The Best Thing About Being Stubborn, Mary Walsh, Is That You Always Know What You'll Be Thinking Tomorrow

Mary Walsh pretending she did nothing wrong

Apparently, the shock that she isn't funny -- or talented -- is too much for This Hour Has 22 Minutes "comedian" Mary Walsh.

In the wake of her invasion of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's privacy, frightening his six-year-old daughter, Walsh is refusing to admit that she's done anything wrong.

The best thing about being stubborn is that you know what you'll be thinking tomorrow. Apparently, what Walsh is thinking today is that she was trying to give Ford advice.

“He obviously was not going to listen to any advice I had ... or have anything to do with us whatsoever,” Walsh complained. (The detail that no one in their right mind would the advice of a tragically unfunny comedian is clearly one that has entirely evaded her.) “I’m a 60-year-old woman with a plastic sword. I was just going to give him a bit of friendly advice.”

If Walsh was really trying to offer him some friendly advice -- everyone who isn't entirely numb between the ears knows full well she wasn't -- she might have attempted to get in touch with him at City Hall. As she told Sun News' Joe Warmington, she didn't even try.

This Hour Has 22 Minutes producers explain that they asked Ford to appear on the program in August. He declined. So their decision was to ambush him at his home. Now they're stubbornly refusing to admit that they crossed the line.

When Walsh and the producers of 22 Minutes have become so disjointed that they can't keep their behaviour firmly on the rails, it's time to go. If they won't resign, it's time for CBC to fire them.

The CBC, Unhinged

No laughs to be found when comedy comes second to politics

The CBC has a problem with its comedy. Or, rather, a new problem.

For a very long time, the biggest problem with CBC's comedy was that -- unless it was airing Just For Laughs -- the comedy mostly just wasn't funny. Rick Mercer would have the occasional moment, but the political sanctimony of what was passed off as comedy overwhelmed any sense of humour.

This Hour Has 22 Minutes has long been exhibit A in the sheer unfunniness of CBC's comedy offerings. The cast of 22 Minutes has long been made up of untalented hacks more interested in grinding their own political axes than in making the audience laugh. They could elicit the occasional giggle from left-wingers who found their offerings ideologically soothing, but very little from anyone whose political opinions veer even slightly to the right of a Phish concert.

(BTW, Phish sucks.)

Mary Walsh has pretty much set the bar for unfunny comedy on 22 Minutes, but in recent years she's had some competition from Geri Hall. Consider a Sun News Network parody featuring Margaret Atwood in which Hall and Atwood take token potshots at the fledgling news network and generally take turns at being incredibly unfunny.

Apparently "the home of real news spoken by fake blondes" is Hall's idea of a rolling-on-the-floor laugher. And while some cretins delighted in it, most rational people quickly tire of watching something that makes it clear that it's a malicious hit-piece cobbled together by far-lefty "comedians" who were outraged by a challenging interview that wasn't nearly as outrageous as they want to pretend it is.

That the CBC had previously employed Krista Erickson, the target of the comedy sketch-cum-smear, only further reveals just how unhinged the cast of 22 Minutes has become. In dumping so eagerly on a former CBC journalist -- one who served the CBC, although not without controversy, until she chose to go elsewhere -- is making an undeniable statement about the quality of journalism at the CBC.

They're evidently unafraid of dumping all over their own colleagues in order to direct their rage at a former colleague, now turned adversary by way of her employment at a rival network, one one which differing viewpoints have proliferated.

But just how unhinged has the cast and crew of 22 Minutes become? Just ask Toronto Mayor Rob Ford.

Cue the terminally-unfunny Mary Walsh once more. In staging an "ambush interview" for the show, Walsh wasn't interested in waiting for Ford at Toronto City Hall. No, instead she decided to ambush him in his driveway, as he was taking his 6 year-old daughter to school.

Walsh apparently frightened Ford's daughter, and to be frank: who wouldn't be? To behold Walsh, in the pitch of her demagogic fury, raving at the top of her lungs would frighten a lot of adults. Adults, fortunately, are well-equipped to deal with the appearance of a crazy lady on their drive way. Children, not so much.

What's become the most remarkable thing about the confrontation is just how much the 22 Minutes cast and crew just don't get it.

“We were actually surprised at how humourless his response was,” remarked 22 Minutes producer Michael Donovan.

Perhaps if Ezra Levant were to turn up on Donovan's driveway, waving around a plastic sword and shoving a microphone in Donovan's face while his children are present, Donovan would better understand.

Lizzie May vs The Media

Green Party leader offers windfall to CBC on one hand, attacks media with the other

As Green Party leader Elizabeth May continues to fight for what she considers her rightful place in the televised leaders' debates, she's chosen to make the media itself an issue in her campaign.

May promises to juice up the CBC with an additional $450 million per annum.

May seems to see the CBC as the only bulwark against what she sees as the steady degeneration of the Canadian media, a degeneration that she intends to put a stop to. She even infers that this may be why May has been excluded from the televised leaders' debate.

"Concentration in Canadian media, corporate control of news content, slashing of local news content, and the slow funding starvation of our national broadcaster — these are the issues the corporate TV executives would rather not see come up in this election," May remarked. "These are issues Canadians will not hear discussed if I am excluded from the national leaders' debate."

Not that May approves of all the CBC's decisions. In fact, May seems to think that the CBC has not been nearly antagonistic enough to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"I think the willingness of the CBC to be less than diligent in pursuing some of the things the Harper government has done, speaks to a concern and a fear of losing more funding,"

Frankly, this is the kind of statement that makes one think May hasn't paid attention to any of Terry Milewski's recent work.

Moreover, there's no evidence that Harper has threatened to cut the CBC's funding if he didn't like what was being broadcasted. Not at all like what Pearson-era cabinet Minister CD Howe threatened.

Then again, these kinds of hanging details are precisely what Canadians have come to expect of the Green Party leader.

For her own part, May is confident that she'll manage to win her battle with the consortium (which involves the CBC, and decided unanimously that she would not participate in the debate). For her own part, it's all about "fairness".

"I think in the end I'll get in the debate, but the media consortium has got to recognize they have done something that offends fundamental principles of fairness in a democracy," May remarked.

Elizabeth May could well be right about that. Her exclusion from the televised leaders' debate wouldn't be nearly as controversial if she had no argument.

A Picture Worth a Thousand Words

First, the set-up:

And now, the punchline:

If Avaaz really wants to use the freeping of online polls to try to advance their cause, perhaps they should pick some that are a little more methodologically sound.

Just sayin'.

Messiahs & Martyrs in American Politics

In part one of The Trojan Horse, a scenario is presented in which Canada is politically merged into the United States under constitutionally unfeasible and politically unlikely circumstances.

In part two of the mini-series (also the concluding chapter), a more persistent theme in American politics is explored: that of the relationship between political martyrdom and an assassin's bullet.

There's a rare and hallowed place in the pantheon of American political history for many of those slain by an assassin's bullet.

Certainly, not all of the political figures killed by an assassin are considered central figures in the political mythology or civil religion of the United States. Presidents James Garfield and William McKinley are seldom-considered figures in the big picture of American history.

But Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr and John F Kennedy each occupy deeply hallowed positions in American history. Lincoln, of course, is cited for giving his life to preserve the union and free the slaves. King is recalled as the man who led a passionate crusade for the civil rights of racial minorities. Kennedy is remembered as a widely-beloved President struck down in his prime in what history widely regards as a senseless killing.

(The death of Kennedy's assassin at the hands of Jack Ruby has ultimately shrouded the motives for Kennedy's murder in the fog of history.)

In part two of the Trojan Horse, former Canadian Prime Minister (and later Presidential candidate) Tom McLaughlin (Paul Gross) is shot during what appeared to be an assassination attempt. McLaughlin is seen by many to be a potential contender for the Presidency, and thus his assassination attempt is viewed as politically motivated.

(It is, in fact, planned and executed by the international cabal supporting McLaughlin's bid for the Presidency, with his consent and participation.)

McLaughlin takes advantage with a dramatically staged hilltop baptism, and is henceforth treated by many with the hushed and reverent tones with many regard Lincoln, King and Kennedy -- in a manner ever-similar to that in which many religions regard religious martyrs.

In a sense McLaughlin is transformed into a political messiah -- eventually seizing upon the grave missteps of President William Stanfield (Tom Skerritt) in handling the hostage-taking of American schoolchildren in Saudi Arabia in order to win a historic Presidential victory as an independent candidate.

Of course McLaughlin's motivations are far from Christ-like. Having lost his country to the United States, his response is to make the United States more like the Canada it has enveloped -- a prospect threatening only in the context of the cloak-and-dagger tactics by which his Presidency is won.

Tom McLaughlin turns out to actually be a wolf in Messiah's clothing -- clothing donned first in the form of a hospital gown, following what is devised to appear to be a near-martyring.

Fiction in the Purest Sense of the Word

The Trojan Horse is a miniseries that likely played well to the paranoia of individuals like Mel Hurtig and David Orchard, who have long argued that trade arrangements such as NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America) would eventually lead to the absorption of Canada into the United States.

It's unsurprising that Paul Gross -- who both produced and starred in the miniseries -- would embrace these concerns so readily. He's been firmly establishing his credentials as a Canadian nationalist for a while now. Passchendaele was the result of his laudible efforts to use film as a tool for teaching Canadian history. He even spent years playing a Mountie on Due South. He's long become an underappreciated staple of Canadian culture.

But it's interesting to note the hysteria underlying The Trojan Horse. As it turns out, the scenario portrayed in this film could actually never happen as it unfolds in the film.

In the film, Canadians narrowly vote to join the United States. In a scene reminiscent of the 1995 Quebec sovereignty referendum, the margin of victory for the "yes" side is less than one percent.

Under the arrangement, Canadian confederation would be dissolved, and Canada would be reorganized into six states for the purpose of amalgamation with the United States.

Yet according to the way the Canadian constitution actually functions, this could never happen.

For one thing, the film's writers seem to have forgotten -- or at least overlooked -- the fact that Canadian federalism is a product of the provinces themselves. Even if Canadian confederation were dissolved -- which would only result in the establishment of fifteen new independent states in North America.

The decision about whether to amalgamate with other provinces could only take place on a province-by-province basis. It couldn't be decided by a national referendum.

Because the dissolution of confederation would render these provinces into states independent of one another, deciding such a matter by national referendum would violate the individual sovereignty of each new country. For example, a "yes" voter in Alberta would effectively be helping to decide the course of Quebec, even over the objections of "no" voters in Quebec. This is evidently something that is simply not feasible.

Even if the provinces agreed to amalgamate into larger states, they could not do so until after confederation was dissolved. Furthermore, this would be subject to significant negotiation between each and every province.

Last but not least, each state would be left with the choice of either joining the United States or remaining independent. It's extremely unlikely that Quebec would agree to join the United States, making the scenario presented in The Trojan Horse even more unfeasible.

Aside from this, The Trojan Horse plucks all the right nationalist strings. The sight of the American flag flying over the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill seems not only unnatural, but is actually extremely unsettling.

While it's an interesting scenario to consider, The Trojan Horse is simply far too removed from Constitutional reality in Canada to be worth taken seriously.

Fortunately, the miniseries is entertaining enough to still be worth watching.

Canada's Ideological Divide, In a Nutshell

In Canada, it can be amazing how quickly a basic issue can quickly become clouded in the eyes of the common ideologue.

Sad as it may seem, the Conservative Party's recently-announced anti-child porn legislation is one of those examples.

But issues like this are also an opportunity for Canadians to examine Canada's ideological divide for precisely what it is. In this case, one has the opportunity to examine where each particular ideological camp has situated themselves.

Naturally, both CTV and CBC have reported on the matter. But what's even more interesting than the story itself are some of the reactions to it.

Some Canadians, bizarrely enough, are somehow opposed to these efforts to curb child pornography. The comments section of the story offered by both CTV and CBC have offered not only these individuals an opportunity to voice their opinion on the matter, but through a thumbs up/thumbs down system, have allowed other readers to give an opinion on each readers comments.

Consider the following comment from the story, as posted on the CBC website:It isn't hard to begin unraveling some of the problems with this particular reader's comments.

First off, there's only a certain extent to which proxies and encryptions can protect any particular individual from identification. And while an wifi connection could certainly be hijacked for the purpose of locating and downloading child pornography, an accused individual could quite quickly be cleared through something so simple as an examination of their computer's hard drive.

(There are, naturally, privacy concerns related to police searches of a computer hard drive that may not be sufficiently covered by current legislation, and may require further legislation. That, by its own merit, is actually a rather fair argument.)

As anyone can see, this particular comment was given 22 "thumbs up" (individuals agreeing with the comment), compared to only two "tumbs down" (individuals disagreeing with the comment).

So on that note, it's interesting to see how a dissenting opinion is treated by CBC readers:Certainly, no one is obligated to agree with this particular reader. But it's worth noting that very few Canadians have anything to hide in this particular matter.

The legislation in question isn't an attempt to restrict the civil liberties of Canadians. It's an effort to shut down criminal activity that, by its very nature, preys upon children.

Not that commenters like this one, from CTV, will understand this:Surely, almost all Canadians recognize that child pornography is not a matter of "artistic expression", and that the exploitation of children has no "artistic merit".

That is a basic, fundamental truth that simply requires no explanation. This comment was treated with the amount of merit it deserves -- it received 100 "thumbs down" votes to an inexplicable seven "thumbs up" votes.

Closer to the mark is this reader, who simply pointed out that child pornography is actually a non-partisan (if not a non-ideological) issue:This comment received 44 "thumbs up" votes to a mere three votes down.

Sadly, not everyone will agree that this is a non-partisan issue. The Conservative Party's 2004 attack on Paul Martin is frankly hard to forget.

It will certainly be interesting to see how the House of Commons votes on this issue. To anyone with an ounce of sense, it isn't hard to figure out that this is a bill that should pass unanimously (with fools like Libby Davies in the Commons, it's hard to say if it will).

Whether or not Canadians can put petty politics aside long enough for the bill to pass is another matter entirely.

The New Cold War

When Vladimir Putin succeeded Boris Yeltsin as President of Russia, he was certainly not a well-hailed individual.

Previously, Putin had served as an advisor for the Mayor of St Petersburg. Despite a potentially career-breaking scandal, Putin continued to climb through the upper echelons of the Mayor's office before moving on to Moscow after an unsuccessful attempt to win the Mayor's office for himself.

In 1999, Yeltsin appointed Putin as a deputy Prime Minister of Russia and, later on in the very day of this appointment, made him Prime Minister. Within four months, Putin would be President.

Putin ensured continued political successes by uniting a broad collection of small political parties -- post-Soviet Russian politics have been marked by the spread of tiny political parties supported by wealthy sponsors -- into the formidable United Russia party. While never formally becoming a member of the party, he did take full advantage of it.

With support of individuals such as Dmitri Medvedev, Putin wielded Presidential and legislative power with an iron fist. Political rivals and critics in the business world were ruthlessly marginalized.

When the Russian Constitution disqualified Putin from continuing his reign as President (the Russian Constitution limits Presidents to serving two consecutive terms), Putin hand-picked Medvedev to succeed him.

Underlying the Medvedev/Putin regime is an ideology that has come to be described as Sovereign Democracy.

This ideology of "sovereign democracy" is built on a foundation of historical revisonism, xenophobia, anti-westernism, Russian exceptionalism, and political relativism.

Vladimir Putin is widely famed for his comments describing the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geo-political disaster of the 20th century. Political and historical relativism have been at the heart of Putin's efforts to rehabilitate the reputation of the Soviet Union, comparing historical atrocities committed in the Soviet Union with historical deeds of other countries that often have little or no equivalence.

The idea is rather simple: whereas the governments of other countries have encouraged citizens to address past wrongdoings, Putin has insisted that Russia will never be made to feel ashamed of its past.

Putin's political organization has kept an arm's length distance from organizations that treat many of Russia's geographically closer adversaries -- such as Georgia -- in a xenophobic manner. Racial tensions are routinely stirred up by youth organizations that have come to be widely referred to as the Putin Youth -- an obvious, if sensational, play on the Hitler youth of Nazi Germany.

Putin has also consolidated his power by forever portraying Western countries as belligerent hypocrites. Putin and his party have interpreted the expansion of NATO into the former Eastern Bloc as an act of aggression against Russia, and they have not hesitated to share this idea with the Russian people.

The ideology of "Sovereign democracy" also stands on a notion of Russian exceptionalism that predates the Russian Czars. This notion is the ancient belief that Moscow is the "third Rome" that will stand as the last outpost and defender of the message of Jesus Christ. This idea permeated the Czarist period of Russian history. In fact, "Czar" is actually Russian shorthand for "Caesar".

Like with American foreign policy, this idea of Russian exceptionalism -- like American exceptionalism heavily influenced by religion, in this case the Russian Orthodox Church -- has led to an aggressive foreign policy. However, while the purpose of the aggressive American foreign policy tends to be the promotion of Americanized democracy, the purpose of an aggressive foreign policy is to eliminate the threats posed to Russia.

The Russian ideology of "sovereign democracy" has strengthened a political environment in which political processes exist not to decide who holds power, but to maintain incumbent's grip on power, and justify it.

Russia is not the only country in which this idea of "sovereign democracy" is being used to horde political power.

Leaders such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez have also adapted this notion of "sovereign democracy" within their own countries, and countries like Iran seem to be moving in the same direction.

As authors such as Edward Lucas have noted, Russia's economic and military strong-arm tactics are increasingly posing a potential threat to the Western World. He isn't alone in issuing this warning.

Gary Kasparov has also issued a dire warning about Vladimir Putin's iron grip on Russia. It is a warning that should not be ignored.

We Got Your Media Bias Right Here!

Canadian Broadcast Standards Council gives Stephane Dion something to whine about

According to a spokesperson, former Liberal party leader Stephane Dion thinks a recent decision by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council "speaks for itself."

Certainly, it does. But not in the way the perpetually-whiny Dion seems to think.

The decision was in regards to a complaint over the broadcasting of an interview between Dion and CTV Halifax News Anchor Steve Murphy in which Dion asked for the interview to be re-started on numerous occasions. The CBSC also claimed that Murphy failed to explain the question to Dion when it became apparent that he didn't understand it.

Yet the question, as it turns out, was actually rather simple. Murphy had asked Dion "if you were Prime Minister now, what would you have done about the economy and this crisis that [Prime Minister Stephen] Harper has not done?"

Dion responded by launching into his party's campaign platform. After Murphy took significant pains to explain the question to Dion, Dion again flubbed the question. It took the intervention of one of his aides to explain to Dion, in french, the question.

The interview revealed two basic facts about Dion's candidacy for Prime Minister. First, it revealed that Dion had no idea, whatsoever, what he would have done to avoid the economic crisis and subsequent recession (a crisis that began in the woefully under-regulated financial markets of the United States and spread abroad). Second, it revealed that Dion's language skills were simply not up to snuff to be Prime Minister of this country.

Canadians would be rightly alarmed at the election of a Prime Minister who doesn't speak French. Canada's Official Languages Act designates that Canada has two official languages, not one. It isn't unreasonable to expect that the Prime Minister should be able to speak both languages.

Just as a Prime Minister who cannot speak French cannot be expected to function effectively in the Province of Quebec -- and thus be hampered in his ability to address key responsibilities -- no Prime Minister who cannot speak English could be expected to function effectively in the rest of the country.

Canadians understand this. There's a good reason why Canada hasn't elected a functionally unilingual Prime Minister since Lester Pearson.

Beyond this detail, if a federal party leader doing everything he can to saddle the incumbent government with a looming recession that he knows full well that government isn't responsible for cannot explain what he would do differently that leader's credibility in terms of managing the economy is naturally called into question. Canadians have a right to know if an individual who may well become Prime Minister of this country doesn't know his economic ass from a teakettle.

The CBSC's decision seems to hit all the bases that a politially-motivated decision would reach, counter-factually insisting that Murphy's question was "confusing, and not only to a person whose first language is other than English."

Yet the millions of Canadians who realized that Dion's ability to offer any kind of constructive alternative to the Conservative government's management of the economy was precisely is understood the question. Canadians got the question. The CBSC, we're expected to believe, didn't.

But if CTV's handling of Stephane Dion's inability to answer a basic question in English was truly so terrible, one may wonder where the CBSC was when CBC reporter Christina Lawand was caught red-handed dishonestly editing footage of Stephen Harper to make him appear callous.

Oddly enough the CBSC had nothing to say about that, a case in which disinformation was deliberately broadcasted by a Canadian news agency. Apparently, we're to believe, that is A-OK.

Naturally, CTV President Robert Hurst takes issue with the CBSC's decision.

"We are deeply concerned by the tone and content of the council's decision as it is not the CBSC's role to police the nature of the questions any news organization chooses to pose to a public official," Hurst mused.

Nor, apparently, is the CBSC's role to address the deliberate broadcast of disinformation -- unless, apparently, that politician is a Liberal party leader.




Other bloggers currently writing about this topic:

Dan Shields - "158...Thought Police Strike Again; Poor Stephane"

The Not So Much News - "Making fun of Stephane Dion or journalistic integrity?"

Breaking Bones For Politics

Produced by the CBC's Bob McKeown, Sticks and Stones is a brief exploration of right-wing bias in US news media.

The film explores notions that the news media has a left-wing bias, and points to Dan Rather and Walter Kronkite as the figures originally associated with left-wing media bias.

Bernard Goldberg became conservative America's star witness against left-wing media bias.

McKeown then moves on to address individuals like Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and Rachel Marsden, while using individuals like Al Franken and Heather Mallick as witnesses to the virulent nature of the right-wing media -- Mallick even conjures tears at one point.

McKeown clearly takes a certain amount of glee in cornering Coulter and Marsden -- and really, who wouldn't? Marsden shifts uncomfortably when being questioned about her stalking of her ex-boyfriend, and Coulter stridently insists that Canada sent troops to Vietnam, even as McKeown inists we didn't.

(As an interesting side note, Coulter is actually right and wrong about Canadian troops in Vietnam. Canada contributed 240 soldiers to the United Nations' Operation Gallant, which was a peacekeeping mission, not part of the US war there -- although the North Vietnamese felt differently at the time, and accused Canadian troops of passing intelligence along to Canadian forces.)

Yet McKeown's own CBC is not immune to criticisms regarding bias. Fresh in the minds of many Canadians is Christina Lawand's dishonest editing of a Stephen Harper press conference, Krista Ericksen colluding with a Liberal MP, and Heather Mallick discrediting herself in spectacular fashion.

Meanwhile, south of the 49th parallel, Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo indulged themselves in the kind of bombastic nonsense that so often finds a place on Fox News.

Sticks and Stones was produced in 2004, and as a result couldn't possibly be expected to address examples such as these. But it tends to ignore left-wing media bias in favour right-wing bias.

The simple fact of the matter is that both left-wing and right-wing biases can be detected in the media, depending upon which outlet one examines. Almost everyone claims to be opposed to bias in the media, but the truth is quite different.

Almost everyone is in favour of media bias. More importantly, almost everyone is in favour of their particular media bias.

Gaudet Hacked, Buzz Sawed

In January 2009, the CBC hosted a special edition of the Dragons' Den in which they entertained presentations on how to fix the Canadian Economy. Among the presenters were Kevin Gaudet and Buzz Hargrove.

On the program, the Dragons were given a hypothetical $20 billion that they could spend however they thought could best stimulate the economy.

Gaudet, the national director of the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, presented first, calling for tax reflief:



Gaudet began by suggesting there's a high level of consensus in favour of tax relief, citing support for the idea from Barack Obama's chief economic adviser, Christina Romer, citing her insistence that every $1 of tax relief stimulates an economy threefold.

More importantly, Gaudet came with specific recommendations on how that tax relief -- a full $20 billion worth -- could be implemented on a permanent, structural basis.

However, Gaudet wanted to direct that tax relief almost exclusively toward Middle Class taxpayers, with a very small portion going to business. Irene Darra's question about whether or not Canadians would spend that money or save it -- or use it to pay down debt -- seems more than a little ridiculous.

Considering that the global economy is currently grappling with an economic crisis built on defaulting debts it seems that tax relief being used to pay down debt would actually be a very positive step.

There's little question that the Canadian economy wouldn't be stimulated by the full hypothetical $20 billion. But a consumer carrying a smaller debt load is a consumer with cause for greater confidence.

Gaudet was followed by former Canadian Autoworkers Union President Buzz Hargrove, who called on the Dragons to "forget about" the CTF and forget about tax relief:



Compared to Gaudet, who arrived with a well-prepared presentation, Hargrove's presentation was poorly concieved. His delivery was worse.

Hargrove pushed hard for an exclusive push toward not only a stimulus package, but for a stimulus program that would focus largely on the auto and forestry industry.

Hargrove peddled a victim mentality, arguing that the allegedly-otherwise mighty North American automakers have been victimized by bad government policy (although he failed to elaborate on which policies were allegedly harming the auto industry), a discouraging credit market and by what he deemed unfair trade practices.

He called for stimulus of the credit market and protectionist measures -- particularly against Asian carmakers. Hargrove somehow overlooks the fact that Toyota in particular is one of the few automakers actually opening new plants in Canada as opposed to closing them.

Hargrove's suggestion that leasing may be a better model for carmakers is an intriguing idea. But Hargrove's suggestion that credit should be loosened up so consumers can take on more debt at a time of economic uncertainty is ill-conceived.

For one thing, the low consumer condfidence argument has to be considered to apply. One would be foolish to think that consumers who are leery about spending money would be interested in taking on additional debt load in order to do so.

Neither Gaudet nor Hargrove got a particularly gentle ride from the Dragons. There's good reason for this.

Gaudet and Hargrove both represent the extreme ends of the ideological spectrum that together navigated the global economy into the crisis that it's currently in.

Gaudet's focus on tax relief and allowing market forces to run their course unimpeded has already shown its toxic effects. After all, the kind of unscrupulous greed that helped precipitate this crisis should properly be considered to be a market force, likewise with the notions of anyone who thinks they should be able to earn money without producing anything of value.

Hargrove's argument that the hypothetical $20 billion should be spent heavily on the auto industry is not only clearly self-interested -- even if he isn't the president of CAW anymore, he clearly has an intrest in seeing the organization succeed -- but it also overlooks the highly questionable record of Keynesian economics over the past forty years.

In hindsight, one certainly couldn't envy Gaudet or Hargrove. The Dragons' Den seems like an extremely intense environment. Any environment that can seemingly stagger a consumate tax fighter like Kevin Gaudet cannot be taken lightly.

The propositions of both men merely reflect the alternating extremes of economic policy followed over the past thirty years. The Dragons were right to adopt the propositions of neither man, and were probably right to decline to give a red cent to the big three automakers.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Rick Spence - "Dragons Second-Guess Stephen Harper"

A Matter of Confidence

Don Newman offers a very unambitious -- and ill-conceived -- program of Parliamentary reform

Writing in a column on CBC.ca, Don Newman reflects on the recent Parliamentary crisis and draws a not-terribly-unreasonable conclusion:

We should rewrite Canada's Parliamentary rules to make minority governments more stable.

Likely few Canadians would object to a tweaking of the rules to make the defeat of a minority government a little less imminent. Few Canadians want to vote in an election just to have to rush back to vote in another.

But Newman's proposed solution may actually be much more troublesome in the long run than the comparable instability of minority governments under the current system. Newman proposes that the rules place some rather excessive limits on what may or may not be considered a confidence vote:

"One suggestion would be for fewer confidence votes. The Russian-roulette style of parties, either in opposition or in government, trying to create votes of confidence around bills or issues that are not really tests of confidence should be prohibited.

Confidence votes should be limited to the budget, spending estimates, declarations of war, treaties and the speech from the throne, the overview of the government's agenda.

If opposition parties want to gang up and amend a government bill on, say, climate change, so be it, provided the amendments do not call for significant new spending. (Controlling the public purse would remain a government responsibility.)

As well, once in each parliamentary sitting — and until now most parliaments have had two sittings between elections — there should be an opportunity for each of the opposition parties to move a non-confidence motion in the government to test the will of the House.

In the current situation, that would result in a maximum of three opposition-based non-confidence motions every two years, a reduction in the opportunities the three opposition parties currently have.

The real test, of course, is what happens when a government loses a vote of confidence. Then it should fall to the governor general to try to find a new government, which would continue in power until the next fixed election date — or until it was defeated on a confidence measure."

It may make some sense on what can or cannot be considered a confidence vote.

But Newman overlooks the fact that there are matters that are not restricted to finances, warfare, treaties, and the throne speec that very much entail matters of confidence.

Any matter on which the opposition believes the government is risking the fundamental well-being of the country can and should be considered matters of confidence. That means that issues including (but not limited to) environmental protection and national unity could be considered confidence issues.

Clearly, the opposition parties would have to declare their intention to treat such votes as matters of confidence, and should be required to present their case to the Governor General before the vote takes place.

Of course, this is a proposition that would actually mean very little if the office of Governor General could not itself be reformed. Making opposition parties argue their case for a confidence vote before an unelected (read: appointed) official wouldn't work any wonders for the democratic integrity of such a reform.

Canada would have to institute a system for electing the Governor General before any such reform could even be close to being considered democratic.

An interesting possible model for reforming the act of the non-confidence vote itself could be found in Germany, where a constructive vote of confidence is required in order to actually defeat the government. The opposition coalitions in Germany -- German politics, with is combination of directly elected and proportionally-elected parliamentarians, inherently directs German political parties toward forming coalitions -- cannot defeat the government without being able to establish an alternative government.

There are at least three problems with such a proposition. First off, the democratic models used in other countries can rarely be applied perfectly to other countries. Second, it would strip opposition parties of the ability to defeat the government in order to trigger an election; this is something that opposition parties will often want to do. Third, the alternative government would need to be expected to be able to hold the confidence of Parliament.

As it regards Canada's recent crisis, however, one is reminded of the central role of the Bloc Quebecois in forming and propping that coalition up. The Liberal-NDP coalition could not reasonably be expected to hold the confidence of Parliament on any matter related to national unity. Not so long as it relied on the formalized support of a separatist party.

The question of whether or not a government could be expected to hold the confidence of the house also applies to any coalition government proposal. As it regards the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition, there is no question that it cannot be justified on these grounds. Without the support of a separatist party -- support that undermines it on a key tenet of confidence -- this government could not hold the confidence of the House. Without that support they hold fewer seats than the would-be opposition Tories.

Then there is always the most important aspect of the matter: proposing reforms to Canada's political system is easy. Actually making them work is a great deal more difficult.

A Lament For Lessons Unlearned

Here's what you should have learned, Heather

As most people grow into adulthood, they find themselves in a rather precarious position.

No longer children but not yet fully adults, the safety net that had accompanied childhood is mostly gone -- except under the direst of circumstances -- and the pressure to become a better, stronger and more independent person truly mounts.

A premium quickly emerges to learn from one's mistakes.

So then what does it say about CBC op/ed columnist and fervent blinkered left-wing feminist ideologue Heather Mallick that she can't seem to learn from hers?

In a column published by CBC yesterday, Mallick at long last offers her thoughts on the controversy that emerged following her notorious "Mighty Wind" column:

"A month ago, I wrote about Sarah Palin's unfitness to be the Republican vice-presidential nominee and attracted the wholly unwelcome attention of Fox News and its viewers."

So Mallick considers Sarah Palin unfit to be the Republican Vice Presidential nominee. Fair enough. There's a case to made for that, if one can actually make it.

But many observers feel that Mallick herself is unfit to be a journalist -- the case she made for herself when she resorted to a personal attack in lieu of actual legitimate political criticism.

For those, like Mallick, so driven to the depths of loonishness by Palin's nomination, may benefit from a few quick notes about how to not make oneself look like a political vulture:

First off, attacks on a politician's family are extremely bad form.

Second, the personal relationships of family members of a politician (such as Bristol Palin's relationship with Levi Johnson) should be considered off-limits. Once again, not only is this bad form, but actually suggests that you're unable of debating the issues.

Third, try not to show your actual contempt for the people you claim to give a shit about.

Fourth, making unsubstantiated claims about a broad group of people tends to make one look, frankly, stupid.

Last but not least, don't bait the crazies. For example, if one knows that there are unstable individuals among America's Republican right -- and there most certainly are -- then dismissing the lot of them as sexually inadequate "white trash" may not be the best idea.

Which is really what Mallick's characterization of the attention of Fox News and its viewers as "unwelcome".

Was she operating under some delusion that cbc.ca is unavailable in the United States? Or that maybe, just maybe, they'd never find out about it?

Or maybe the entire point was to attract said attention, and to stir up the ensuing controversy. Except that this one turned out to bite Mallick in the ass a little bit, fatally damaging the very slim journalistic credibility she once possessed.

There's something about writing a column with the vicious character of Mallick's "Mighty Wind" article and then complaining about receiving hate mail afterward.

Sarah Palin's favourite joke could probably be paraphrased as such: "What's the difference between a pit bull and Heather Mallick? A pit bull doesn't poke a hornet's nest and then whine about it afterward."

Or was it "lipstick"?

No matter.

Unsurprisingly, Mallick seems ill-prepared to take any responsibility for her own comments. In fact, in Kevin Potvin-esque fashion, she predictably blames Fox News for provoking the outrage:

"After Fox got the firestorm restarted, we redirected the next few hundred threats to the e-mail belonging to my husband, who is British and unflappable. He initially read them, rather than mass-delete, so that kind people offering encouragement would not be ignored. Readers are hurt when you don't reply. Canadians are nice. Angry sometimes, but not violent.

But Fox viewers are a piece of work. I last appeared on Fox News in 2004 when I went on Bill O'Reilly's show to defend American war resisters sheltering in Canada. O'Reilly lost his mind, if he ever had one, and he was so mad about Vancouver's safe-injection site that he threatened to tell his fans to boycott Canada and destroy our economy, as they had that of France, he alleged, ludicrously. The conversation was so deranged that anti-Foxers sent me personalized "baguette" coffee mugs as souvenirs. "Beellions of dollairs," they read.

This time, I explained to Fox producers that I couldn't appear because Fox viewers are, like their hosts, too violently brutish to alienate. Fox shows aren't interviews so much as bear-baiting. I didn't watch the Fox shows on the subject of me or read the subsequent Canadian commentary in print or online."

So in the end, Mallick seems to take no responsibility for the response to her own comments. In fact, in Mallick's mind, her comments have nothing to do with the entire affair. Instead, Fox News (and all the other news outlets, both off- and online) are to blame.

Yet perhaps the greatest irony in Mallick's response to the entire affair is that she doesn't yet seem to have comprehended just how much like her hated right-wing counterparts on Fox news she really has shown herself to be.

Take, for example, the comments offered on the matter by Fox News commentator Greta Van Susteren, who responded to Mallick's comparison of Sarah Palin to a porn star by calling Mallick a "pig".

To put this in suitable context, when Heather Mallick was confronted with a Vice Presidential candidate she didn't like, she wrote an insult-laden tirade about her and her supporters. When Greta Van Susteren read the article, she settled for insulting Mallick back.

Sadly, this is all preschool calibre politics with no sense whatsoever of the larger issues at stake in this particular matter.

As mentioned here previously, Heather Mallick, of all people should be able to regard a pregnant teenager as a societal dilemma -- one created as much by Mallick's left-wing feminism as by the religious right -- rather than merely a political football to be punted.

Political field goals may be treated as points on the board, but recognizing and solving the real problems are the touchdowns of the game.

But if one needed any further proof that Mallick simply doesn't get it, one only needs consider the following passage:

"Online has brought instant media democratization as well as the erasure of national borders. And websites have not devised a way to keep online forums civilized. "There's no point debating anything online," writes the columnist Charlie Brooker. "You might as well hurl shoes in the air to knock clouds from the sky."

I used to write for print newspapers - an endangered species of their own - but this squabble made me think of Lévi-Strauss's theory of human culture, the raw versus the cooked: Cooking marks the transition from nature to culture. Online commentary is still mostly raw.

I have now discovered the joy of no e-mail; I cannot tell you how peaceful and happy life has become in the world of the cooked."

Apparently, in Mallick's mind, to attack the family of a political opponent and label their supporters as "white trash" qualifies as cultured.

The absurdity of that very notion need not be commented on or explained here.

Only a blinkered ideologue -- as Lindsay Stewart, an apparent huge fan of Mallick's wound describe her if he could muster the sense to do so -- Heather Mallick could come out of something like this with their arrogant sense of superiority intact.

But then again, this may be the greatest tragedy of an individual who, even at Mallick's age (she turns 50 next year), has yet to achieve full adult hood.

It's a lament for lessons unlearned.

Leave This One to the Pros, Kids...

Cruickshank, Carlin not alone in their assessment of Mallick's "Mighty Wind"

In the wake of the CBC's mea culpa regarding Heather Mallick's "Mighty Wind" op/ed column, a distinct odour is spreading through some of the darkest corners of Canada's left-wing blogosphere.

It's the familiar stink of outrage.

The CBC is merely being gutless, and caving into right-wing interests, the consensus seems to be.

Yet the consensus among media professionals -- people who actually confront issues such as those surrounding the infamous Mallick article -- is that the CBC was precisely right in its judgment. As the Globe and Mail's Margaret Wente points out, one need not even be a Palin supporter to figure this out:

"It's fun to bash Sarah Palin. I should know. I've been doing it for weeks. But nobody has bashed her quite as viciously as a semi-obscure columnist named Heather Mallick.

"Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look ... the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression," she wrote in a column that was posted Sept. 5 on the CBC's online news site. And she didn't stop there. She went on to refer to Republican men as "sexual inadequates," small-town Americans as "hicks" and "hillbillies," Bristol's boyfriend, Levi, as a "ratboy," and the Palins as terrible parents. "What normal father would want Levi 'I'm a fuckin' redneck' Johnson prodding his daughter?" she wondered.

Vitriolic drivel is all the rage these days. The blogosphere is full of it. But this drivel was bought and paid for by the CBC. And soon the organic waste material hit the fan. The National Post went ballistic. So did Fox News, which loves nothing better than denouncing the left-wing loonies who live up here in Canada.

"Is this what actually passes for commentary at a publicly funded broadcasting company in Canada?" seethed a Fox News babe. Even Fox's Greta Van Susteren got into the act. She called Ms. Mallick a "pig." Ms. Mallick was deluged with hate mail, and the CBC with hundreds of complaints. Ms. Van Susteren said it was all in fun and invited Ms. Mallick on the air, but she declined.

Ms. Mallick has professed shock at the hate mail she's received (tell me about it), while revelling in her new-found notoriety. But Sunday, the CBC finally ate crow and yanked the column from its website. "We erred in our judgment," said news publisher John Cruickshank, who called the column a "viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan" piece of political invective that should never have been published. The ombudsman had looked into the matter, and found many of her "most savage assertions lack a basis in fact." I'll say. For one thing, she obviously knows nothing about the sex lives of Republicans.

The Mallick affair is bad news for the CBC, because it reinforces the widespread belief the place is a hotbed of left-wing bias. That's not good news when a Tory government controls the purse strings. Nor is it entirely fair. The CBC's online commentary arm is not exactly the flagship of the network. It is a backwater that has served as a sort of semi-retirement home for aging lefties (think Judy Rebick) who could no longer find an outlet in the mainstream media and, one suspects, supplied copy cheap. They had little oversight and less influence - until now.

The truth about the CBC is more complicated. Its problem isn't an overt left-wing bias. Its problem is an earnest, mushy-liberal mindset that can scarcely entertain a contrarian idea. Its editors, producers and directors strive to be fair-minded. It's just hardly any of them would ever vote Tory. Oh, they try. Once they even had right-wing commentator David Frum guest-host The Current. But people were so shocked they never did it again.

Ironically, no one is more bothered by this groupthink than the top CBC managers themselves. More than one have told me that it drives them crazy. And it's no accident that left-wing faces such as Avi Lewis have recently decamped for the greener fields of English-language Al Jazeera. Although I haven't talked to Mr. Cruickshank (a former colleague), my guess is that part of his mandate is to vigorously encourage a wider range of world views. Too bad Ms. Mallick popped up to prove the critics right.

Meantime, I'm not feeling too sorry for Ms. Mallick. She is a sour, narrow-minded writer - the kind of who makes Michael Moore look like a world-class wit. Her reflexive anti-Americanism is heavy-handed and stale, to say nothing of casually racist. There are many, many ways of dissing Sarah Palin. But Ms. Mallick's naughty, coarse puerility is not among them."

This may be hard for lunatics like Lindsay Stewart to come to grips with, but plenty of people -- not merely right-wingers or denizens of the Free Republic website -- find Mallick's column objectionable, and unworthy of publishing.

But, hey, don't ask them -- they're merely professionals. What do they know?

The Proof Is In The Pudding, John

Cruickshank promises better -- now he'd better deliver

One Heather Mallick turd, 300 complaints and a media circus later, John Cruickshank has finally taken it upon himself to fix what many Canadians have been saying for years:

The CBC is unacceptably biased.

In a column regarding CBC ombudsman Vice Carlin's recent judgement on Mallick breaking an intellectual Mighty Wind, Cruickshank commented on the controversy.

Among other things, he wrote:

"Mallick's column is a classic piece of political invective. It is viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan.

And because it is all those things, this column should not have appeared on the CBCNews.ca site."

Which is precisely what, despite the protracted rantings of Mallick's defenders to the contrary, many Canadians have been saying ever since it blighted the CBC website.

More troubling than Mallick's column, however, has been the escalating bias and exclusion of conservative views by a news outlet that, by virtue of funding itself through taxpayer dollars, is obligated to try to represent the views of all Canadians -- or at least as many Canadians as possible.

This, Cruickshank insists, is about to change:

"As a public broadcaster we have an added responsibility to provide an array of opinions and voices to complement our journalism. But we must do so carefully. And you should be able to trust us to provide you with work that's based on solid reporting and free from the passionate excesses of partisanship.

We failed you in this case. And as a result we have put new editing procedures in place to insure that in the future, work that is not appropriate for our platforms, will not appear. We are open to contentious reasoned argument but not to partisan attack. It's a fine line.

Ombudsman Carlin makes another significant observation in his response to complainants: when it does choose to print opinion, CBCNews.ca displays a very narrow range on its pages.

In this, Carlin is also correct.

This, too, is being immediately addressed. CBCNews.ca will soon expand the diversity of voices and opinions and be home to a diverse group of writers with many perspectives. In this, we will better reflect the depth and texture of this country."

It's encouraging to hear this.

However, for many Canadians, the proof will inevitably be in the pudding.

In other words, those Canadians who are concerned about the current state of the CBC will take you at your word when you prove to us that it's good, Mr Curickshank -- and not a second sooner.

Here's One Way to Keep Heather Mallick Off the CBC

Hire Michael Coren.

Vince Carlin On Heather Mallick

Big words, Vince, but can Canadians expect change?

Vince Carlin seems to be leading something of a charmed life.

In his time as the CBC ombudsman, Carlin has had to preside over a number of controversies at the CBC. There were the collusion allegations between Krista and Pablo Rodriguez. Then, there was the matter of a piece appearing on The National suggesting that Bristol Palin was actually the mother of young Trig Palin.

Now, there's the Mighty Wind of wingnuttery emmenanting from Heather Mallick.

While Carlin still has yet to address the humiliating dressing-down of Neil MacDonald, he has chosen to address the controversy surrounding Mallick's extreme and bizarre comments.

In a review released two days ago, Carlin address the controversy, and makes some intriguing conclusions.

First off, many of the self-indulgent statements made by Mallick in the column were contrary to the CBC's code of journalistic practices in that they were insufficiently based on fact (descriptions of Republican men as "sexually inadequate" and Sarah Palin's supporters as "white trash").

Secondly, the CBC's code of journalistic practices is applicable to, but improperly tailored to, the CBC's new role as a web-based news outlet.

Thirdly, that the CBC does not live up to its mandate in terms of providing a broad range of views.

Which is frankly, little surprise to anyone. Least of all to Canadian conservative thinker Michael Coren, who once had a secheduled appearance on the CBC cancelled due to objection to his views.

Carlin's candid analysis of the Mighty Wind affair and its implications for the CBC should be welcomed, even and especially by those who object to Mallick's comments. But a bigger question remains unanswered -- just as questions remain unanswered in the wake of the Erickson/Rodriguez affair:

What, precisely, is going to change at the CBC?

Canadians have the right to now how, having suffered yet another definitive journalistic black eye, how Carlin and CBC editor John Cruickshank will restore journalistic credibility and balance to the CBC.

Clearly, fundamental changes need to be made at the CBC. Someone, after all, is making the decision to publish absolute garbage such as Mallick's loonish commentary on Sarah Palin, and making the decision not to give voice to other views.

Concerned Canadians will be able to feel a good deal more comfortable that there will be some real reform in the CBC when someone -- and not simply Mallick herself -- is called upon to answer for the CBC's flagrant sharfing on its own journalistic integrity.

Lowballing Themselves Into Irrelevance

Hockey theme debacle demonstrates futility of CBC

In a surprising turn of events yesterday, it was announced that, in the midst of a last-minute push by the CBC to secure the rights to the Hockey Night in Canada theme song, CTV swept in and ferried the iconic tune away in perpetuity.

The song will now be used for TSN's expanded coverage of the NHL.

Of course, the move doesn't come without some degree of controversy -- no matter how manufactured.

"The two sides were so far apart and there was so much bad blood that we knew a deal would be difficult," insisted CBC Sports Director Scott Moore. "The reality is it takes two sides to do a deal and we tried everything we could to do a deal. We offered arbitration, mediation — we offered to meet their price. On Friday, when it came right down to it, we never got a response from them on our latest offer and find out, in the meantime, they appeared to be negotiating with CTV."

Of course, Moore's claims defy credulity. If the CBC had really offered to meet the price being asked by Copyright Music & Visuals on Dolores Clayman's behalf they would have had what people with any kind of business background whatsoever refer to as a "deal".

Instead, "the Hockey Theme" has found a new home on CTV, and egg has found a new home, too -- on the CBC's face.

Of course, the entire debacle really only serves to underscore various difficulties the CBC has had over the last few years, and the most difficult is continuing to justify its own existence in an environment in which it's becoming harder to justify.

Part of the CBC's mandate is to preserve Candian culture and identity by producing and promoting Canadian programming and keeping various broadcasting traditions alive.

Yet when it comes time to pony up some dough to maintain an iconic Canadian tradition -- the opening of Hockey Night in Canada with a song that has become one of Canada's greatest cultural touchstones -- the CBC lowballed itself into an extremely embarrassing situation where, instead, a rival network has become the steward of this cultural icon, established under the Mothercorp.

Not to mention an even more embarrassing situation in which the CBC was profiting off downloads and ringtones of the song without giving a portion to Clayman.

Public broadcasting in Canada is quickly approaching a crisis point -- one that it seems ill-equipped to handle. It has various important roles in Canadian society, and yet continues to undermine both.

The maintenance of Canadian culture is one.

Another is broadcasting into remote regions of the country and providing the residents of such areas with news and information about the outside a world -- a role that is drastically harmed by the numerous journalistic scandals that have enveloped the CBC over the past couple of years.

A large-scale overhaul is needed at the CBC, and the window of opportunity to do it is beginning to close.

No Joke: Air Farce to Make its Final Flight

Tarnished Canadian institution to be put out of its misery

When it was announced yesterday that the Royal Canadian Air Farce would be disbanding at the conclusion of an abbreviated 16th season, many people assumed it was nothing more than an April Fool's gag.

The date is now 2 April and it seems official: the Air Farce will dissolve following next season.

It seems someone in the CBC has finally resolved to put the show, a sad empty shell of its former self, out of its misery.

Believe it or not, there was a time when the Air Farce used to be funny. It used to be a weekly non-partisan send-up of our political leaders and Canadian culture in general.

Then guys like this guy got his hands on the show. Ever since then, the show has been on a not-so-gradual slide into gratuitous partisanship.

In the meantime, they did manage to find time to make fun of some Canadian culture they clearly never had time to get familiar with in the first place:



And go out of the way to malign our neighbors to the South:



(Ironically, the Canadian version of the show -- entitled Are You Smarter Than a Canadian Fifth Grader? -- is hosted by an Air Farce alumnus.)

It is sad to see the Air Farce going off the air. But considering the long, sad decline of the show, it might be for the best.

Those of us who loved the show back when it actually used to be good will try to remember the Air Farce the way it used to be: funny.

Toronto Terror: Trial by Media?

Trial for Toronto 18 Begins

The trial for the 18 individuals charged for a summer 2006 bomb plot targeting Parliament Hill and the Toronto Stock Exchange, amongst other targets, formally got underway today.

Of course, some insist that was has unfolded since the 2 June, 2006 arrest has been a "trial by media".

On that note, it becomes very interesting to notice that between Canada's two preeminent media outlets, one seems intent to play the role of the prosecution, by focusing on the case laid against the Toronto 18, while the other seems intent on playing the role of the defence.

This is quite unfortunate. For Canadians to fully understand the trial of the Toronto 18 and the key issues of law, order, and civil liberties underlaying such a case, they need to understand both cases.

So, first, from the prosecution:

Crown lawyers expect to present evidence against the Toronto-area terror suspects that show some of the accused planned to commit attacks more deadly than the London subway bombings, according to documents filed in court containing anticipated evidence.

New details contained in the Crown factum that was filed at the trial of the only remaining youth charged allege prosecutors have audio tapes and video tape evidence of some of the suspects plotting several explosions.

The factum contains transcripts of alleged conversations between suspects, including one where one of the accused speaks about the group's violent ambitions.

"They're probably expecting what happened in London or something," the man is quoted as saying. "... Some bombing in a subway kills 10 people and everybody gets deported.

"We're not doing that. ... So our thing it's, it's much, much greater on a scale ... you do it once and you make sure they can never recover again."

The July 2005 bombings in London, carried out by four suicide bombers, claimed the lives of 52 commuters.

One video allegedly shows the Toronto-area suspects at a wooded area in rural Ontario. A passionate speaker is heard saying the men have to "wage war against Rome" -- the Western powers including Canada, the United States, Britain and France.

"Our mission's greater, whether we get arrested, whether we get killed .... Rome has to be defeated. And we have to be the ones that do it," the speaker allegedly says.

The Crown alleges the accused attended two so-called training camps -- one near the town of Washago and the other at the Rockwood Conservation Area near Guelph. The suspects are accused of taking part in military-style exercises in camouflage gear and firearms training with a 9-mm firearm.

The group is accused of planning to storm the Parliament buildings in Ottawa, taking politicians (including the prime minister) hostage and beheading them.

The Crown's filing also alleges that the men planned to construct a radio frequency remote-controlled detonator.

None of these allegations have been proven or tested in court.

The 18 suspects of the alleged al Qaeda-inspired cell were arrested in July 2006. Fourteen men, four of whom are free on bail, are charged with various terrorism-related offences.

Four teens were initially charged, however, charges against three of the youths have been stayed.

The Crown is asking the judge to impose a publication ban to prevent the media from linking evidence at the trial to any of the other adult suspects by name, saying the evidence is "prejudicial" and could destroy any chances of the other suspects getting a fair trial.

The youth's trial has begun with numerous pretrial motions. Evidence is not expected to be heard until mid-to-late May.

Lawyers have said the trials for the adults could be months or even years away.

According to the factum filed today, prosecutors have audio and video evidence detailing the planning sessions for the attack. They allude directly to the London 7/7 Tube bombings, planning to eclipse them in the public mind.

The prosecution also alleges that the accused trained at two terrorist training camps -- one near Washago, Ontario, and the other near Guelph.

Although CTV does recognize that the accused are innocent until proven guilty, although their story contains little mention of the defence council's claims.

And on that note, now for the defence:

A defence lawyer in the alleged Toronto-area bomb plot case filed a court document Wednesday attacking the Crown's case as fanciful and based largely on the unsubstantiated allegations of an unreliable police informant.

The defence factum, a summary of the case that lawyers will argue during the trial, takes on some of the more dramatic allegations made in Crown documents submitted on Tuesday.

The factum was filed on behalf of one of the adult accused whose case has yet to go to trial.

The trial began this week of another defendant, who was 18 at the time of his arrest and cannot be named under the terms of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The factum says the defence lawyer will show that a so-called "jihadist" training camp run by some of the accused was nothing more than a screening exercise for possible recruits to Islamic militancy, and few of the participants in training at the camp — near the southern Ontario town of Orillia — knew what they were involved in.

Two of the other defendants who have yet to go on trial ran the camp, the factum says, and concealed its purpose from other participants. Trainees took part in winter camping activities but were so ill-equipped for the cold weather that they spent much of their time in a nearby Tim Hortons coffee shop.

Informant brought bullets: lawyer

The document acknowledges that some firearms training took place, but it alleges that the only person to bring live ammunition to the camp was a police informant. That same informant was the person who actually conducted the gun exercises, the factum says.

In addition, the document alleges that the only source of information about what was happening at the Orillia camp was the police informant. There was no "real time" police surveillance, it says.

Responding to transcripts of audio tapes of a police wiretap that the Crown claims were "damning and disturbing" proof of a militant Islamist bomb plot, the factum filed Wednesday said the defendant was not present at the time that other accused were talking about attacking Parliament and the headquarters of CSIS and the CBC.

The factum concludes with an argument against the Crown's request for a publication ban on the names of the defendants, or any evidence that might help identify them.

The document says police and government officials have already taken part in "orgiastic and self congratulatory press gathering[s] … during which evermore private details and 'investigative gossip' were revealed to inflame and misinform the public."

No witnesses until May

"Restricting the publication of evidence at a trial is the sharp edge of a slippery slope," the factum states, "which … results in 'Star Chamber' or military commission [-style] trials where the public's right to know is supplanted by the government desire to withhold."

The document says the defendant would suffer unduly from a publication ban because he wouldn't be disassociated from some of the worst allegations being made in the case.

In all, 18 suspects were originally charged with offences related to supporting terrorism, but three have had charges against them stayed.

None of the evidence detailed in the Crown review has been tested in court.

Although the trial officially began Tuesday, the first witnesses are not expected to be called until May 27.

In short, the factum filed on behalf of this particular defendant concedes that there was, in fact, a terrorist training camp in Ontario. However, it insists that only two of the accused were aware of the true purpose of the camp, and rest were unfortunate dupes.

Instead of participating in training, the defence insists, the defendant was merely being screened for suitability for Islamic militancy.

Moreover, the defence denies that there are any audio or video recordings incriminating the accused, and that the only evidence the crown can offer is the testimony of the undercover officer.

The defence also insists that a publication ban would harm his client by not allowing him to be disassociated from the alleged details of the case. But as the Youth Criminal Justice Act forbids identifying the defendant, it's important to note that his name hasn't been associated with the alleged details of the case in the first place.

With national security -- and the means by which we preserve it -- very much at stake in these proceedings, it's very important for Canadians to understand this case. One-sided representations of the arguments in this case don't serve this purpose, and should be considered alarming to Canadians.

That being said, if the Toronto 18 truly are being tried in the media, it's at least comforting that both sides at least are being represented, even if only separately.

It may be up to the Canadian people to play the role of the judge and jury. The only question is: how many will take the time to learn the whole story?