10/22/2014: Shots Fired in Ottawa, Pt.1

Tragedy, death, chaos. Nobody could have seen it coming or imagined that a normal midweek day in Ottawa would come to this, with MPs scattering and running from something more real than bad press. However, the unthinkable has happened. Just before 10 A.M. on October 22, a soldier standing guard at the War Memorial in Ottawa was shot by a man with a long gun - reports indicate a shotgun, and also the soldier's later death in a hospital. After an unknown number of shots the man got into a car and traveled just up the street to Parliament Hill, where he gained entry to the centre block of Canadian Parliament where he was shot dead by the sergeant-at-arms, police and security forces in a pitched and very one-sided gunfight. There is video of the event that took place inside.

Meanwhile, the surrounding city is under lockdown as two other suspects are sought. Details are rather scarce and a few false alarms have already been defused, including one at the downtown Westin hotel. A large cordon around Parliament Hill has been set up and Canada's elite counter-terrorist division, JTF2, is on scene. Police are telling people to get away, get inside, and stay away from windows. Nobody is taking any chances, and civilians have been evacuated from nearby buildings as the search continues for two other suspects.

Usually when people get shot in Ottawa, there's a clear criminal motive - it's typically violence related to the drug trade. A major political figure, D'Arcy McGee, was shot to death by an assassin in 1868, on Sparks St. (near Parliament) so there is some precedent, but an assassination is much different than a shooting spree. Terrorism has been invoked as a cause for the shooting, mostly because nobody can think of a better reason for such a senseless act of violence.

The act is contrary to what Canada stands for - the inclusiveness and openness of Parliament Hill, a place thousands of people pass through each year, where hundreds of pot smokers gather each April, could only have aided the gunman. It is tempting to say that is an effect of naivete on the part of Canadians, but it is considered rather a sign of strength and surety, a calmly rational decision to not give into fear. All that might change in the coming weeks. The attack has already sidelined a meeting between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and recent Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai.

This is the second attack on a Canadian soldier in a week (two were struck by a car in Montreal - one died) and they've been warned by officials to stay out of uniform in public. The violence is alleged to be the highly trendy 'lone wolf' attacks, committed at the urging of ISIS leaders, in response to Western aggression. My question is how the usual RCMP teams on the Hill missed the attacker, there are usually a number of cars and officers around, plus cameras - fairly good security but the sleepiness of Ottawa can lull anyone into a sense of security. The twenty-four hour news cycle will on this for the next 12 hours at least. An intensification of the security state apparatus seems almost inevitable, even at this early point in time.

The fallout from this will be interesting, and many will be watching. However the story has entered a fallow mid-life lull of repetition and speculation - the facts as known are only that one soldier was shot and later died, that at least one gunman carried out the attack and was shot dead in Centre Block of Parliament, and that downtown Ottawa is locked, and everything around Parliament cordoned off while searches are made for further suspects. One thing is certain: the official response was not lackluster.

Canadian Political Update: Death of a Legend

This is Jack Layton all over again. The honorable Jim Flaherty was pretty much the only guy in the entire CPC (the much maligned party of the machine-like Stephen Harper administration) who was well liked and at least as competent as he was respected. In terms of fiscal policy he was a latter day Paul Martin, holding together a country with a problematic and potentially dim economic future. Here's to Jim Flaherty, the man who killed the penny, kept a large and diverse country from falling apart during a deep and cutting recession, and who wasn't afraid to lash his raft to a ridiculous flotilla of egoistic idiots and domineering mutants as long as it allowed him a chance to do what was right and important to him: balancing the books. If you've not heard yet: he died earlier today. Cue elegies.

It is a sobering thing that came out of the blue, happening just as Canadian politics were ripe for wagers, with staffers getting kicked out the back door of parliament in the dead of night, victims of failed power-grabs. A new reason for MPs to cry openly in the streets and alleyways of Ottawa.  A real downer, reminding the people of Canada that there is always a cost, that happy endings can be few and far between amidst the cocaine and scandal of the political class. Without a likeable character or strong finance minister, the Conservative Party of Canada will be frantic – moreso than usual – to grasp at some kind of legitimacy, even as it comes to light that just about everyone in the party (with the exception of the late Mr. Flaherty, and maybe Prime Minister Harper) was wasting taxpayer money, scheming corrupt acts, contemptuous of the public, or doing anything other than being constructive or humble.

I want to pay my respects to the man who was really the hallowed minority of likeable Canadian Conservatives, one who put duty above ideology, and the only one who transcended the ingrained curmudgeonliness of the role to be a real public servant without flogging any personal brand or becoming self-righteous or mad with power. Whatever else his shortcomings, he didn't fuck up the country and its people will be universally thankful for his service and sorry for his early and sudden passing. He did his work as well as he could, and balanced the budget against all odds, leaving an improved situation for his successors. Three weeks ago, when he stepped down as finance minister, the word on the street was his decision was prompted by bad news or bad health, or maybe the coming apocalypse. Likely it was a combination of the former two issues, and he understandably took it as a sign that he had to take time for himself while he could.

I'm no expert and I didn't know the him,. I'm a sloppy blogger from an indeterminate but probably English-speaking area of the world. I only knew a few things about him because of his role in the awesome political landscape of Canada, and I draw my conclusions from that scenery. I get the sense he enjoyed his job, and he certainly did it credit. I don't want to be mawkish, because he was a committed and diligent realist and probably scoffed at mawkishness. Still, it must be said that the silver lining of a cloudy era has died with him; an entire country is left a little poorer in both the literal and figurative sense of the word. However it must also be said that economic solvency came at the price of personal well-being – he was at least in part the victim of overwork at the altar of the system he served – a warning, perhaps, that all that glitters is not gold, even in the kingdom of the complacent consumer. It couldn't have been a stress-free run, though: it could've been any combination of things but that.

As the media goes on about him, others' condolences and heartening anecdotes about him, the life story of a fiscal champion, etc, the ultimate message, one that even Flaherty might've missed, will likely slip by under the radar.  Anyway, that's my meandering, steaming, obligatory mess of an article, which I felt was necessary given this event, which will be overblown and played out by the Canadian media anyhow (and generally cursorily reported or underreported by international media), and I spinelessly contribute white noise for digital cyber-hit numbers which justify my likely sad existence, but that's how it is when you have ideas about a great HST-esque return to political analysis and the rug gets pulled out from under you and there hasn't been anything posted to the old blog in a while.

(Dimitri Soudas being kicked unceremoniously out of the PMO, and his ex-pageant wife being a bit of an entitled, selfish bitch is funny news that could make for some great analysis, but the planned article on that might never come to light after today.)

Rest in Peace, Political Maverick Jack Layton

I'll be honest, during the election season in April and May I was actually excited. It seemed like the NDP would win, a variable ~10 reader group was reading the posts, some of whom were even Canadian, and I got to write about politics that I was familiar with. Canadian politics, milquetoast in comparison with other countries where opposition parties are harassed or exploded, are still an important thing to follow and the election was most important.

But what really came out of that election was the feeling that Jack Layton had become a justified Political Maverick. And I didn't use that term lightly, fallaciously, or jokingly. I was really convinced that Canada's only decent candidate was about to win. Of course, that didn't happen, but I was hopeful that when the political season opened up and those loafers went back to Parliament to shout at each other, Jack Layton was going to tell the Conservatives what the fuck up. I was thinking that some great sound bytes would come out of that and reveal the Harper majority for the regressive, wasteful, ignorant political behemoth it was. (And it wasn't at all a majority, unless the apathy non-vote were Conservatives).

 The election was clearly demarcated from the start: Harper was going to be fiscally conservative on the surface and ideologically centrist, Ignatieff was going to be fiscally liberal on the surface and ideologically centrist or inconsistent. Jack Layton was going to deal with social problems and was ideologically right, because Canada does not look after her social problems very well. He had a history of giving a shit about people, which Harper (who shakes his own son's hand instead of embracing him) is possibly incapable of doing. Layton was the Maverick, and had proved it repeatedly...

Layton probably knew what was coming, and made a point of leaving final words. And really, on this day, as during the election, my regret is that I never met him. I would've had a few soft-boiled questions and mostly I would've just wanted to know if he was as nice as people said. He was demonized by the scared dummies of this country as a communist, and the politically ignorant crippled him in the last election, but he was nothing if not an aware and principled politician, whatever his faults.

Political Maverick Jack Layton in the early days.

Continuing Canadian Context

Go ahead and ask them now, some weeks later, what the political landscape of Canada is. It features nothing the Group of Seven might have done except for the map with its abstract political colours. Harper is blue, Ignatieff is red, Layton is orange and May is green. Let's ponder these colours. Green is the colour of life, Orange is the colour of Hollander royalty, red is the colour of life (but also Soviets and the dying Maple Leaf). Blue is the colour of disenchantment, also of life, and thirdly of lack of options.

Since the election has been announced there has been a deafening silence about the government deficit and the global depression (or recession if you're an optimist, or end of capitalism if you're an alarmist) and everyone opened volleys of 'family politics' and other types of sensationalism. In this country you do not play politics on weighty issues. Let me explain: families, in Canada, are doing well. Most families are in the easy-to-control low-to-mid middle class, relatively wealthy, perhaps overspending on credit, but doing well and employed, with an exception rate of less than 10%. This comes out to maybe 15,000 out-of-work families facing destitution or hard times, probably half that and maybe even less than that.  There is no particular zone of concentration as in the '90s. The east coast probably can be weighted a little.

What makes this weak politics is that this group of people is easy to hoodwink. They think their fair taxes are monolithic tithes to the state. All an aspiring prime minister has to do is promise that these taxes will be reinvested into the middle class family background that pays the majority of them. It goes without saying that the poverty line does not discriminate between families and individuals, but families are more important. Help them, and help yourself to a political majority. This is all theory, but the parties have acted on it as if it were a rule.

So each of the big three politicians started election season by flogging family politics. Some friends of mine distilled it thusly: Conservatives meant a straight family with not even a gay child, while the Liberals and NDP would help any family.  Never mind the family unit is the sort of ancient structure that is known to be able to survive all kinds of nonsense. Maybe in the 'post-industrial' era families are endangered or suddenly overwhelmed by the corporate world structure. Anyways, because in most countries all people come from families, they are the safest bet for politics, and that is why for weeks there were shameless attempts by each party to win this faction over.

This is how majority politics works. I have no idea how these aspiring governments are planning to fund their extravagant family subsidies, but it will probably include wasteful consulting, forms in triplicate, and a communications blackout. Nearsightedness is a curse on the populace, but a blessing to the politicians.