Ford Fest denies editing photos

Ford Fest is now a longstanding back-slapping exercise by Ontario Premier Doug Ford. Billed as a thankyou to Ford's right-wing base, it's more of an expensive public relations event than anything else, not dissimilar to those interminable taxpayer-funded adverts on local TV.

This year was a bit different, though. This year, Ford Fest was infiltrated in a big way by disgruntled members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), wearing purple t-shirts emblazoned with the slogan "Worth Fighting For". The protesters drowned out Ford's speech and generally made a real nuisance of themselves.

When members of Ford's caucus shares photos from the event online, though, all of those protesting purple t-shirts were miraculously converted into conservative blue t-shirts. The posters denied all knowledge of subterfuge, and later, there was a rather terse message from the Premier's office explaining how the photo had "default saturation applied to correct an orange hue", adding that "this type of colour correction is standard and routine practice". The fact that it converted angry purple t-shirts into friendly blue ones was purely coincidental. OK...

This seems like another example of Ford veering towards Trumpian tactics and artifice.

Why does pedestrianizing Church Street require extra police?

Plans to pedestrianize parts of Church Street in downtown Toronto have run into some unexpected (and largely unexplained) costs.

Pedestrianizing Church-Wellesley Village - usually referred to as Toronto's "gay village" - during the summer months was expected to cost the City in the region of $150,000. But Toronto Police Services are insisting that extra policing is needed, and have budgeted an additional $300,000 for policing and security.

In fact, TPS's original ask was $3 million(!), but they were persuaded to only police it at weekends, which are expected to be by far the busiest times.

What's not clear, though, is what the extra policing is actually for. As Councillor Josh Matlow notes, "There's no reason you'd need more police at a pedestrian street than any other street". In fact, he continues, "they's safer because there are fewer cars". He's got a point. What is it that TPS are expecting to go down during these pedestrianized times?

Part of the problem is that Canada, and Toronto in particular, is just not used to having pedestrianized streets. They are the norm in most European cities, and have even become more common in some of the more progressive American cities. 

In Canada, Montreal is at the forefront of pedestrianization, with seven streets now fully pedestrianized during the summer months. Approximately 7 km of pedestrianized streets are now part of Montreal's tourist attractions, and they are wildly popular with local residents. Some store owners report a drop in sales, while others, particularly restaurants and bars, see a large increase in sales. They do not seem to require any additional policing, apart from for specific festivals and public gathering that would need extra policing anyway.

Brexit caused this political instability? Surely not!

Hard to believe, but it's been ten years, almost to the day, since the fateful Brexit vote, and the start of Britain's "messy divorce" from Europe.

Whatever Reform UK might tell you, it hasn't gone well. Best estimates (by the independent US-based National Bureau of Economic Research) suggest that Brexit has reduced Britain's GDP by 6-8%, investment in the country has slipped by 12-18%, and employment and productivity have both fallen by 3-4%, all as a direct result of Brexit. Not pretty.

Then, yesterday, we hear that yet another Prime Minister has resigned, despite winning a landslide electoral victory just two years ago. That makes it the sixth prime ministerial resignation in ten years, and soon the UK will have its seventh Prime Minister in that relatively short but tumultuous time.

As my brother-in-law deadpanned, "I wonder what could have caused such instability?"

The most, and least, liked countries in the world

Liking is a very subjective thing, especially when it comes to something as amorphous as a country. But the Democracy Perception Index does its best to quantify it, and Visual Capitalist does its usual excellent job of displaying its results.

It's edifying to see that Canada and Switzerland are jointly at the top of this list, closely followed by Japan, Sweden, Italy and Norway.

The lowest perceptions? You guessed it: Israel, followed by North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran and then ... Land of the Free, Leader of the Free World, the good old US of A. The US is the only major Western democracy with a negative net perception score. Go figure!

Ten years later. MAID in Canada is still strongly supported

At the ten-year anniversary of Canada's Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID) law, there has been a flurry of articles about how successful the initiative has been. In particular, there have been two competing opunion articles in the Globe and Mail, exemplifying the different attitides to the service.

MAID, or assisted suicide, has been legal in Canada since June 2016, originally just for cases where natural death was "reasonably foreseeable". In March 2021, after much consultaion, this was extended to people suffering intolerable whose death was not necessarily reasonably foreaeeable. These two types of cases are now known as Track 1 and Track 2, although strict safeguards are of course still maintained, particularly in Track 2 cases.

One of the articles, by the regular Globe health critic André Picard, puts forward what is probably the majority view, that MAID has been an unalloyed good. Over the last ten years, about 100,000 Canadians have been spared unnecessary suffering, 95% of them in cases where death was "reasonably foreseeable" in the language of the law. Picard argues, "Life has not been cheapened by MAID. Dignity, choice and bodily autonomy have all been bolstered". Furthermore  it has not led to the "slippery slope" nay-sayers warned against, and continue to warn against, despite the extension to cases where death is not necessarily reasonably foreseeable (which continue to make up a small minority of MAID deaths). The law is deliberately couched in very conservative and cautious terms for that very reason.

The other article, by regular contributor Robyn Urback, is more of a nuanced critique, alleging that, while the program has been generally susccessful, there has still been anecdotal examples where a small minority of Track 2 MAID deaths (where natural death is not necessarily probable) may - or may not - have been botched or mishandled. Improbably, Ms. Urback sees these isolated incidents as evidence that "life has become cheap in Canada", and that the extension to Track 2 MAID in particular is "eating away at the country's soul", a radical conclusion that does not seem to follow from her detailed argument. A few poignant sob stories do not negate the general good the 

My point here is that the negative arguement is on much more tenuous ground, and is anyway not completely negative, but rather a relatively minor quibble against an otherwise highly successful initiative. Certainly in terms of general satisfaction, the Canadian public is quite happy with what was initially such a contentious issue. An Environics poll show that between 81% and 89% of seniors and caregivers support MAID. Another recent poll found that 89% of Canadians support in MAID in cases of terminal illnesses, while 84% support MAID  for people who are suffering intolerable but are not near the end of their lives.

When we get into the area of extending MAID to people whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness, however, the picture muddies considerably. But that is not currently part of Canada's MAID program, and a parliamentary committee recently voted that those with mental illness should not have access to MAID, at least for the foreseeable future. Now, that one IS contentious.

Anti-immigrant sentiment does not extend to soccer

If the World Cup has done nothing else, it has drawn attention to immigration, and, for once, no-one seems keen on criticizing and protesting.

Nearly a quarter of the 1,248 players at this year's World Cup a representing a country other than the one they were born in, up from just 9% at the 2006 competition. You just have to look at the number of black faces on teams from Canada, USA, England, Netherlands, even nororiously immigration-unfriendly Switzerland, to get a very visual reminder that these countres are highly reliant on immigrant talent (although bear in mind that many of the white faces are also immigrants).

Tunisia, Algeria, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Qatar all have more than half of their squads born elsewhere. The Morocco team is 73% foreign-born, the Democratic Republic of the Congo's is 85%, and little Curaçao's squad is comprised of 97% immigrants. 

Thare are many compelling immigrant stories behind some of the competition's top players. Canada's star player Alphonso Davies was born in a refugee camp in Ghana to Liberian parents. Australia's Thomas Deng and Nestory Irankunda were both born in refugee camps, in Kenya and Tanzania respectively. Germany's Antonio Rudiger was born to immigrant parents fleeing Sierra Leone's civil war.

The US team in particular has received a lot of attention, given the Trump administration's outspoken views on immigration. Florian Balogun, who scored two of the US's four goals against Paraguay, was born to Nigerian parents temporarily living in New York, making him a 14th Amendment "birthright citizen", which Trump has actively tried to deny (although federal courts are currently blocking his executive order from taking effect). Tim Weah, Haji Wright, Ricardo Pepi, Sergiño Dest, even Christian Pulisic, are all immigrants or children of immigrants, and several others on the squad have immigration somewhere in their stories.

I just find it interesting how little push-back there is against this particular kind of immigration, even from countries like USA, Germany, Switzerland and England, where there is a normally strong and vocal anti-immigration sentiment.

Trump? Isolated? Say it ain't true!

Here's Mr. Trump at the G7 meeting. 

Everyone else seems vey animated and engaged. But does no-one want to speak to Trump? Say it ain't true!

This photo probably came soon after Trump, supposedly tongue-in-cheek, told the room, "I'm the boss". *sigh* 

What has America achieved in Iran?

It's taken four months, and not a "few days" as advertised, but Donald Trump finally has his Iran Deal (or, rather, a memorandum of understanding, not a full-blown peace agreement). Details are still scarce, but it should see the extension of the current shaky ceasefire, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and the lifting of the US and Iran blockades. Much can still go wrong between now and Friday, when the agreement is due to be officially signed, but assuming it does actually happen, where does that leave things?

Well, essentially it leaves things pretty much where they were before the war, but with America, Iran and most of the rest of the world worse off. It's being called Trump's worst foreign policy blunder so far - and there have been a few! - an ill-advised, botched affair that should never have happened.

It has soured America's relations with the Gulf states, and severely damaged their reputations (albeit through no fault of their own) as islands of stability in a turbulent Middle East. 

It has weakened the US militarily, as it burned through much more of its expensive and hard-to-replace weapons stocks than expected. At the same time, it has provided an important free lesson to the equally heavily-armed and belligerent China as it continues to consider military action against Taiwan. Russia too will have been watching closely.

The global economy has taken a huge and unnecessary hit, for which the USA will be eternally (and rightly) blamed, with some countries in Asia and Africa in particular bearing the brunt of the suffering as oil prices surged and the supply of oil, petrochemicals, fertilizer and other important resources were strangled for months on end. The war has set in motion economic changes that will be hard, if not impossible, to reverse.

In terms of actual cost to the USA, best estimates put this in the area of $40 billion so far (because this may not be over!), although that only accounts for direct costs like munitions, destroyed equipment, damage to bases, etc.  The total price, of course, may be much higher, depending on what you choose to include.

The future of Iran's nuclear program, and the level of sanctions levied against it, remain to be negotiated, essentially the same position as things were at on 27th February, just before the US-Israeli attacks (except, then at least, negotiations on these matters were already well advanced). Iran did not have nuclear weapons before the war and it does not now, and its pledge not to develop them has been in place since 2003, and renewed under President Obama in 2015. While Trump used to make a big hooh-hah about Iran's "nuclear dust" (what does he mean by that? nobody says "nuclear dust"!), he now claims that "it's not very valuable stuff", and he's not really bothered about it, except for perhaps "psychologically". What?

Trump is trying to sell the reopening of the Straitnof Hormuz as a win. But the Strait of Hormuz was open before the war that Trump started. How is a return to the status quo a win for anyone? There is also a distinct possibility that the Strait may reopen with new "maritime service fees" - i.e. a toll - that was not there before. Transit tolls are prohibited under international law, but Iran says it reserves the right to charge fees in exchange for navigational services and environmental protection(!) as part of its deal with Trump. Still calling it a win?

Through the Memorandum of Understanding, Washington has promised to unfreeze billions in Iranian assets, remove santions, allow Iran to trade its oil on more favourable terms, and commit $300 billion to reconstructing what it has destroyed in Iran. Does that sound like the actions of a victor?

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenai and other members of his administration and miltary are now dead, but succeeded by younger and equally radical replacements. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) still wields total control over the beleaguered Iranian people. The repressive theocratic regime remains intact, arguably even more entrenched, embittered and emboldened, and the Iranian people are no better off than they were. Remember Trump's exhortations to the people of Iran tonrise up amd that "help is on the way"? Poof! Just in case you were in any doubt, Trump confirmed in a recent interview, "I never cared about regime change", and the Iranians now in charge are "nice to deal with". 

America's relationship with Israel - or at least with Prime Minster Netanyahu - has also suffered, once it became clear that Israel's goals were quite different from those of the USA. (Surprise!) Israel looks on the US-Iran agreement with dismay, as they are still looking to make further incursions into Lebanon, and would like to see Iran totally destroyed, which, despite Trump's bluster, it evidently is not. Some top Americans have been criticizing Israel's reaction in ways that would have been inconceivable at the start if this war. Vice-President Vance described Trump as "the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time", and even that may be a stretch. He warns that Israel "needs to wake up and smell the reality of the situation that country is in".

The whole sorry affair, then, is petering out, more with a whimper than a bang. Any agreement that does come out of it is unlikely to be much different from what Barack Obama achieved all those years ago. And that will really rankle with Trump. Thousands of Irania1ns and other Middle Easteners have lost their lives, reputations across the board have been damaged, the world is poorer and more unstable, the global economy is screwed up, and tempers are further frayed.

Remember Trump's demands for Iran's "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER"? Well, in some respects, Iran may come out of this in better shape than before, even if the rest of the world doesn't. Good job, Donny!