Forcing Voters to Sing a Different Tune

1 Reply

By Jason Menard

Apparently l’affaire Emerson shows that the real game in politics is the ol’ bait and switch – and we still don’t seem to care.

The Conservatives were the ones who worked themselves into an almost apoplectic lather back in the day – you know, when Belinda Stronach crossed the floor. So how will they react now that the shoe is on a much more familiar foot? How will the public react?

More importantly, why do we let our elected representatives get away with this? Why do we have such a low expectation towards honesty?

As a public, we question the integrity of newspapers if they accidentally misquote someone, or misrepresent the person’s intentions in text. Yet, when an elected representative misrepresents him or herself throughout an entire campaign, we sit back, grumble a bit, but don’t really do anything about it.

How do you think David Emerson’s constituents feel? Cheated? Lied to? Played for fools? How do you think they feel now that the voices they lent to him are now forced to sing a different tune.

When we cast a ballot during an election, we are not giving our elected representatives carte blanche to do what they want. We are consciously giving them the right to represent us as constituents based upon the will and desire of the electorate – not personal preferences. Emerson’s actions essentially took all those Liberal votes – many of which were probably cast in opposition to the Conservatives, not just because of a coin flip – and turned them into Conservatives.

This action is no different than either the aforementioned Stronach or former London-Fanshawe Member of Parliament Pat O’Brien. All three assumed the voters of their region voted for them personally, not for the party. And that’s an assumption that’s plain wrong.

In large part, many of the voters of Canada vote by party or by leader. They are not sufficiently aware of the individual nuances of the candidate’s platform or personality. And, while this doesn’t excuse voter disinterest, it does place an added burden on the successful candidate to understand that a significant reason behind their election is the federal party platform and leader.

So what’s the solution? Simple. If they’re not going to do it on their own, we need to force our candidates to be accountable to their electorate. Understanding that philosophies change, life changes, and opinions change, candidates should be allowed to cross to another side, or run as an independent. But – and this is a big but – the voters should have the right to cast their ballot based upon these new factors.

The candidates were voted into Parliament with the voices of the electorate – and they must to ensure that those voices are heard when any change of affiliation is made. The best way to do that? Mandate the calling of a by-election within one month of a candidate’s decision to change party affiliation. That way, if they truly have the will of the people behind them, then their new stance will be granted the added validity of an expressed vote of confidence. And if their actions runs counter to the will and desire of the constituency, then they should be forced to be accountable to their new situation.

We have election campaigns so that voters can inform themselves about the issues and stances of each party. But when a candidate then changes their stance, it invalidates that previous vote because the candidate has run on false pretences.

This isn’t about Right or Left – this is about doing the right thing. This is certainly not a partisan issue and it’s essential that action must be taken to ensure the integrity of the electoral process.

Of course, if we let this slide by again, we deserve the government we get. If you want to make a difference, please sign my on-line petition athttp://www.petitiononline.com/Canvote/petition.html and make your voice heard.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Expansion End Zone Lies East

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

While the Village People may have implored us to Go West, when it comes to CFL action the sun – and the setting – rises in the East.

In light of Tom Wright’s recent meeting with Windsor mayor Eddie Francis regarding the possibility of the border city becoming the 10 th Canadian Football League franchise, and the fact that the league seems to be enjoying resurgent popularity, naturally discussion will arise about expansion. This, along with Wright’s professed desire to see a 10 th franchise in place by the end of the decade to balance the notoriously complicated schedule, shows that the time is now for interested cities to make their move.

Unfortunately for Windsorites, their city isn’t the best choice — in fact, it’s only the third-best option in their province. And the best two choices reside farther east than Ontario. And when it comes to making a decision with both one’s heart and one’s head, Halifax emerges as the clear front-runner.

There are a number of factors that the league must consider when choosing an appropriate venue for expansion. Once bitten, twice shy doesn’t apply here – the league was devoured by the experience that was then-commissioner Larry Smith’s foray south of the border in 1993-1995. Fortunately for the league, they have a surplus of worthy locations from which to choose.

Halifax makes sense on a number of fronts. Insiders have long whispered their desire to see a franchise based in Nova Scotia to take advantage of an untapped market and to fulfill the league’s wish to be a truly Canadian entity. Geographically, the team will also help balance out the divisions without requiring realignment or disturbing traditional rivalries.

The biggest problem – and this is the same for all potential locations – is the lack of a suitable stadium. While the region has long supported university pigskin, there is no location currently capable of meeting the needs of a CFL franchise long-term. Local ownership would either have to build a stadium or enter into a Montreal Alouette/McGill-like agreement to upgrade St. Mary’s facility.

And while Halifax falls behind other expansion candidates such as Quebec City and London in terms of population, the team would absolutely have to be marketed as a regional representative – akin to Regina’s Roughriders adopting the Saskatchewan moniker. A team under the Atlantic brand would be embraced by all the Eastern provinces.

Failing that, the league should turn its attention to Quebec City. Canada’s seventh-largest metropolitan area, the capital of la belle province boasts a potential market of almost 700,000. As well, amateur and collegiate football enjoys a passionate support that markets Ontario-west could only dream of. One only has to turn to the support that Laval receives in the CIS to see that the market is starved. And, despite the loss of the NHL’s Nordiques, the region has proven that it will support professional sports. Add to that the built-in rivalry with the Alouettes and you have a recipe for long-term success.

While Windsor is getting the press, two other Ontario markets are more deserving – London (10 th largest) and Kitchener/Waterloo (11 th), with the Forest City coming out in front. London, with its metropolitan population of 416,000 sits in the middle of southwestern Ontario. Within a comfortable two-hour drive, the team could pull fans from Windsor, Kitchener-Waterloo, Hamilton, and Toronto. Again, facilities come into play at this location, but the recently built TD Waterhouse Stadium should be able to be upgraded to meet the needs of the team – of course, with the participation of the University of Western Ontario.

And finally, the blossoming Kitchener/Waterloo region is also an alternative, offering a short drive from Toronto, London, and Hamilton, and a blossoming economy. Both London and the K/W region would create intense regional rivalries with the Toronto Argonauts and the Hamilton Tiger-Cats and, again, create balance in the divisions without disturbing existing arrangements.

Financially, some of the risk has been alleviated with the league’s recent acceptance of a hard salary cap. With the ever-popular buzz-word cost certainty established, it allows the league to be a little more risky with its expansion choice. By enabling the decision to be partially emotionally based, as opposed to strictly financially motivated, Wright has the opportunity not just to make the safe field goal attempt – he can be bold and score a game-winning touchdown.

The clear choice is Halifax. Wright’s legacy can be one of creating a league that pans the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And, finally, we will have a league that truly deserves to bear the designation Canadian.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

God Should Never Be An Editor

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

In this culturally diverse world where oceans can be spanned with just the click of a mouse, what obligation do we have to ensuring cultural sensitivity – and where is the line between commentary and cruelty drawn?

This is a question that has arisen again with the publication of editorial cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten. The cartoons, which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad wearing a turban shaped like a bomb with a lit fuse, have drawn the ire of Muslims around the world and has led to violent demonstrations.

Let’s move beyond the paradox that is Muslims reacting with violence to a cartoon that was designed to depict them as a violent people. Let’s look at the issue of responsibility. Islamic law forbids any depiction of the prophet Muhammad in order to prevent idolatry. But should we expect a newspaper in a non-Muslim country to adhere to the beliefs and tenets of another religion?

The answer is yes – and no.

Obviously Jyllands Posten has to consider the fact that some of its readership will be Muslim and should treat them with the same respect that they would any other religion. To imply that all adherents to a religion are violent is stereotyping at its worst – and certainly wouldn’t be accepted if the image was of an avaricious person of Jewish decent. Given that, we can question the sensitivity, but not the motivation of the paper.

In their attempt to make a commentary about a certain sub-section of a religious group that bastardizes the teaching of the Quran, they unfairly painted all Muslims with the same broad brushstrokes. However, their depiction still falls into the realm of commentary.

It is when other right-wing papers decide to reprint the cartoons as a show of solidarity to freedom of the press that the line is crossed into cruelty. It is one thing to publish something that offends a segment of your readership without knowing – it is something different entirely when you do so knowing that a segment of the population has already expressed their displeasure. It is especially heinous when you choose to publish them for no other reason than to incite anger. The publication of these editorial cartoons in these papers was done only to support the rights of free speech – not to further any sort of coverage in their own publication.

And there is the greatest transgression. Yes, free speech is paramount, but that right to free speech carries with it an even greater responsibility to use it wisely. In this case, one could say it wasn’t done.

The decisions on what to publish and when is not always easy, and I can draw upon personal experience to relate to this issue. Many moons ago, when I was editor-in-chief of a daily student publication, I was faced with a similar response to a decision I made. And while I stand behind the principles of my decision today, I see that my zealousness for protection of freedom of speech was not tempered by my understanding of human nature – and the need to do right by the people I was mandated to serve.

At the time, we were blessed to have a talented daily cartoonist, who created a strip called Horowitz. In one panel, he created the image of the Christian god, watching Highway to Heaven, and on the phone with Allah. To paraphrase the text, the Christian god said, “Hey Allah, it’s God. Have you started your world yet? No, me neither.” And the caption read something like “despite what’s believed, God in fact slacked off for six days and crammed on the seventh.”

The initial publication of this cartoon drew mild controversy, of which I was aware when I chose to publish it again during my tenure at the helm of the paper. And that’s when all hell broke loose. Despite doing everything I could my year to be inclusionary to all groups, I was branded as anti-Arab through this one action.

My decision was prompted by two things: one, I thought the comic was damn funny. And, two: I wanted to assert the rights of the press over the tenets of a religious belief. While I still believe I was morally in the right to do so, looking back on it I can see how I neglected the needs of a significant sub-section of my readership.

The fact is that the paper I worked with had an obligation to represent all groups on campus, no matter what their race, religion, or creed. But, by the same token, I was not beholden to them to define my editorial stance by their beliefs.

It is unfair for any one religious group, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or other, to expect a secular publication to obey the laws of its faith. Newspapers are secular in nature and must remain so to maintain their objectivity and credibility. That being said, while they must push the envelope and challenge their readership, they must understand the sensitivity of certain issues.

Certain religious groups forbid the spelling of the word god in print. Others demand the absence of all imagery because of the worship of falls idols. The fact of the matter is that the media must remain outside these rules – they are not above of below, but the media is separate and must remain so.

But in our increasingly diverse world, we must strive to be more respectful and more sensitive of other people’s beliefs. That doesn’t mean we must kowtow to their religious tenets, but we should make more of an effort to understand. And, on the other side, religious groups must realize that their laws do not necessarily apply to everyone on the planet, nor should they expect everyone to abide by their rules.

It’s a matter of respect – and both sides must respect the other if we’re to move forward as a global community. If we wish to continue to enjoy freedom of the press and freedom of religion, we must ensure that we use those freedoms wisely.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

The Sky Still Hasn’t Fallen

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Recently at a hospital clinic the specialist greeted my wife and I with a simple, but telling, comment. He said, “Well, one week into a new government and the sky still hasn’t fallen.”

If that doesn’t sum it all up, I don’t know what would. We’re in a national wait and see position. The left-leaning among us are watching and waiting for that other shoe to drop – some would say in a goose-stepping fashion – and the expected Conservative deluge to come forth.

Most importantly, all of us on both sides of the electorate, are waiting to see what Stephen Harper’s going to do. He’s waved the saber at the Americans over the Arctic waters – partly because it’s the right thing to do, and partly to distance himself from the U.S.-based conservatives who threaten to stain Harper’s Conservatives with a little Bushian Republicanism. The Prime Minister-designate has also committed to continuing Canada’s role in supporting international initiatives, such as overseeing the elections in Haiti.

Most of us don’t know what he’s going to do first — and we’re waiting with bated breath.

As the medical specialist said, the sky isn’t falling. But most of us aren’t ready to tear down the scaffolding just yet, because we’re worried about the shaky foundations that our country’s future is built on.

Really, you have to feel bad for Harper. He can’t even field a congratulatory phone call from George Bush without some looking at it as validation of the U.S. right-wing’s glee over a new, conservative-minded regime running things north of the 49 th. If Bush called Martin after a victory, no one would have blinked an eye, but the allure of a Bush/Harper marriage is too much to resist.

So where does Harper go? Knowing that this minority probably won’t fare much better than its predecessors, he has two options before him. He can go conservative, which ironically means that he’ll have to be a softer, more-Liberal, Stephen. Or he can go all out and push the limits and resilience of his opposition. And somewhere, in the back of his mind, that option has to look appealing.

Knowing that the Liberals are in full-scale rebuilding mode and with several of their supposed leadership candidates eschewing the allures of the top post, Harper knows that the Liberals don’t want another election any time soon – especially if it means that Paul Martin and his baggage is back for another kick at the can.

As well, he has to be aware of voter fatigue. We’ve gone through two federal elections in under two years. We’ve borne a great expense for our dedication to democracy, and Harper would be wise to warn his opponents that any action that brings down the government will be presented to the public as a waste of taxpayer money. Nothing frightens an opposition more than the idea of being blamed for forcing us to spend another 150 million plus on yet another election.

So why not go for it? Why not be bold and put most or all of his eggs in one basket? Commit to the drastic tax cuts, the increased spending, and the social changes that he ran on in the first year of power. Force the opposition to make the choice between swallowing a bitter mandate pill or face an angry electorate.

Playing it safe and appealing to the middle-of-the-road voters would only anger the hawks in his own party and lead to inter-party squabbling down the road. The best offence is a good defense – and with three left-leaning parties in opposition and no apparent common ground to stand upon, the Conservatives’ best strategy may be to engage in an aggressive establishment of his platform.

That would mean that the sky would truly be falling for all the left-wingers out there – but the skies would be clear and sunny for all those right-wingers who have been waiting 12 years for their moment in the sun.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Rewinding the Soundtrack of Our Game

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Who knew that from the ashes of the organ would rise, Phoenix-like, a much more obnoxious beast? And, like the guy who recycles the same stable of jokes each time you meet him, it’s time to say enough is enough!

The majestic organ interludes of our past have been replaced by a far more insidious beast – the arena DJ who is overly self-impressed with his own wit. Anyone who’s attended a hockey game recently knows that the musical interludes during a game can be painful. Like a bad schoolyard pun, the music selections elicit more groans than grins and can, in fact, take away from an otherwise-improved product.

It was bad enough that hockey arenas were the last bastion of ‘90s dance-pop. While Pump Up the Jam and Get Ready 4 This long stopped echoing off the dance floor and from the radio airwaves, they are in regular rotation at any arena across the continent. By all rights, 2 Unlimited and Technotronic should have faded into Behind-the-Music-esque obscurity, but their continued existence is validated by these faceless few manning the soundboards.

And it’s not enough to simply rehash the less-than-classics. Perhaps resentful of the fact that all those in attendance are there to watch the on-ice action and not appreciate their disc jockeying talents, these self-same few seem to enjoy inflicting aural pain on their captive audience. How else can you explain the repeated playing of Cotton Eye Joe, a song that sticks in your brain in much the same manner – and with a similar effect – of a tumour?

But all of this sadistic musical torture could be excused if not for the indulgence of their alleged wit. A phenomenon that I would like to refer to as Situational Song Styling is growing in popularity. You’ve probably experienced it first-hand: from the playing of War’s Why Can’t We Be Friends? during (or after) a fight to Eric Carmen’s All By Myself when a player finds himself alone in the penalty box, these stadium DJs attempt to dazzle us with their ability to reference song lyrics to on-ice situations.

The list just goes on and on: Carl Douglas’ Kung Fu Fighting after a scrap; Kenny Loggins’I’m Alright following an injury; Supertramp’s Waiting So Long during a stoppage in play or while the referees are reviewing a play. These songs – and the artists – have earned their rest and their rightful place in the back of the discount rack. And that’s where they should stay.

Bad music just cheapens the game and we as fans do nothing about it. While we could never imagine replacing Flight of the Valkyries with the Theme from Greatest American Hero (Believe it or Not) during that climactic scene in Apocalypse Now, we have no problem tarnishing an exciting hockey game with a rousing rendition of Mambo #5.

There’s something to be said for paying the game of hockey the respect it deserves. Yes, the game’s supposed to be exciting, yes it’s supposed to be fun, but the music is supposed to enhance the on-ice product. It’s not supposed to detract from it, or, worse, attempt to steal attention away from it.

That’s why it’s time to bring back the organ to our beloved game of hockey. PlayingY.M.C.A. does nothing but distracts the fans from the on-ice action and removes them from the game. However, a few notes on an organ can ramp up the fans’ involvement in the action. An organ fanfare leading to an enthusiastic, “Charge!” increases the shared experience. No matter what your denomination, Havah Nagilah is the perfect tune to build up a fan’s enthusiasm to a rousing crescendo.

There was something majestic about the pairing of organs and hockey arenas. And with the death of the arena in Chicago Stadium in 1994 that era passed. We’ve moved from a time where arenas bore symbolic names to where a team’s home is nothing more than a commodity to be sold. That commercialization has entered into the on-ice realm as well, with this cheapening of the musical experience. The grand ol’ game of hockey is in danger of devolving into a basketball-like spectacle, where every stoppage of play must be obscured by mind-numbing, pulse-pounding music. But fans have more of an attention span than that and it’s time to take back our game – and its soundtrack.

As it stands now, the ambiance of our game is overwhelmed by the ego and alleged wit of a faceless DJ. And perhaps they remain cloaked in anonymity because they know that if we as fans could, just once, face the music – or at least the person behind the music – there’d be hell to pay. While I’m not advocating violence, there are, in fact, fates far worse than that.

Yes, as punishment, we could subject these arena DJs to an endless loop of Who Let the Dogs Out and That’s the Way I Like It. It shouldn’t be too hard to find a copy – after all, we know these DJs have them in their library!

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved