician is not only common practice, but evidently considered essential.

    The exemplar of the art is the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman, who has mastered a look of studied disdain as though the politician undergoing his coruscating examination is both criminally incompetent and disgustingly smelly.

    For a taste of Mr. Paxman at his best, I invite you to go to YouTube and search for his matches with Boris Johnson, the famously eccentric, unkempt and witty mayor of London.

    In an interview this past fall, Mr. Paxman introduced Mr. Johnson as “hairdresser’s despair” and then in the midst of a joust over British taxation policy interrupted the mayor with, “You’ve gone completely off the point...does it bother you that the treasury clearly regards you as an eccentric irrelevance?”

    In Canada, this would be the point where the interviewee would be removing his microphone and stalking off the set, perhaps depositing a cup on water on the host’s head along the way.

    Not in the UK. Mr. Johnson carried on and good naturedly gave as good as he got, later chiding Mr. Paxman as using “schoolyard” tactics.

    Similarly this week, Prime Minister David Cameron gave a live interview to BBC Radio, where he was regularly interrupted, although not so aggressively as Mr. Paxman might do. At the end of the interview, the BBC’s lead political correspondent gave an instant analysis of what Mr. Cameron had just said and what it really meant, while the Prime Minister was still sitting at the table!


    Prime Minister David Cameron in London on April 25. Photo by Stephen Simpson, Rex Features via The Associated Press.

    And the PM seemed to think nothing of it, even politely asking at one point if he could intervene to correct the analysis.

    It is hard to imagine Stephen Harper undergoing a tough interview with Global National's Dawna Friesen, then staying in place while our Tom Clark deconstructed the hidden meaning behind his words.

    Rupert Murdoch and whoever succeeds him as the preeminent press baron in the UK might never again be able to get so cozy with political leaders, nor be capable of such intimidation.

    But the front line reporters will undoubtedly carry on the tradition of fearless, even bumptious interrogation of decision makers.

    Sean is Global National's Europe Bureau Chief, based in London. Follow him on Twitter: @SMallenGlobal.

  • Polls, pundits, and politics

    Posted April 24 2012 07:12 PM by Herman with comment(s)

    by Francis Silvaggio

    I’d hate to be an Alberta polling company heading into a sales meeting this week.

    Throughout the entire course of the Alberta election campaign, almost every poll that was done predicted the demise of the Alberta Progressive Conservative party. Almost every poll predicted the Wildrose Party would win a majority or minority government.

    Even the most complimentary poll for the PCs suggested Canada’s longest serving government could only win a minority with just a four percent lead in the popular vote.

    The reality, though, is the Tories have won an historic 12th straight majority with 61 seats and a 10 per cent lead in popular vote.

    From my limited accounting knowledge, the pollsters weren’t even close.

    So what happened? Red-faced polling agencies say they just got it wrong and are now questioning whether “horse race”-style polling is really effective. The problem, at least according to one pollster, is that polls aren’t really designed to be accurate predictions of outcome. They’re just a snapshot of opinion at one specific point in time.


    Alberta Premier and Progressive Conservative party leader Alison Redford celebrates her win in the provincial election in Calgary on April 23. Redford led the party to another majority win, beating out the newcomer Wildrose party. Photo by Jeff McIntosh, The Canadian Press.

    During a short, and often volatile, election campaign, opinions can often shift. That’s what some experts suggest happened here. The Wildrose party was cruising to victory, at least according to the polls, until the last week of the campaign. That’s when homophobic and racist comments were made by two candidates and party leader Danielle Smith was forced to defend her position on contentious social issues like abortion and climate change.

    With no new poll to suggest otherwise, most political pundits and media went into Monday’s election prepared to witness an historic change. That clearly didn’t happen proving the politician’s favourite cliché: “The only poll that matters is the one that happens on election day.”

    Francis is Global National's Alberta correspondent. Follow him on Twitter: @FJSilvaggio.

  • Americans behaving badly

    Posted April 18 2012 04:56 PM by Yuliya with comment(s)

     

    by Eric Sorensen 

    We kick around story possibilities at Global National every morning. We debated three possibilities this morning for the Washington bureau: the latest on the Secret Service prostitute scandal, the release of photos of American soldiers posing with the remains of Afghan suicide bombers, and Ted Nugent’s latest tirade against Barack Obama and the Democrats.

    The best observation came from our producer Tracey Wright who suggested, not seriously, that we could do all three stories in one, entitled: "Americans behaving badly."

    We settled on doing the Secret Service. The revelations that at least 21 men — 11 secret service agents and 10 military personnel — allegedly hired prostitutes in Colombia before U.S. President Obama’s visit last weekend has shocked Americans. Analysts suggest it put national security at risk: agents with access to and information about the U.S. president could be compromised or blackmailed by people who could have connections to the Colombian underworld. It seems the agents hadn’t been briefed yet, so may not have had a lot of inside info, and the women may well have been plain old prostitutes.

    But the lapse in judgment has badly shaken the perception that most people have about these clean-cut security details. And was this a one-off episode, or part of a pattern of poor behaviour? Susan Collins, a U.S. Senator briefed on the episode said, “It’s hard for me to believe that this is the only time this has ever happened. I am worried that this is the only time that they were caught.”

    A Washington Post story described a culture in the secret service advance teams in which married agents joked during aircraft take-off that their motto is “wheels up, rings off.” Can’t help but wonder if some in an agency with the term "secret" in its name took for granted that they could keep secret anything they wanted.

    Meantime, the photos of soldiers posing with the remains of blown up suicide bombers raises questions about a pattern of ugly behaviour by U.S. personnel that, among other things, also tarnishes Americans’ international reputation. The only reason this isn’t bigger news is that the photos were apparently taken two years ago. Had this been done recently — in the wake of outrage over other disgusting conduct — it would have made these photos worse, for the sheer thick-headedness of not getting the message that such photo-ops are intolerable.

    As it is, posing with blown up body parts adds to previous recent incidents in Afghanistan — pictures of marines urinating on corpses, the burning of Korans, the killing of villagers by a rogue American soldier. Together they raise questions about just what is going on over there. What’s happened to these men psychologically that they would want to engage in such activities? And where is the leadership on the ground? These episodes have "achieved" one thing: created common ground for more Afghans and more Americans to oppose this decade-long war.

    And then there is Ted Nugent — making news in part because of HIS pattern of behaviour. Nugent said vulgar things about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during the 2008 election campaign. Now he’s back. He told the National Rifle Association convention on the weekend that everybody should "clean house in this vile, evil America-hating administration" adding that "if Barack Obama becomes the president in November, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year." What did he mean by that — was it a veiled threat? The Secret Service says it is "following up", no doubt a bit relieved that the Cartagena detail aren’t the only agents making news.

    Nugent, in speaking out, describes himself as "a black Jew at a Nazi-Klan rally." And all I could think was, if Ted Nugent were a black Jew, someone named Ted Nugent would probably hate him.

    Eric is Global National's Washington bureau chief. Follow him on Twitter: @EricSorensenDC.

    Check out GlobalNews.ca's special coverage of the U.S. 2012 election.
     


  • A tale of two countries

    Posted April 13 2012 01:08 PM by Erika with comment(s)

     

    by Tom Popyk

    Taxi driver Hakkim hands me his business card. It has two cell numbers: one for Lebanon, one for Syria. I ask if he's driven anyone to Damascus recently and he laughs. "Not in a while."

    Links between these neighbouring countries run deep; business, personal, family. The politics of Syrian persuasion and patronage still haunt Lebanon's emerging democracy. Religion, Shia and Sunni, create fault lines across sovereign borders.

    But for the past half-century, the two nations haven't shared much history. Syria's survived under the stable grip of the Baathist Party and Assad family; Lebanon scrambled with minority parliaments, competing interests and foreign interference.

    Hakkim worries that may rapidly change.

    "I wasn't always a driver," he tells me, "I used to own a factory. But the civil war here changed all that."

    Looking across the border at Syria, he sees a stalemate familiar to many here. While battles between armed forces may be brutal and brief, the collapse of trust, communities and commerce can cripple a country for decades.

    News of a truce in Syria brings a shrug from Hakkim. There were too many truces to count during Lebanon's civil war. Walk a block and the bullets still flew, he said, pointing to a decades-old mark on the wall.

    News of UN observers and a peacekeeping mission brings another shrug. UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, was created in 1978. After two Israeli invasions and Lebanon's collapse, it's still there.

    I don't bring up the United States' deployment of Marines in 1982, or the barracks bombing that introduced suicide to terrorists' tactics. The point has been made.

    An old piece of military strategy is that you never fight the current war like the last, you learn from it.

    Strangely, peace plans in this region have rarely changed since Lester Pearson came up with the whole idea of blue-helmet UN Forces, the same year Syria signed its first pact with Russia, and Lebanon fell into its first post-colonial crisis.

    Not that there are many clear or easy solutions.

    As Hakkim pulls up to our destination, he tells me he sold his factory. "We needed the money. It got us through."

    Survival is always the simplest strategy - for civilians, for revolutionaries, even for the Assad regime.

    But turning around to open the cab door, Hakkim flashes a smile. "If you ever need to get to Damascus, give me a call," he says.

    He may not have the answers, but he knows why.