Category: Media

CBC Fifth Estate exposes apparent CBC Ghomeshi cover-up by CBC Honchos

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Ghomeshi, Media

In Canada, we are witnessing the very odd and exceptional spectacle of Canada’s public broadcaster, the CBC, critically investigating itself over CBC’s initial internal investigation of the Ghomeshi affair.  Or CBC’s apparent cover-up of the rise and fall of its most prominent radio and television star, Jian Ghomeshi.

Confused about who is zooming who?

 

Bottom line. Kudos to Gillian Findlay of CBC’s ‘Fifth Estate’ for her exposing the truth and her take down of CBC Radio Head Chris Boyce. And for Findlay indirectly undermining the CBC career of her boss, Heather Conway,  executive vice president of English services and potentially many other miscreants at the morally and journalistically challenged CBC.In addition, to Gillian Findlay and her “Fifth Estate” team, the other CBC heroes in this sorry CBC saga, are Sean Foley, a former CBC “Q” producer and Brian Coulton, still a “Q” guy. Both worked and survived at “Q” under Ghomeshi, and had the stones to come forward and tell the “Fifth Estate”, what they knew about Ghomeshi and when they knew it.

(Note that Jian Ghomeshi, the star of CBC “Q”, a very popular radio/ entertainment/music show, was fired by CBC and has been charged with four counts of assault and one count of choking)

I urge you to go on the CBC “Fifth Estate” website and watch and listen to this masterful “Fifth Estate” documentary, “The Unmaking of Jian Ghomeshi”. Here is the link.

This is history in the making, folks. Journalism schools and media types will be studying this Ghomeshi scandal for years to come. The meteoric rise and precipitous fall of this media star. The coddling , promotion and the alleged cover up by CBC of this dangerous guy. The non-existent investigation of Ghomeshi by CBC. The apparent public cover up of Ghomeshi’s known activities by CBC. And the ultimate exposure of Ghomeshi by investigative blogger Jesse Brown, Kevin Donovan of the Toronto Star and the takedown of such CBC honchos as Chris Boyce and Heather Conway by CBC’s very own investigative team, “The Fifth Estate”.

The strongest part of “Fifth Estate” program was the interview with “Q” employees Brian Coulton and Sean Foley and Findlay’s takedown of Chris Boyce.Here are some new facts that we learned.

In early spring of 2014, while the “Q” team was on location in Winnipeg, Ghomeshi told Coulton and Foley that he liked rough sex and an ex girlfriend with whom he had rough consensual sex, was threatening to go public with this story.

Ghomeshi was worried he would be tried in the court of public opinion. He also wondered whether CBC would back him up.

In retrospect, this is all BS. Ghomeshi apparently was trying out this story on his fellow employees in order to develop a narrative to insulate him from the real story.

A few weeks later, Ghomeshi told Coulton that there was a Twitter feed, known as @bigearsteddy (refers to Ghomeshi’s live-in to teddy bear by the same name) The existence of the Twitter feed with a reference to his private life had troubled Ghomeshi. As a good journalist, Coulton located this Twitter feed and was shocked to learn that it discussed how Ghomeshi hurt a series of women- ie allegedly physically assaulting them without their consent, including, punching, choking and causing visible bruises.

He made copies of these tweets and showed them to his colleague Foley.

In June, 2004, Coulton received an email from Jesse Brown, the investigative blogger, who had been on the Ghomeshi case for months. This email also disclosed that there were a series of women who also claimed that Ghomeshi had allegedly physically assaulted them without their consent and that Ghomeshi had also engaged in some inappropriate behavior in the CBC workplace.

On the Canada Day week-end, Coulton and Foley met with Chris Boyce, head of CBC Radio and another CBC senior manager. They showed the Brown email and the “big ears teddy bear” tweets. Coulton recalled that Boyce was aware of something, but this was also new information. Boyce promised Coulton/Foley that CBC would do a full investigation.

Now this is where things get real interesting.

According to Heather Conway, in her only TV interview on this matter, with CBC’s Chief Correspondent Peter Mansbridge, (Here is the link to the full Mansbridge/Conway interview )
after receiving the Brown email, CBC launched into an investigation, which was actually quite limited in scope.

According to Conway, HR ( human resources) dived into Ghomeshi’s personal file looking for any allegations of sexual harassment or violence in CBC. CBC allegedly did a cross section survey of Ghomeshi’s bosses and employees in order to determine if any one had been physically abused by Ghomeshi, or were they aware of any incidents at CBC in which Ghomeshi abused anyone, or whether there had been any complaints of sexual harassment in the CBC workplace.

According to Conway on the Mansbridge show, there was nothing in Ghomeshi’s file and none of the people questioned by CBC knew of any problem.

This is the public story that has been put out by Conway, Boyce and Chuck Thompson, head of CBC’s Public Affairs.

However, there are serious holes in this story. The “Fifth Estate” surveyed 17 “Q” employees who were working at “Q” in the summer and none had been approached by CBC Boyce or any one inquiring about Ghomeshi.

When Boyce was asked about this blatant lie, his only response was that the outside investigator Janice Rubin will be looking into this matter.
That is a terrible, non response.

In short, there was no investigation into Ghomeshi.

Accordingly, on the basis of this bald-faced lie told several times to the Canadian people, the perpetrators of this sham: Conway, Thompson and Boyce should be fired from CBC, or at minimum, suspended.

We know from a previous Toronto Globe and Mail article, that in 2012 there was a “Red Sky memo” in Ghomeshi’s file drafted by six then “Q” employees (or there should have been), which detailed what a cruel, insensitive and abusive boss he was.

So for Conway to suggest on national television that there was nothing in his file of concern is another lie.

Conway also lied when she said that until she learned of the video and photos of Ghomeshi physically causing injury to a woman (having a cracked rib) in October,  2014, she thought she was only dealing with Ghomeshi and “rough sex”.

Jesse Brown’s June, 2014 email, (of which Conway acknowledged receiving)  clearly spoke of a series of women who had been allegedly abused through choking and punching, in other words, non-consensual physical assault. All which clearly went beyond rough sex and was closer, to allegedly criminal assault.

The short answer is that CBC, led by Conway, Boyce and Thompson, upon receiving the damning information from Coulton and Foley, tried to bury the evidence and allegedly cover up for Ghomeshi, in the hope this matter would blow over.

And Conway et al are still trying to cover up and ride out this scandal as they are hiding behind outside independent legal investigator,  Janice Rubin’s so-called investigation. Which is another ruse to try to make this scandal go away.

Gillian Findlay, Coulter, Foley and of course Brown and Donovan are the true journalistic heroes of this story. Conway, Boyce,  and Thompson, not so much.

GhomeshiGate – Part 3: CBC’s Ongoing War Against its Female Employees

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Ghomeshi, Media

Who would have believed that CBC, Canada’s national public broadcaster- Canada’s conscience- the home of such beloved Canadian icons as Wayne and Shuster,  Barbara Frum, Peter Gzowski, Knowlton Nash and Lloyd Robertson, could have fallen so far and so fast?

Two words. Jian Ghomeshi. The former host of “Q”, CBC English Radio’s flagship cultural/media/entertainment program. Where all the cool/ hip Canadian stars of the music/tv/film/literary/media world (dubbed by self-promoting Toronto social cultural rock star Richard Florida as the “cultural class”) hung out.

Hey, Florida, are you still touting Ghomeshi as your ideal pick for Toronto mayor?

The Toronto Grid, in July 2012, reported that Richard Florida, in addition to looking down upon the hundreds of thousands of mostly non-white working class voters in the Toronto suburbs who supported Mayor Rob Ford, opined, “ I would like to see a younger person and someone who is not a usual suspect. Somebody who looks and acts like Jian Ghomeshi.”

With each passing day and with each new revelation and allegation of Ghomeshi’s horrible conduct towards women both within and without the very offices of CBC, the reputation of the CBC,  now known as the Creepy Broadcasting Coverup, keeps falling and falling into the bottomless abyss of public disgust.

(Please note that no charges have been laid to date and accordingly, nothing has been proven in court)

Mounting evidence that CBC female employees were allegedly victimized by Ghomeshi

New and disgusting allegations against Ghomeshi are coming out so fast and (Moxy) Fruvous, that CBC’s Executive VP Heather Conway’s disastrous PR spin, is ironically contributing to CBC further spinning out of control and down the rabbit hole, where reputation and public trust are irretrievable.

For those keeping score. Nine women have complained about Ghomeshi. Two women have gone public and three women have filed complaints against Ghomeshi with the police.

In addition, Roberto Petri, a former “Q” producer,  ( 2009-2010) admitted on Jesse Brown’s podcast, CanadaLand (kudos to Brown, the freelance blogger for initially breaking the Ghomeshi story), that he witnessed Ghomeshi, while a female “Q” producer was bent over her desk in CBC,  pressing his pelvis several times against her backside. In effect, humping her.

This is the same female “Q” producer who brought her complaints to Ghomeshi’s executive producer, and this executive producer, ignored these complaints of sexual harassment and abuse, protected Ghomeshi and blamed the victim and suggested she improve the atmosphere at “Q”.

Roberto Petri also admitted on this same show, that another female executive producer of “Q” confided to Petri that she was aware of a young Canadian actress, on a date with Ghomeshi, was choked by Ghomeshi without her consent, in an apparent and alleged effort by Ghomeshi to engage in autoerotic asphyxiation sex.

In short, there is mounting evidence that CBC female employees were allegedly victimized by Ghomeshi. According to former “Q” employees, many CBC employees (either producers or executive producers) either witnessed these activities or knew of these activities being carried on by Ghomeshi within CBC and without CBC.

But according to Petri, no CBC management did anything to report this behavior because Ghomeshi was the brand and he was considered a valuable asset. And apparently, CBC had to protect this valuable asset by permitting Ghomeshi to get away in plain sight with allegedly physically, emotionally and sexually abusing CBC female employees and other female “dates” Ghomeshi had acquired through his CBC work and CBC-related media work.

Culture of Fear

The Globe and Mail unearthed another piece of damning evidence against Ghomeshi and the CBC. In a valiant effort to minimize Ghomeshi’s reign of terror, in July, 2012,  six “Q” staffers met secretly outside of the CBC and the prying eyes of Ghomeshi and his fiercely loyal second in command,  “Q” executive producer, an alleged enabler,  Arif Noorani. Shades of the infamous Shah of Iran and his brutal secret security force, Savak.

This group of six drafted and provided to the above-noted Noorani, and Linda Groen, director of network talk show, the now famous “Red Sky” memo, denoting the fact this document had to be drafted in secret as opposed to an open, “Blue Sky” environment.

“Just the fact that we had to present [the proposals] in this way speaks to the culture of fear – that these things weren’t things that we felt we could address on an ongoing basis,” said a staffer who was involved in drafting the proposals.”

The document described the work culture of CBC as being unsustainable and unsafe. The document specifically criticized Ghomeshi for creating a culture of terror– ruling “Q” at his whim-punishing staffers who opposed him or crossed him. Specifically, this document demanded that Noorani and CBC management should hold the “host to account, rather than operating out of fear of ‘stirring the beast. Also that CBC should set boundaries on Ghomeshi to protect staff members.

CBC was complicit and contributed to this war against women

CBC staffers did the right thing. But as the Globe reported, CBC did nothing and nothing changed.

You do not need an expensive, former CBC commentator and work law legal specialist to connect the dots.

Though allegations of sexual harassment were not noted in this document, it is very clear that Ghomeshi created a culture of fear, dominance and intimidation. He controlled the careers and lives of these poor vulnerable mostly female staffers. He clearly mistreated his female staffers horribly with the knowledge and consent of CBC management. In such an environment, CBC stands rightfully accused of permitting this “beast” to prowl the halls allegedly abusing and preying on female staffers and guests. And thus CBC is also complicit and accessory to Ghomeshi’s alleged crimes and war against women.

In effect, Ghomeshi’s own private war against women. And because it is apparent that CBC management knew of this war against women and did nothing, I strongly argue that CBC was complicit and contributed to this war against women.

GhomeshiGate – Did CBC Permit A Culture of Sexual Harassment and Entitlement?

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Ghomeshi, Media

To date nine women have accused former CBC star, Jian Ghomeshi, of alleged sexual harassment and physical and mental abuse, occurring before, during and after sexual encounters. Two of these women were former employees of CBC.

(No charges have been laid and accordingly, none of these allegations have been proven in court).Of these nine women, two women have gone public with their experiences of allegedly being physically beaten and/or sexually assaulted by Ghomeshi. One such woman is Lucy DeCoutere, an actress on a popular Canadian film and television comedy, ‘Trailer Park Boys’.

As of this writing, according to the Toronto Star,  three of these nine women have filed complaints with the police in connection with these allegations of physical abuse and/or sexual harassment.

I believe that CBC is in serious trouble because it is being alleged by the National Post and Toronto Sun, that CBC managers and staff must have known about Ghomeshi’s unacceptable conduct towards young CBC women staffers and his apparent attempt to use his powerful CBC position to pursue his personal sexual conquests.  And by turning a blind eye to Ghomeshi, CBC has to take some responsibility for permitting a culture of sexual harassment and sexual entitlement to emerge around CBC’s golden boy.

The following are two allegations, as reported in The Toronto Star and National Post, which if proven true,  may seriously impair CBC’s image and reputation and force a serious restructuring of CBC.

Ghomeshi’s lurid life, including accounts of his hitting and choking dates during sex

According to one of “Q”’s female producers in 2007, when she had first accepted a job at “Q”,  Ghomeshi’s popular CBC’s   late morning entertainment/cultural radio show,  she had heard of Ghomeshi’s lurid life, including accounts of his hitting and choking dates during sex.

Notwithstanding, she accepted a job at “Q”. She alleged that Ghomeshi had created an environment of tyranny. No one stood up to him and everyone enabled his behavior. Specifically, she revealed to a CBC manager and “Q”’s executive producer, Arif Noorani, in 2010, that Ghomeshi told her that he wanted “to hate f…k her, grudge f…k her and he had groped her buttocks.”

Noorani’s response was to ignore this behavior and in effect blame the victim. This woman stated that Noorani stated that Ghomeshi was never going to change and that this woman should try to make this environment less toxic.

This woman concluded that Ghomeshi was too huge and powerful and no one at CBC wanted to take him on or rock the boat.

In another instance, in 2012,  a 20 something CBC producer met Ghomeshi in Montreal on one of his book signings.

After expressing an interest in working at “Q”, Khomeshi allegedly lured her back to his hotel room on the pretense of needing to remove his contact lens. Back at his hotel room, Khomeshi threw her roughly against the wall and kissed and fondled her forcefully. She admitted that she fellated him just to get out the hotel room.

Ghomeshi promised her an interview with his executive producer for a job at “ Q”. The producer did take a meeting with Ghomeshi and her executive producer, but then never pursued this rather distasteful CBC opportunity.

Ghomeshi apparently used his CBC role to pursue his sexual conquests and disturbing sexual behavior

In another instance, the Globe and Mail reported than one of “Q”’s key producers and directors, Matt Tunnacliffe, admitted that they had a code word for female guests whom they suspected had slept with Ghomeshi. This is further evidence that Ghomeshi apparently used his CBC role to pursue his sexual conquests and disturbing sexual behavior. And apparently with the knowledge of many “Q” staff.

In Monday’s Toronto Star, a female University of Western Ontario journalism graduate has come forward and alleged that in 2012, after a “Q” taping in the downtown Toronto studio,  while alone with Ghomeshi, he improperly hugged her and then as she was leaving, she alleged that Ghomeshi came up behind her, grabbed her waist and pressed himself against her backside. He then texted her and suggested to this Western student that he was not interested in a personal friendship, clearly implying that any future meeting would be for sex.

This Western student reported this matter to the Western journalism department and this department has since forbade its students from interning at “Q”.

In last Sunday’s Toronto Star, very well-respected writer, journalist and broadcaster and recently nominated for Governor General’s Award, Noah Richler, wrote that he too had heard rumours of Ghomeshi’s “penchant for a choke hold”. And Richler wrote that he would never permit his daughters in the same room as Ghomeshi.

Clearly, Ghomeshi’s alleged disturbing and physically violent sexual conduct was known both within and without CBC.

So CBC’s classic Sargent Schultz defence, “ I know nothing. I see nothing.”  Does not fly.

CBC culture of sexual harassment and sexual entitlement

Evidence is piling up that CBC knew about Ghomeshi’s unacceptable treatment to women both within and without CBC and it did nothing about it. In fact, CBC apparently enabled this conduct. It did not want to kill one of the few golden CBC geese laying the golden eggs.

For me, CBC has lost all credibility.

It appears that many CBC staffers are directly or indirectly involved in this disgusting Ghomeshi affair.

The Ghomeshi scandal is to CBC what the sponsorship scandal was to the Federal Liberal Party in the early 2000s.

The only way to repair CBC tarnished image and reputation is for CBC to turn over this matter to an objective and impartial judicial inquiry, a la the Gomery Commission. With serious legal power to subpoena and compel witnesses and provide judicial protection to the many people who have been adversely affected by Ghomeshi and his CBC enablers. The objective is to bring all wrongdoers to account and thoroughly eradicate this CBC culture of sexual harassment and sexual entitlement.

Otherwise CBC will continue to rightfully lose public, political and financial support from the Canadian people.

The ball is in your court, so to speak, CBC. Tempus fugit. Because the Canadian public is rapidly losing all confidence and trust in the CBC.

On Kimmel’s Show, Ford Was the Epitome of Grace Under Pressure

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Entertainment, Media, Politics

Initially I had my concerns with Mayor Ford agreeing to be a guest on Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show.

But I should not have worried. Despite facing a barrage of good-humoured jokes, embarrassing videos of past foibles and probing questions, Ford comported himself calmly and coolly with good humour. Grace under pressure.

And Ford even had the self-confidence under the hot Hollywood lights, to launch a few zingers himself at his City Council critics and his enemies in the press.

This was great TV. It was edgy, no holds barred, two guys flying without a net — and laugh out loud funny.

Kimmel was in fine fighting form. He might have even been training for this bout with Ford for months. He was lean, he was quick and he was very well prepared.

Kimmel admitted half-jokingly, “In a way I feel that I’ve been waiting for this night my whole life.”

But Ford was ready for this match too. Ford strode out confidently, dressed in black with a bright tie and matching handkerchief. He looked more like lovable family man, Salvatore “Big Pussy” Bonpensiero, of The Sopranos fame, than a magician, as Kimmel joked.

And then Ford started chucking Ford Nation T-shirts into the crowd.

For a big man, Ford is very agile and athletic. (Later in the show, Kimmel showed a brief video of Ford on a football field, falling backward on his ass, trying to throw a football.)

This was a good, aggressive start for Ford. He had come to play. The home town crowd loved the free T-shirts.

Right from the opening intro, Kimmel was jabbing Ford with a left, then a right, then a quick combo left/right to the face and to Ford’s stomach.

Kimmel asked, “Why are you on this show? What good could come of this?”

Kimmel was clearly the quick-witted Muhammad Ali, to Ford’s more slow-moving, but very solid George Chuvalo.

If Ford was a little surprised by this comical assault, he quickly recovered and responded that he came on the show because Kimmel had personally called him on his cellphone.

Then Ford counter-punched with a brief defence of his political career, by saying that for 14 years, 10 years as councilman and four years as mayor, he always responded to the people. He takes their calls, listens to their problems and if required, he goes out to visit them at their homes to solve their problems. In effect, he gives out his number, because Toronto residents are his bosses.

Kimmel was temporarily thrown by the sincere honesty of Ford, the consummate retail politician.

Then Kimmel tried to hit Ford below the belt, by quoting Ford haters who were angry with Kimmel for having Ford on his show. These trolls claimed that Ford was racist, homophobic and other outrageous things.

Ford kept his cool. His smile never leaving his face. Calmly Ford replied, quickly and adroitly, “Is that all you got?” to the approval of the Kimmel crowd. They might have felt, as I had, that Kimmel had blindsided Ford.

Then Ford, keeping his cool, started promoting Toronto as a fantastic place. To the effect that it is booming with tonnes of cranes all over the city (accurately implying that there is still a construction boom in Toronto).

Ford stated that he wanted people to come to Toronto to see how good the city was.

Just as Ford was about to promote Toronto’s film industry, citing the success of TIFF, Kimmel cut him off, which is unfortunate.

In a earlier CBC radio news report, prior to the Kimmel show, Ford had talked with a CBC reporter at length about the fact that Toronto had a very successful film and television industry. With millions of dollars being invested annually in film and television productions, this creates thousands of well-paying industry jobs. Ford was trying to use his profile to promote Toronto as a great place to do film and television business.

In the second round, after the break, Kimmel tried to sucker-punch Ford, by moving him off the comfort of the couch to a large TV screen, in order to have Ford comment on some of his most embarrassing videos:

  • Ford’s rant against an unknown enemy, (Ford admitted not remembering that video);
  • Ford accidentally knocking down fellow councilor Pam McConnell in the council chambers;
  • Ford speaking Jamaican patois at the infamous Steak Queen fast food restaurant (Ford explained that this was a private meeting with friends and that he has a lot of Jamaican friends, undermining claims that he is truly a racist.)

Fortunately for Ford, he laughed off these very embarrassing videos and when he returned to the couch, he
defended his record as mayor:

According to Ford, he’s tamed the unions, stopping further strikes by the city garbage union and the TTC, privatizing garbage services, saving Toronto taxpayers over $800 Million and keeping tax increases to below 2 per cent annually. Yet Toronto is still booming.

Ford concluded with saying “90 per cent of what I said I was going to do is done.” Ford caught Kimmel flatfooted with that legitimate claim.

In the last round, Kimmel was easier on Ford and suggested that he may want to get help for his drinking. Ford, true to form, countered that he was not elected to be perfect. Which of course was true then, as it is now. Ford never represented himself as a paragon of virtue or a model for Toronto’s children.

Kimmel concluded that “Ford is the most wonderful mayor I have ever witnessed in my many years.” I sensed that deep down, Kimmel, like the famous Ali toward Chuvalo, respected Ford, for being such a good sport.

And for surviving this tough 16-minute comic onslaught, still on his feet, with good humour.

Verdict: Kimmel may have won on comic points, but Ford did not embarrass himself. Nor did he embarrass the city of Toronto.

And, typical Ford, he controlled the media for the last several days.

I still think Ford is the man to beat.

A CBC Without Don Cherry Isn’t Worth Watching

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Entertainment, Media

For 60 years CBC (English) TV had an iron grip on the venerable institution of ” Hockey Night in Canada.”
Throughout the hockey season and the playoffs, CBC was the go-to Canadian television station for Canadian NHL Hockey.

Over the last few years CBC’s broadcast of Hockey Night in Canada (HNIC) represented about 330 hours of programming and generated about $200 million in advertising revenue for CBC. Which revenue CBC used to fund original arts and cultural programs.

CBC also used HNIC’s large Canadian audience to promote its other prime time news, drama and comedy shows.

Recently, Rogers Communications, with a very generous bid of $5.2 billion, without warning stole the NHL puck from CBC, skated the length of the ice and scored in the five hole on the unsuspecting CBC executive. And Rogers won the exclusive right to broadcast NHL games for the next 12 years.

CBC will still broadcast Hockey Night in Canada for the next 4 years, but HNIC will be under total editorial control of Rogers.

Effectively, this is the end of the road for CBC HNIC. In four years, CBC will have little to do with HNIC.

The biggest loss to the CBC is that it will no longer be able to access a working-class crowd because this very important Canadian audience only gravitated to CBC for HNIC and the presence of Don Cherry.

I always thought the combo of the bombastic Don Cherry and the politically correct CBC was truly odd.

I actually like Don Cherry a lot.

He is macho, politically incorrect, pro-hockey violence, pro-Canadian military, anti-European, chauvinistic and opinionated. And with his outlandish “in your face” clothes, he is a first class shirt disturber.

Cherry has a very loyal following. He is truly a Canadian original, reminiscent of a certain rotund and controversial Toronto Mayor who also has a very loyal following.

In short, Cherry is everything that CBC is not. And everything that CBC abhors.

I think CBC does not understand Cherry’s appeal, because CBC does not really understand, appreciate or respect the large audience who is attracted to HNIC.

Hockey Night in Canada attracts true hockey dads and hockey moms. Tim Hortons coffee-clutching life-long hockey players and fans. Hard-working men and women, mostly from Canada’s small towns and suburbs, who love everything about the game of hockey. The fighting, the swearing, the spitting.

The sweat, the blood, the body-checking, the missing teeth and broken noses. The down and dirty, elbows to the head, in the corner, when the ref’s not looking. The multiple battles in the corners and in front of the net. The harsh physicality of the sport. Its earthiness. Its speed. Its artistry. Its laser-like passing. Its rink to rink rushes. Its winner-takes-all mentality. Its balls against the boards brutality.

These people get Cherry. They love him. And Cherry understands and respects these people. Cherry speaks to them in a language and in a manner, alien to CBC.

For many hard-nosed HNIC fans, this is their only contact with CBC. The same could be said of the CBC brass.

Still CBC never “gets” these fans. As CBC does not understood “Ford Nation.”

Cherry and Hockey Night in Canada provide CBC with a rare window into Canada’s heartland. Into the working class and hard scrabble small Canadian towns and communities, and struggling outer suburbs outside of Canada’s elitist and white shoe cities of Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver. Where small town and suburban Canadians shop at Wal-Mart and Canadian Tire, instead of Whole Foods and David’s Tea.

Where Canadians drive through Tim’s for a double double, instead of strolling Pusateri’s Fine Foods with a Starbucks latte, arguing over the merits of wild Pacific salmon versus farm-raised Atlantic salmon.

The loss of Cherry and Hockey Night in Canada is a lost opportunity for CBC to escape its uptight Waspish politically correct, elitist/urban/sophisticated Toronto-centric shtetl (ghetto), still being firmly led by the omniscient Pastor Mansbridge.

But I digress.

I predict that Cherry will leave CBC’s pared down HNIC and instead find a more accommodating home on a Rogers channel broadcasting NHL hockey.

Obama’s Comments About Trayvon Martin Crossed the Line

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Media, Politics

I believe President Obama crossed the line when he most recently commented for the second time on the George Zimmerman verdict.

In doing so, he called into question the verdict of the jury in the Zimmerman case, and the validity and objectivity of America’s legal and judicial system.

By politicizing the legal procedures, in an apparent effort to potentially obtain a different result, the President runs the risk of perverting America’s objective and impartial legal and judicial system.

Ironically, the long-term impact of such presidential intervention may be detrimental to the very same African American community to which the President is trying to appeal.

Let me elaborate.

Immediately after the verdict in the Gordon Zimmerman case, in which a jury acquitted Gordon Zimmerman of the death of Trayvon Martin, President Obamaissued the following appropriate written statement, in which he stated:

“The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son.”

President Obama then concluded his statement with the following thoughtful words,
“We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.”

President Obama should have stopped there. His comments were presidential, appropriate and sensitive to the parents of Tryvon Martin and the African American community in general.

But apparently, the decisive and unanimous verdict and President Obama’s statement were not sufficient to placate many members of the African American community and many other American citizens.

Notwithstanding the above remarks, the Obama administration and the Justice Department faced pressure from several American groups to pursue a civil rights case against Zimmerman.

More than 400,000 people signed a petition from the NAACP which urged Attorney General Eric Holder to act and open a civil rights case against Zimmerman.

It is very interesting to note that the NAACP petition states therein about:

“…growing a movement to hold accountable a criminal justice system that fails Black Americans every day and ending the senseless violence perpetrated by unaccountable vigilantes and police due to racial profiling.”

Also Reverend Al Sharpton organized demonstrations in dozens of American cities for the weekend, calling for the Obama Administration to launch a civil rights action against Zimmerman for the alleged murder of Martin and to protest the practice of racial profiling, which many view was the cause of his death.

As a result of these factors, and I am sure, other pressures, President Obama felt the necessity to publicly comment once again on the Zimmerman verdict.

“The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there’s going to be a lot of arguments about the legal issues in the case — I’ll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues. The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that’s how our system works. But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.”

This time around, Obama’s view of the Zimmerman judicial proceedings was not as definitive. Note in the above first comments, Obama stated, “We are a nation of laws and the jury has spoken.” In other words, that is the end of the judicial proceedings. Justice was done. Let us move on.

But in these latter comments, Obama was less definitive and supportive of the system.

He stated, “The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that’s how our system works.”

Obama seems to suggest that is how our current system works, but there may be something missing. And that something is context. As Obama adds, “But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.”

Then Obama strongly states just about all African American men, including himself, prior to being a senator, has experienced being treated differently by the white population, in terms of the white population being threatened or wary or treating black American men as potential criminals. In other words, being racially profiled as being potentially harmful.

And as Obama succinctly points out:

“And I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear. The African American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws — everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.”

Obama further argued referring to American black males:

“…that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact — although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.”

Obama concludes:

“And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent — using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.
“I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied.”

What Obama is suggesting is that the Martin/Zimmerman legal and judicial proceedings may have been defective from the African American community’s standpoint, because the case was not considered or decided in the context of: (1) America’s systematic racial profiling of American black men, (arising from white America’s distrust of American black males); (2) America’s racially-charged application and enforcement of laws; and (3) America’s historically violent treatment of the American black community.

Obama is implying that if these factors had been introduced, the result may have been different. In other words, Zimmerman may have been found guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin, along racial lines.

Conversely, if these factors were introduced in the event of Trayvon Martin shooting a white guy, Martin may have a better chance of being found not guilty on the basis of self-defence, as opposed to being presumed guilty on the basis of his race.

So is Obama suggesting that whenever there is a criminal case in which a non-black person shoots and kills a black person, these above factors should be brought into play?

Sort of like affirmative action for deceased black victims.

Or conversely, when a black guy shoots and kills a white guy, the same factors could be used to support the defence of self-defence, and rebut the presumption of guilt due to color.

Frankly, Obama, was right the first time, in his initial comments. America is a nation of laws. The law, its application and enforcement and justice, should be color-blind, objective, impartial and fair.

Politics and race criteria should not be injected into the American legal and judicial system. That would pervert the system.

Because some day, the American black community will not have a sympathetic black President or black Attorney General in its corner.

And when that day comes, the American black community does not want to be subject to a legal and judicial system, distorted by politics and race criteria anathema to the American black community.

According to Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, New Testament:

“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For what with judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” (Matthew 7:1-2)

Now that’s what I call a teachable lesson. Which even the great President Barack Obama may heed.

Not Paying Tribute to Trayvon Martin Doesn’t Make You Racist

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Media

Rachel Décoste, one of my fellow Huffington Post bloggers, generally writes very thoughtful, perceptive and insightful columns for Huffington Post.

The fact that I rarely agree with her points of view is quite irrelevant. I enjoy her style and passion. And I always look forward to reading her opinions.

But I have to take issue with her recent Huffington Post blog, “Racism is Front Page News at the Ottawa Sun,” because she unfairly labels the Ottawa Sun’s handling of Trayvon Martin’s death as racist.

In her article, Décoste says, “In the Sunday edition of the Ottawa Sun, the juxtaposition between the untimely death of two young men and the dismissive commentary on Trayvon Martin serve as yet another example of inequality in our multicultural society.”

Décoste alleges that the Ottawa Sun paid tribute to the deaths of two young Canadian white men (both who died accidentally of drug overdoses) while they denounced the worldwide tribute to the death of an unarmed Trayvon Martin (a young American black man), who died as a result of being shot by George Zimmerman, a self-appointed community security guard, in Florida.

This seems like a pretty damning indictment against our Canadian multicultural society.

Fortunately, for Canada, and unfortunately for Décoste, the evidence she cites does not support this rather sweeping conclusion.

Let us look at the meagre evidence upon which Décoste bases her argument.

Decoste cites as one example the fact that “the Ottawa Sun features an article about a ‘tribute’ to a heroin addict. Canadian-born actor Corey Monteith, famous for his role on the TV show Glee, suffered a drug overdose in a Vancouver hotel last week.”

Décoste’s use of this example in which to criticize the Ottawa Sun for its alleged “racism,” fails for the following reasons.

First, the actual article she cites, called “Glee to Memorialize Monteith in “Tribute” Episode,” is the straight reporting in the Entertainment section of the Ottawa Sun. The article reports on how the popular television show “Glee” will be responding to the untimely death of one of its stars, Corey Monteith, with a special tribute show, dealing with his recent death.

The Ottawa Sun is not paying tribute to the death of Monteith, as opposed to the death of Trayvon Martin. It is just reporting in its Entertainment Section on a “tribute” show to be performed on the popular “Glee” show. The article is in the entertainment section — not in the political or editorial/opinion sections of the Ottawa Sun.

The content of this entertainment report (of which similar content has been circulated in most North American newspapers) cannot and should not be used as an example that allegedly reflects the Ottawa Sun’s alleged racist or discriminatory view towards black people.

How does this objective reporting on a “tribute show” relate to the Ottawa Sun’s alleged dismissive treatment of Trayvon Martin’s death? It doesn’t.

Décoste is comparing apples to oranges, straight objective reporting to opinion pieces.

She is alleging double standards that do not exist.

The second Ottawa Sun article Décoste cites as indicative of the Ottawa Sun’s unequal treatment of black people is titled, “Vicious Drug Cycle Haunts Ottawa Family.”

In this case, Décoste incorrectly alleges that the Ottawa Sun is once again paying tribute to the death of a young white man who accidentally dies from a drug overdose.

In fact, the Ottawa Sun is neither paying tribute or honoring the death of this unfortunate young Ottawa man.

This article rather sadly tells the story of a young man, Nick Cody, 18, whose father died of a drug overdose when Nick was just nine months old. Although Nick vowed to break the cycle, he too became addicted to drugs at the age of 15. And though he went to rehab last year, once out of rehab, Nick reverted to doing drugs again. Which led to his demise.

Once again, this article is not evidence of the Ottawa Sun’s preference for honoring young white men over the black Trayvon Martin.

It is interesting to note that though Décoste argues that the Ottawa Sun is guilty of publishing an editorial about the Zimmerman case which denounces worldwide tributes to Trayvon Martin, including President Obama’s remarks on this matter, she does not provide a link to this crucial article to support her claim.

I am not sure if that was inadvertent or intentional.

But I invite you to look at this very thoughtful and nuanced opinion piece by John Robson Parliamentary bureau reporter, (which is not an Ottawa Sun editorial, but an opinion piece by one columnist) entitled “Why Honour Trayvon Martin?”

The writer legitimately questions why the Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman case has been looked upon as some historic event in American race relations. He also questions how the media and the American black community has come to see this case as representative of America’s still troubled black/white divide in American society today.

Robson points out that “George Zimmerman is not America’s racial history. He’s just one guy unlikely, without this incident, to have achieved distinction of any sort. He’s certainly not Birmingham’s infamous 1960s white supremacist Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor risen from the grave. Zimmerman’s not even white. He’s Hispanic.”

In other words, he is also non-white as his mother is Peruvian.

In fact, Zimmerman was raised in a racially integrated household and he has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather — the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.

In addition, Zimmerman’s gated community is not an exclusive white enclave, but is inhabited by a diverse multicultural community including Afro-Americans as neighbors.

Similarly, as the Ottawa Sun writer Robson points out, “Trayvon Martin was just one person. He wasn’t black America. He wasn’t Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. II or Kunta Kinte. He certainly wasn’t Barack Obama 35 years ago, as the president just irresponsibly suggested. He was one more teenager acting tough but in his case the game got way too real.”

Robson also argues:

“Martin may once have been a sweet kid. Had he not tried to kill Zimmerman on Feb. 26, 2012 he might one day have become an admirable adult. But as a teen he was in the grip of a highly dysfunctional rap-hip-hop-ghetto chic culture too prevalent in black America.
His twitter handle was NO_LIMIT_NIGGA, for goodness sake. Some limits on his temper might have saved his life last February.

Instead of pointing this out, the president (Obama) initially spoke of how to ‘honour’ Martin. Excuse me?

I’m sorry he got himself shot. But the evidence strongly suggests he was on top of Zimmerman trying to bash his brains out on a cement pavement when Zimmerman fired in self-defence. I didn’t know we honoured things like that.”

As noted above, the Ottawa Sun did not pay tribute or honor the deaths of two young white men. Nor did the Ottawa Sun denounce the worldwide tribute to Trayvon Martin, although one Ottawa Sun columnist, Robson, did legitimately call into question the assumptions underlying the tributes being bestowed on Trayvon Martin.

There is no evidence that the Ottawa Sun acted in a racist manner and prejudicial manner. And there is no evidence that as a result of such treatment of the Martin matter, the Ottawa Sun is perpetuating inequality in our Canadian society.

Unfortunately, by playing the “race” card in her article — based on no evidence of discrimination or inequality — Rachel Décoste trivialized the real issue of racism in our society and undermines the very cause that she is advocating.

How the Rob Ford Story Became More About the Media

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Media, Politics, Rob Ford

A funny thing happened on the way to the Rob Ford lynching. The Media became the story.

The hunter became the hunted. The investigator became the investigated.

And the messenger, was caught, red-handed and left-handed, writing the message.

Instead of simply delivering it.

Definitely, a McLuhanesque moment in Toronto media history.

And the messenger became the message.

And the message was,

“Rob Ford should not be mayor of Toronto, though he was democratically elected.”

Firstly, the well-known civil rights lawyer Clay Ruby, and defender of the downtrodden, tried to unseat Rob Ford through legal means by alleging Ford was engaged in a conflict of interest over a $3,150 donation to his football foundation.

Then the Toronto Star team of Donovan and Doolittle tried to force Ford to rehab and out of office, by reporting that they saw an unverified 90-second crack cocaine video allegedly starring Rob Ford.

The Globe and Mail, after 18 months of fruitlessly investigating Doug Ford allegedly dealing in soft drugs in his basement over 30 years ago, was forced to play catch up to the Toronto Star video scoop. And the Globe released a non-story with no identifiable witnesses, 30 years after the fact.

This was not one of the Globe’s shiniest moments.

The Globe’s story was not helped by the Globe editor-in-chief lamely cloaking himself and the Globe in the rather self-serving and vague notion of acting in the “public interest.”

When we in the suburbs knew that the Globe was also acting in its own private self-interest — to sell newspapers and boost its online and print circulation.

All in all, just “sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Still the Star and the Globe, blindly and stubbornly persisted. Refusing to let a salacious tabloid story die a natural death.

The Globe had 6 of its best and brightest reporters rooting through the divorce documents of a no-name Ford assistant.

Both the Star and Globe reported breathlessly about the departures of staff members, as if the city was on the brink of collapse.

The media also gleefully reported on numerous Ford critics on City Council, calling for Ford to come clean, debase himself, wear sackcloth and ashes and throw himself on the pyre of public opinion.

The media further got into the act by reporting that Premier Wynne was considering stepping in and removing Ford from office, for the sake of Toronto ‘s reputation.

Even our own Queen of Letters and Ford nemesis, Margaret Atwood, let out a tweet, “How the Rob Ford Scandal Could Save Toronto”, heard around the world, that is, the Annex. Recommending that Fortress Toronto pull up the drawbridge and keep out the suburban barbarians from entering the inner city.

As if we suburbanites were Barbarians at the Dufferin Gate.

You see Lady Margaret never forgave Ford for preferring french fry over Northrup Frye.

“Let them eat Quinoa,” quoth the Edible Woman.

As a result, Queen Maggie was prepared to lend her considerable name to the de-amalgamation of Toronto from Etobicoke, North York and “Scarberia.”

But notwithstanding the media feeding frenzy, there is incredible pressure on the Fords, from the left, the right and even from US talk show hosts.

Mayor Ford and Doug Ford remained defiant.

Unbowed. Unrepentant.

Kennedy-like grace under pressure.

And then to the shock and utter disbelief of the downtown media, the raging and rising tide of invective and hate, began to turn.

Contrary to the media’s wishful thinking, and with apologies to the great Yeats:

Things did not fall apart in City Hall or in Toronto.
The centre held.
Mere anarchy was not loosed upon our fair city.
Though everywhere,
In the downtown media, on Front and Yonge,
In the Annex coffee shops, the Ossington bars,
And the organic stores, on Bloor
The presumption and ceremony of Ford innocence were drowned;
The best ( the Globe) lacked all conviction,
While the worst, (The Star) were full of passionate intensity.

You see in the media’s rush to judgment, their political instincts had become dulled.

We knew in the suburbs, that the downtown media were smugly ignorant of the incredible support that Rob Ford enjoyed.

And that Ford Nation was untouched by the media circus at City Hall.

When Ford’s strong polls were released, the anti-Ford media onslaught was stopped dead in its tracks.

The people had spoken and it was not pretty.

The media was forced to beat a hasty retreat.

Even they realized that they and Premier Wynne had crossed the line in subtly urging an unelected Premier to overturn the will of the people who had elected Ford fairly and democratically in a city-wide election.

In order to save their shredded reputation, the media even turned on Premier Wynne for her proposed anti-democratic intervention in Toronto City Hall.

When the now infamous “crack cocaine video” failed to emerge, the rout and humiliation of the downtown media were complete.

And even de-amalgamation was derided as “segregation by wealth and ethnicity” by a Toronto Grid columnist.Ouch, that must really hurt, Maggie, and all your liberal followers!

Have the Globe and the Star learned their lesson?

The Star, probably not.

The Globe and Mail is still one of the best newspapers in North America.

But if the Globe is Superman, then Rob Ford is Kryptonite.

And continuous exposure to Ford only weakens the Globe.

Also as the excellent Globe reporter Marcus Gee just realized.

It is sometimes useful for a change, to stop drinking the same gluten-free Almond Milk as all his Globe colleagues in the Annex, Danforth and Beaches.

And get out of his downtown hood.

And travel to the strange lands of Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough.

To learn what is really going on in the rest of Toronto.

How the Globe and Mail Got Its Groove Back

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Media, Politics

In a recent Huffington Post blog, I was unduly critical of the Globe and Mail‘s lack of coverage of what I considered to be a far more serious and far-reaching investigative issue: the alleged criminal deletion of emails and destruction of documents of senior staffers in Premier McGuinty’s office, pertaining to the controversial cancellation of two Ontario gas plants.

Well, I am sorry. Mea culpa.

The Globe has picked itself up. The mighty has risen.

And the top notch Globe investigative reporters are doing what they do best, holding Ontario Liberal staffers and potentially senior provincial Liberal politicians to account, for their alleged wrongdoing, and potentially the alleged criminal acts of obstruction of justice, contrary to the Federal Criminal Code.

In a recent devastating article, entitled, “Premier’s staff purged records after power-plants probe began,” Karen Howlett of the Globe, reported that, “The e-mail records of a close adviser to Ontario’s former premier were purged five weeks after a legislative committee ordered the government to release all documents in connection with the controversial cancellation of two gas-fired power plants.”

The Globe‘s Howlett further reported that specifically, the email account of Chris Morley, former chief of staff of Premier McGuinty was permanently deleted shortly after he left Queen’s Park, together with the email accounts of Morley’s successor, David Livingston and the email accounts of Jamison Steeve, McGuinty’s former principal secretary and Sean Mullin, McGuinty’s former director of policy.

According to reporter Howlett — Morley, Livingston, Steeve and Mullin, were all part of a high-level initiative, to manage the fallout from the cancelled Oakville power plant.

I kid you not.

It appears touchy-feely Premier Dad’s office was a front for a highly secret clandestineoperation, codenamed, Project Vapour.

Suddenly, we are in John le Carre territory

And what a shadowy, secretive world, this is!

Are Morley, Livington, Steeve and Mullin, also codenamed “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”?

Howlett’s article raises another important question: Who ordered the deletion of these emails?

Howlett notes,

“It is not known who gave the order to erase e-mails that could have shed light on the cancelled projects. The documents submitted by Premier Kathleen Wynne’s office to an adjudication review officer, including affidavits on the deleted e-mails, are silent on the matter. Mr. McGuinty issued a statement Friday evening saying he neither condoned nor directed the deletion of e-mails, ‘which ought to have been preserved.'”

In addition to fingers being pointed at the former Premier McGuinty, the actions of Mr. Livingston, McGuinty’s former chief of staff and successor to Morley, are coming under further scrutiny.

In a report last week, Ontario Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian singled out Mr. Livingston for asking the head of the province’s civil service “how to wipe clean the hard drives in the Premier’s office” and ensure electronic records were deleted permanently.

In order for an action to be deemed criminal and contrary to the Criminal Code, there has to be a mental element to the act (the intent to obstruct justice) and the actual physical act (the deletion of emails to obstruct justice in order to avoid a judicial proceeding).

The issue then becomes, who ordered the destruction of the emails, who knew about the order to destroy the emails or who ought to have known about the order to destroy the emails?

The investigation of such questions not only involves former Premier McGuinty’s office, but may involve the current Premier’s office and the offices of her current Cabinet Ministers.

This story has great legs.

Kudos to the Globe for reopening this story, digging deep and persisting.

While the Toronto Star waits expectantly for the non-existent Ford video to emerge.

And the Star continues to go easy on Premier Wynne, and pretends that this devastating and potentially government-ending deletion of emails scandal, is a non-story.

Ford Is Distracting The Press From This Story

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Media, Politics, Rob Ford

Kudos to Keith Leslie of the Canadian Press. Now there is a true journalist!

Meanwhile, the crack Globe and Mail team are poring over divorce documents of a “no-name” Rob Ford aide.

And the dynamic duo at the Star of Donovan and Doolittle are waiting like expectant schoolgirls by the phone for the alleged crack cocaine video to magically appear.

Keith Leslie has instead exposed a real major scandal that has very serious legal and criminal implications for former McGuinty staffers.

In his recent article, published in the Toronto Sun, Leslie has reported that Ann Cavoukian, Ontario’s Privacy Commissioner is prepared to go public in her upcoming June report and reveal that senior officials in former Ontario Premier McGuinty’s Office have destroyed and deleted many crucial internal emails relating to the cancellation of the Mississauga and Oakville gas plants.

Cavoukian scathingly castigated officials in McGuinty’s office, when she publicly stated on Tuesday: “Someone…said it strained credulity that no one thought they should maybe retain some of the emails…There are retention obligations.Suffice it to say, I was not pleased, putting it mildly and you will see that reflected in the report that comes out.”

According to Keith Leslie, the NDP requested Cavoukian to investigate the actions of the former senior staff in McGuinty’s office, when former principal secretary Jamison Steeve and former deputy policy director Sean Mullin, testified in the legislative hearings on the gas plant cancellations that they had in fact deleted their email accounts.

Cavoukian also shockingly found that there were no emails from McGuinty’s former chief of staff Chris Morley who has not yet testified at the justice hearings of the gas plant cancellations which cost the Ontario taxpayers $585 million and still counting.

As NDP Peter Tabuns noted, “An awful lot of records seem to have been destroyed contrary to the law. Clearly, if people are destroying records, there needs to be a penalty for that.”

Right on, Peter.

The potential crime is “Obstruction of Justice”, assuming the Ontario legislative committees that have been investigating the gas plant cancellations and hearing witness testimony are deemed to be engaged in a judicial proceeding. In this case, under Section 139 of the Canadian Criminal Code, the penalty for obstructing justice is at minimum two years in prison.

Note when the senior staff in the office of BC Premier Liberal Gordon Campbell were caught deleting e-mails, during a government corruption lawsuit, the BC NDP called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the actions of the Liberal staffers.

Wouldn’t that be fascinating if history repeats itself and the Ontario NDP call for a special prosecutor to investigate the actions of the senior staff of Liberal Premier McGuinty for deleting their emails.

Query, do Provincial Liberals throughout Canada have a special secret handbook on how to delete emails when the going gets tough?

The other fascinating aspect of this email destruction scandal, is that the crack investigative teams from the Globe and the Star have been strangely missing in action on this file.

Both the Star and The Globe seem more interested in the more sensational and salacious Rob Ford alleged crack cocaine video, than in the more politically significant nearly $600 million gas plant cancellation scandal and now the intentional destruction of email evidence.

Both The Globe and The Star have forgotten the golden rule of investigative journalism: “Follow the Money.”

Instead, both these newspapers prefer immersing themselves figuratively and literally in the “schmutz” and dirt of the Ford brothers and in the messy private lives of their family members who are neither public officials or major public figures. Certainly, these family members and Ford associates are too insignificant to be worthy of our consideration.

When Rob Ford ran for Mayor, the people of Toronto, knew precisely what they were getting. Rob Ford never promoted himself as being a paragon of virtue. He was and still is, “Everyman”, warts and all, with a side of greasy KFC.

Premier McGuinty, on the other hand, packaged himself as Premier Dad, “Father Premier Knows Best”, a paragon of virtue.

So the fact that he surrounded himself with senior staffers who may have engaged in illegal acts, is truly a great story. An epic morality tale of arrogance and hypocrisy.

Worthy of the attention of both the Star and the Globe.

The fact that both papers are MIA on this McGuinty document destruction story, demonstrates that these once great newspapers, prefer shallow, superficial sensational tabloid journalism, to real, hard and serious investigative journalism.

How the mighty have fallen!!!