Category Archives: Politics (MC Archive)

Politics columns that appeared on Jason Menard’s previous Web site, Menard Communications.

Home is Where the Opportunity Lies

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Liberal or local? For constituents in the London North Centre federal riding, that’s a question they may soon have to answer.

With Joe Fontana’s expected announcement that he will vacate his duly-elected seat in Parliament in favour of making a challenge for the mayor’s office, rumours have started floating regarding who would be a replacement candidate in the required by-election. And one name that’s been bandied about? Gerard Kennedy.

You know, Gerard Kennedy, born in La Pas, Manitoba and former Member of Provincial Parliament of Parkdale-High Park, in Toronto, who resigned his seat and his position as Minister of Education in his bid to lead the federal Liberals. In addition, Kennedy also lived in Edmonton and studied in Peterborough.

All of which makes him qualified to represent the good people of London North Centre how? As well travelled as Mr. Kennedy may be in this great land of ours, there is a noticeable lack of residency in the Forest City on his resume. The question is, should that matter?

This isn’t a new aspect of party politics. In fact, parties have long made it a habit of parachuting star candidates into warm ridings in order to get them official representation in the House of Commons – even if it means that a dedicated member of the community has to take one for the team and put aside their political aspirations, at least for the time being.

But whose team are we talking about? Does the Liberal Party – or any party for that sake – matter more than the representation of the people in the riding? Aren’t elected representatives supposed to be just that? The representatives of the people in a specific region or district? So how well represented will the people of London North Centre be if their potential MP has never spent any meaningful time in the riding?

That’s a question the voters have to ask. And they have to balance it with their political leanings. It’s a hard choice to reconcile and it represents the worst of party politics. If you are a tied-in-the-wool Liberal, do you put the needs of your party over your personal aspirations? Does voting in a representative, who by the very fact that they’re not of your riding – or even within the general vicinity of the area — diminish the sound of your voice in parliament? More importantly, does this type of activity not undermine the entire concept of representative government?

Admittedly, how one votes is a debate that is undertaken with each and every election. Do you vote for the person who appears to be most representative of your views and hopes for your riding, or do you choose the person who is a member of the party whose national view you favour? Do you vote for the local candidate with deep roots in the riding, even if you are skeptical about their party affiliation? Or do you roll the dice and support a candidate whose tethers to the riding are as thin as a spider’s web?

It all depends on how much value you place on individual representation. We have long been conditioned to look at the big picture, as opposed to focusing on the individual players. Coverage of elections and politics in general is greatly focused on Ottawa, as opposed to the impact that our Members of Parliament are having in their own ridings. Even election platforms, where local issues should be at the fore, are largely decided by national politicking and strategies.

So, should Kennedy be parachuted in with much fanfare and bluster, the voters in the London North Centre riding may have to decide where their sensibilities lie. Does the appeal of being the quote-unquote home riding of a potential future Prime Minister outweigh the fact that your representative may not even know who or what he’s representing.

Everyone can learn and a candidate can be well-versed on local concerns by his or her support staff, fellow regional MPs, and even a potential mayor. And there’s no questioning Kennedy’s intelligence, capability, and dedication to his cause. As well, this country has been built by those who have come from other places to settle throughout Canada, who eventually grow roots in their community and eventually become a natural part of the landscape. Can that same community entrenchment happen in a matter of months?

The old adage states that home is where the heart is and the constituents of London North Centre may soon have to decide whether they’re willing to accept someone for whom home is merely where the opportunity lies.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Take Off the Kid Gloves with Young Offenders

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Why do we continue to handle young offenders with kid gloves? It’s high time for the gloves to come off so that we can get a firm grip on the crime situation.

Recently many Londoners were appalled by the fact that two of three young offenders recently detained by police following a car chase had, in fact, been in contact with police over 430 times.

That’s right. 430 times total for two 16-year-olds. That’s 215 times each, on average. Now, assuming that these kids began their life of crime at 10, this means that they’ve been contacted by police an average of over 35 times a year. That’s almost three times a month!!

I’m no math expert, but I know that adds up to one heck of a failure for society. That’s not rebellion. That’s not reckless behaviour. That’s a concerted effort to one bad-ass stain on our society. You have to realize that this represents only 430 times that they’ve been contacted by the police. How many times have they gotten away from police scrutiny for their actions? Not even the most bumbling crook gets caught every time.

The third child, at only 13, also has an extensive history with the police. Presumably the younger hooligan is just beginning a life of crime – and the 13-year-old has certainly picked the right two thugs from whom to learn the ropes.

A London-based psychologist, with a marked gift for understatement, weighed in on the situation stating that “it sounds like these young people will have a high probability of continuing into the adult criminal justice system.” What he omitted to add were the words, “next week.” I think it’s safe to say that the second these kids are back on the street, they’ll be looking for ways to get into trouble.

So why let them back on the street in the first place?

Listen, I’m as liberal as the next guy and I know life can be tough. I also understand that people make mistakes and should be forgiven – once, twice, maybe three times. But 430 times? Sorry my patience has been tried, exhausted, and trampled upon. There’s a point where you’re no longer opposing the law, you’re now simply balling it up, spitting on it, and throwing it back into law-abiding citizens’ faces.

And it can be stopped. But fear has to enter the equation.

Simply put, kids aren’t afraid of consequences any more. We’ve become so hypersensitized to the plight of the marginalized that we fail to realize that we’re, in part, enabling their behaviour. After all, breaking the law is a choice – and it’s one that’s made all the more easy by the fact that consequences have no bite. Listen, you give a rat that goes down the wrong path a mild shock, it may try again. You buzz it so bad that it vibrates to its bones and it learns to fear going down that direction. We need to teach these human rats to fear going down the path of crime – the risk must outweigh the reward.

Incarceration is the best deterrent. Country club atmospheres, house arrests, or gentle slaps on the wrist don’t do anything but embolden future actions. Throw a kid behind bars, joining rapists, murderers, and drug runners, and you may scare a few straight. Keep ‘em safe from the general population, but instill a little fear for the future.

But locking them up and throwing away the key isn’t the only answer. You need to care for these offenders after the offence – and try to deter them before the offense. Mandatory counselling and follow-up visits should be a part of any youth’s sentence. Try to get at the root of the problem and then supervise them so they have less opportunity to reoffend. And make sure that kids have something to do instead of getting in trouble.

We don’t have to coddle our kids and make sure that their lives are filled with stimulation and cater to their every whim. Kids need to learn how to be bored without being destructive. However, finding ways to get kids to stop hanging out on the streets and getting involved in something productive is beneficial in so many ways. Whether it’s basketball leagues, community centres, or other projects, find out from the kids themselves what they’re looking for. Instead of them breaking the law for a thrill, help them find something else to fill the void.

There is room for compassion, there is room for leniency when dealing with young offenders. That should be the difference between children and adults – the sole difference. Otherwise, similar crimes should face appropriate consequences. Our kids are committing big boy and big girl offenses, they should face big boy and big girl consequences.

After all, if they know they’re going to be treated with kid gloves, what’s to make them fear taking their best shots?

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Time to Park By-law

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Let me preface this with a little story here, before I get into the meat of my discussion. It’s the story of a young 19-year-old celebrating his high school prom.

Now, of course, this was back in the days when Grade 13 was still in vogue. In fact, I think it was back in the days when En Vogue was still in vogue… But regardless, after a night of revelry and some alcoholic libations, several of us retired to a friend’s back yard, set up tents, and celebrated the conclusion of our high school experience.

Of course, many of us drove from the official prom to this more laid-back after-party. And, seeing as our hostess only had a normal-sized driveway, many of us parked on the street. The next morning, many of us also woke up to little City of London gifts tucked ever-so-maliciously under our windshield wipers — a fine for parking on the street between the hours of 3 a.m. and 5 a.m.

Now, the $20 charge wasn’t the issue – it was the principal of the matter. Begrudgingly I paid my fine, dramatically stating, “Next time I’ll comply by the law and drive drunk – I hope that’s acceptable for you!”

And that, in a nutshell, is the lunacy of this by-law. It penalizes those who are acting responsibly. Personally, I don’t think any revenue gained by these needless fines are worth the cost of one innocent life lost because an inebriated driver chose to get behind the wheel, instead of leaving the car on the side of the road.

Proponents say that other regions have similar by-laws, but I can also count a number of cities – large ones, the likes of which London often aspires to become – that have more sensible parking enforcement strategies. And if city councilors are reticent about losing the cash grab – uhm, sorry – legitimate revenue from parking offenders, then there is a simple solution to this issue that should satisfy all sides.

There is the argument that the existing by-law makes road maintenance easier, but that convenience can still exist for both the maintenance crew and the citizen or visitor. Alternating parking rights on city streets is the simplest way to satisfy all parties.

Here’s how it can work: on certain days, or between certain hours on certain days, you are restricted from parking on certain sides of the street. Simple. Easy. Clean. Clear.

Say I live on Menard Street (it’s catchy, isn’t it? And I’m more than willing to offer that up for the next round of road name suggestions). Well, from Monday at 8:00 p.m. to Tuesday at 8:00 p.m., I’m restricted from parking on the north side of the street. Then, from Wednesday at 8:00 p.m. to Thursday at 8:00 p.m., I’m restricted from parking on the south side of the street. That way, if they need to do any maintenance on Menard Street, then the workers have a 24-hour window to do so – far more convenient than the 14 hours of interrupted time the current by-law offers.

During the winter, more frequent restrictions can be put into place to enable snow plows to work their magic. Say a Monday to Thursday restriction on the north side of Menard Street and a Friday to Sunday restriction on the south side. That way, there’s always ample parking and also room for the maintenance crews.

This is London, remember. There’s not an abundance of people parking on the street. Most people either have private drives, complex parking, or parking garages, so the impact on the roadways would be minimal. And should we find that the issue grows and more people are parking on the street, preventing area residents from having close parking for their homes, then we can designate certain streets at certain times as residential parking – and the residents would obtain stickers indicating that they are allowed to park in that zone.

We’re not reinventing the wheel here. All we’re doing is taking the best of what other cities have effectively done for years and applied it to our region. There’s no need for a Made-in-London solution when the answer is so clearly available to us elsewhere.

The fact that council refused to make a change to this by-law shows that their progressive thinking gear is stuck in neutral. The way to make all parties happy is clear. And sure, there’d be a little investment in street signs, but that’s a one-time cost that can be considered an investment in fostering our city’s growth and infrastructure.

And that way, should someone know they’re going to drink a few too many, they can park appropriately before they’re under the influence – without being penalized for doing the right thing!

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

What’s in a Name? For Those at the Front, Nothing

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

World War III? An isolate skirmish? A regional conflict? Sparked in part by a Maclean’s cover story, much debate is going on about what to call the situation in Lebanon. While all descriptors may apply the most accurate description would be tragedy.

It just goes to show how far removed we are from actual conflict and its effects when we waste time and energy debating what the situation should be called. For average Lebanese and Israeli citizens, living their lives under the spectre of death from above, they remain unconcerned about nomenclature, preferring to focus on survival.

Just how far removed we are from violence was underlined with the recent arrest of Canadians plotting a terrorist action on our soil. Many in our country reacted as if the action was completed and lives had been lost. So too did the World Trade Centre attacks show just how sheltered an experience North Americans lived. Not to undermine the horrendous loss of life experienced on Sept. 11, 2001, but the sound of the Twin Towers collapsing echoed louder and longer in an environment previously devoid of that type of sound.

For people in the Middle East, gunfire, bombs, and destructions are just part of the everyday soundtrack of their lives.

We use words to categorize and control issues that we can’t fully wrap our heads around. We are incapable of accepting the immensity of a problem, therefore we’re compelled to create artificial boundaries with which we can contain an issue. If we can define it, we can conceptualize it. Unfortunately, with that description comes the minimization of the issue at hand.

Once we’ve defined the conflict, we can relate it to our experiences. If we determine this as a World War, then we can relate it to past conflicts on a global scale. However, if we maintain that this is nothing more than a more aggressive skirmish, then we are able to distance ourselves from the conflict.

Media doesn’t desensitize us – we have our own, internal defense mechanisms that do that. When the world reacts irrationally around us, we need to retreat to the security of our lives and rationalize the conflict for ourselves. And that’s one of the great powers that words hold – the ability to define.

But how we define this conflict also impacts how we will react. If conceptualized as a World War, then Canadian involvement would probably become more palatable to the majority of Canadians. Instead of being a region conflict, this becomes a cause for the world to rally around. If an Axis of Evil is defined, akin to the Germany/Italy/Japan collective of WWII, then the people world can unite against a common enemy. If clear and definite lines can be drawn to Syria and Iran, then the average citizen may accept involvement in a conflict against a greater enemy.

However, if we define it as a regional conflict, then the public may be more reluctant to risk Canadian lives in someone else’s local politics. If the battle remains between Israel and terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, then it’s harder to reconcile the idea of a massive global offensive against a small group of fundamentalists.

Yet, while we in the West grapple with the concepts of conflict, the fact remains that there are people suffering at the hands of unseen aggressors. Innocent Lebanese and Israelis, through no fault other than geographic location, are dying in a fight that is not their own. They are the pawns on the front lines in this geopolitical chess game that are sacrificed while the kings direct the battle from the safety of the back row.

That is why the word that best describes the current situation in Lebanon is tragedy. Despite what Prime Minister Steven Harper may say, there is no matter of nuance in this situation. The truth is written out in black and white, and as we dither about with words, the actions of others are having cataclysmic effects on the innocent bystanders who find themselves in the path of on-coming missiles.

The word is tragedy – and it’s only taking on greater significance the longer we wait.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Familiar Path Leads to Dead End

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Where’s the public outcry? Where’s the mass condemnations? Or does Israel get a free pass when it comes to international relations.

Interesting how a country that’s in the process of developing nuclear capabilities, like North Korea, is met with swift and decisive condemnation and American sabre-rattling for just lobbing a few missiles, based on antiquated technology, into the ocean.

Yet Israel, a country with nuclear capabilities, is in the process of bombarding a sovereign neighbouring country as I type. In fact, our Prime Minister has gone on record supporting Israel’s actions, stating that questions regarding whether Israel has used excessive force are just questions of nuance.

I’m sorry, missiles landing on public property aren’t matters of nuance. They’re pretty much black and white – oh, and red from the innocent blood that inevitably gets spilled from actions of this sort.

South of the border, the Americans have used their veto power in the very United Nations that they’ve worked so hard to discredit to squelch an Arab-backed resolution condemning Israel for a disproportionate use of force, and which would have called for Israel to halt its offensive.

Navigating through the murky waters of Middle East politics is a treacherous endeavour at best. Criticism of Israel is often cast as anti-Semitism, regardless of whether or not the criticism is valid, reasoned, and substantiated. On the other side, it’s hard to feel sympathy for a people – the Palestinians – who choose as their elected representatives parties built upon terror and violence.

In fact, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one that many North American prefer to turn a blind towards. There are so many issues, so much history, and so much misinformation out there that the average person feels overwhelmed by the magnitude of this conflict.

For me, the best way to look at the issue is to acknowledge that both sides are right and both sides are wrong at the same time. Israelis have a right to defend their homeland in an area where many of its neighbours would like nothing more than to wipe her off the map. On the other side, Palestinians have a right to feel slighted by an international community that appropriated their land to create the nation of Israel. Both groups have valid claims to the territory, and neither can be considered wrong in their desires.

However, both sides can be considered wrong in the means they use to reach their desired ends. Kidnappings, terror, and launching of missiles that kill civilians and destroy civic infrastructure are tactics that only serve to further inflame the conflict, not work towards a solution.

After all, might doesn’t necessarily make right.

So what is the solution? How do we solve the conflict? How do you answer a question that seemingly has no answer amenable to either side? I don’t have the answer – and it certainly doesn’t seem that the powers-that-be in the region do either?

But what I, and many others around the world, can agree on is that this type of violence is not the answer. It’s inevitable that, no matter how well-intended or well-targeted the strikes may be, civilians will be the ones that bear the brunt of the attack’s force. By attacking Lebanon’s airport and civic infrastructure, it’s not Hezbollah that gets hurt – it’s the average Lebanese citizen who is simply trying to make do on a day-to-day basis.

Conversely, while suicide bombers are rampant in the Middle East, it’s rarely the political movers and shakers who are targeted, but rather the average citizen that’s trying to live a life with a semblance of normalcy, in spite of the conflict.

Whether you’re a supporter of Israel or Palestine, I think all can agree that there has to be a better solution. In the end, we’re not supporting an ideal or a nation – we’re supporting the people who are represented by those concepts. And people aren’t concepts – they’re living, breathing, entities who are just like us, regardless of their political or religious leanings.

Well, they’re living and breathing up until the point when they become collateral damage.

In the end, I can’t say that I’m on the Israeli or the Palestinian side of the debate. In fact, the only side I’m on is that of the people on both sides of the border who, like me, are just trying to live their lives. Unlike me, though, they have to do it under the daily threat of violence, terror, and the potential for paying the ultimate price for the folly of their leaders.

At this point, we don’t have the answer. But while there’s no road map to resolution, it’s safe to say that this road of violence has been well-travelled. And we’ve seen where it leads, time and time again – a dead end.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved