Maria and I are crazy for British period dramas, particularly anything adapted from Charles Dickens.

We recently watched a BBC mini-series called Little Dorrit, adapted from the Dickens serial novel of the same name. It was an incredibly well-done adaptation and if you love 19th century Britain I highly recommend it. This isn’t a television review though.

One feature of Little Dorrit was something that I hadn’t been familiar with before: a debtor’s prison.

Marshalsea debtor’s prison is one of the main focal points for much of the novel and it’s where we find Amy Dorrit, one of the main protagonists. Her father, a disgraced gentleman, has spent the better part of his life imprisoned in Marshalsea for undisclosed debts that he owes. Although we never find out who the father owes money to, we know that he can’t be released until he pays it back. That is, he’s in jail until he can pay off his debts.

Do you already see the fallacy here?

Little Dorrit was originally written as a satire on British society. Also featured in the novel is the famous Circumlocution Office, Dickens’ ingenious name for the local branch of the British government. Of course, both the debtor’s prison and the highly bureaucratized British government are easy targets for satire.

In fact, the debtor’s prison is nearly satirical by its very nature. Imagine, being put in prison until you can pay off your debts but having no way to work or make money—because you’re in prison!

It seems senseless.

So I was surprised when I stumbled across this story which seems to indicate that, at least in principle, the debtor’s prison is still in existence.

Now don’t get me wrong. People who, for financial reasons, are unable to afford to pay fees and fines issued against them shouldn’t be let off scotch-free. The law needs to be upheld, but surely there’s a better way. Off the top of my head I’d say it makes sense to waive the fee in lieu of, say, community service but to keep them in prison with no way to actually repay? I can’t understand.

In this day and age, is there any sense to the notion of locking someone up behind bars because they can’t pay a fine?

Wait a second here. Remind me, what is the goal of federalist politics?

See because I thought—and maybe I’m wildly(!) naive—that the goal of the federalists was the keep the country together and, like any good club, to increase their membership.

So when a former separatist, or, for sanity’s sake let’s say a former separatist party member, decides to come on over to your side shouldn’t that be a cause for celebration? Shouldn’t there be some kind of ringing of the bells, a shower of champagne spraying out of a bottle of Dom Perignon shaken up by none other than Brian Mulroney himself? While the ghost of Pierre Trudeau dances a proper newfie jig.

All I’m saying is that I don’t get it. This whole response to interim NDP leader Nycole Turmel and her tenuous links to separatist parties.

Even  if she did vote for the Bloc Quebecois at some point—which she didn’t(!)—what is she going to do, tear the country apart as interim leader of the official opposition? Does a person’s lackluster political past mean they can never Reform their ways? There are Conservatives, Denis Lebel I’m looking at you, who admit to being “active” members of the BQ in the past. Active. And, my goodness, Stockwell Day once showed up to a presser in a wet suit and we forgave him enough to let him be President of the Treasury Board! Turmel didn’t even vote for the Bloc!

She’s been clear: she’s not a separatist, so let’s leave it at that. Wait, no, let’s not. Let’s celebrate. Because the whole point of a united Canada, like I’ve been saying, is that we need to get all excited-like about our country, and about every time someone decides that they no longer want a geo-political divorce. Hey, Canada, we’re stayin’ together… doin’ it for the kids. Bravo!

Or, “The Real Reason We Left T.O.”.

When it comes up in conversation, Maria and I never shy again from a good Rob Ford joke. We tell people that he’s the real reason why we left Toronto, and some of the time, it feels very much like the truth.

Although they said it couldn’t be done, although they said he’d need the support of council—which he’d never get—and the support of the people of Toronto—which he’d never have enough of—he’s doing it. Rob Ford is nearly single-handedly dismantling the City of Toronto.

He’s blown through the city’s surpluses created by Mayor Miller, he’s repealed taxes and fees which are going to have to be replaced with funding cuts, he’s declared war on the city’s social services and programming, and he’s flipping the bird not just to cyclists and pedestrians, but to motorists too. What’s more, Doug Ford, the mayor’s equally erudite brother, claims to have never heard of Margaret Atwood, one of this country’s most celebrated authors, after she spoke out against Ford’s earlier comments about closing Toronto libraries. That is, Doug Ford thinks that since there are more libraries than Tim Horton’s stores in his Etobicoke neighbourhood, some of those libraries have got to go.

What the Fords are doing to Toronto is not surprising, I don’t think, to anyone. If anything what’s surprising is how easily they’re getting it all done. With the Fords in charge, politics in Toronto feels more like schoolyard wheeling-and-dealing than it does governance of the country’s most populated city.

But,  if anything, Rob Ford’s alleged middle finger salute and his brothers comments about Margaret Atwood aren’t atypical but are becoming the norm. That’s because politics in Toronto, and elsewhere, are seeing the rise of a new kind of anti-intellectualism. A second coming of the Dark Ages.

Read the rest of this article »

I like that our election cycles are short; the actual campaigning doesn’t last very long. Sometimes, however, it just feels too short and I imagine on Tuesday morning, the day after the election, all this machinery that’s been built up around the election, all the political parties, the journalists, and us interested bloggers will find ourselves returning to our ordinary routines rather begrudgingly. Still, there’s time for one last kick at the can before Monday night, so here goes.

Read the rest of this article »

I’ve been mulling it over and have decided that the difference is strong leadership.

There’s no question that Conservative leader Stephen Harper is a strong leader. Under Harper the powers of the Prime Minister—already alarmingly broad and sweeping—have become more concentrated than ever. Harper rules his party caucus, his party, and indeed his country with a very tight fist. During the English Leader’s Debate Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff remarked, several times, that Harper “shuts down anything he can’t control.” To be honest, I don’t think Harper would disagree.

Mr. Ignatieff’s case, however, is a classic example of poor, weak leadership.

Ignatieff is a Harvard professor. He’s an academic, a writer, a journalist, a human rights activist, and he’s very well respected around the world. In Britain he’s widely referred to as “the thinking woman’s tea crumpet” which is apparently some kind of veiled compliment alluding to the fact that he’s smart and handsome. Regardless, he’s a bright guy with a good grasp of how our parliamentary system works and boat loads of respect and integrity. But he’s a weak leader.

Read the rest of this article »

I feel like I’m a pretty connected guy. Especially during this election, I’m following things pretty closely. Twitter, which has become hugely important this time around, is an provides an endless stream of information. But how much of what’s going down during this campaign is the Canadian public actually paying attention to, and what does it take to begin to sway their opinions, and their votes?

I wonder, because I feel like the Conservative Party have come into this campaign hurting. They’ve made some fairly serious missteps. They’re constantly falling on their faces. And, according to the latest polls and numbers, no one really seems to have noticed. Instead, as far as I can tell, the Liberals and Conservatives—the two front-runners to form the next government—seem to be at relatively the same percentage of popularity as they were going into this election campaign.

What am I missing?

Read the rest of this article »

Hey people who are surprised at Mayor Rob Ford’s behaviour now that he’s in office: You voted for him!

The big news in the Big Smoke the past couple of weeks has been Mayor Rob Ford. But it’s not what the mayor’s doing, actually, but what he’s not doing that’s been making headlines.

Rob Ford was the candidate who ran on a platform of stopping the gravy train (toot! toot!), cutting waste in Toronto’s municipal government (slash! slash!), and the promise to answer every single phone call and e-mail he received to his office once he became mayor (huh?).

Right, it can’t be done. And you’re surprised he isn’t doing it?

What’s worse though is that Mayor Ford isn’t just reneging on his campaign promises (which is to be expected) he’s actually going even further to avoid the public.

Ford, now carefully controlled by his Public Relations wing, isn’t even taking questions from the media anymore. In his only appearance for the Canadian media this week, in a photo-op promoting his new anti-graffiti campaign, Ford wouldn’t answer questions about the federal election, the TTC, Toronto Community Housing, or his cost-cutting measures. Despite numerous controversial issues unfolding at City Hall, Ford refused to say a word. Talking to CBC Radio, he explained that he talks about what he wants, when he wants.

In a democracy? Really?

More over, according to journalists, Mayor Rob Ford’s daily itinerary, which you’d think would be publicly available as mayor of Toronto, can only be obtained through a lengthy Freedom of Information request. Seriously, the mayor of Toronto doesn’t release his public schedule unless you legally require him to. Talk about tight control.

And the thing is, there are issues that Rob Ford needs to be held accountable for. Like appointing former transition team members to prominent city jobs. One, to the position of sole head of the Toronto Community Housing Corporation. Another, as a private consultant on the new transit plan.

Other issues exist too that you would think warrant comment from the city’s mayor. The selling off of Toronto Community Housing rental units and resources despite long waiting lists to get into those same units, for one thing. Funding for Ford’s revised transit plan including finding billions of dollars worth of investment and the expense of canceling all those contracts (pegged at at least $64 million last time I heard), for another.

But Rob Ford is, apparently, accountable to no one—despite his promises.

Instead, he’s blown through the surpluses left behind by Mayor David Miller. He’s quashed that mayor’s transit plan which would’ve seen an expanded, more accessible transit system serving more neighbourhoods and people across the city. He’s facing an upcoming fight with the unions, a subway system that he can’t cost for, and a record deficit next year. He’s freezing property taxes, he’s cut the vehicle registration tax, and he’s got no real plan for recouping that money, or for making up for the city’s shortfalls in the next budget.

Through it all, however, he keeps on smiling, and laughing—just don’t ask him why, he’ll likely have no comment. Should we be surprised though? I don’t think so… and you vote for him!