#andrew potter

[quasi-normalcy]

This is the only true conspiracy theory

[wallhung-blog]

Andrew Potter:  deposition.

[thebulletintoronto-blog]

Snowed under in a political Potter's field

There are times when timing alone tells you everything you need to know about what’s truly wrong.

An example arose last week when the head of McGill University’s Institute for the Study of Canada abruptly resigned because of a highly critical article he’d published about Quebec and Quebecers.

Social media and mainstream media alike quivered with outrage over journalist-academic Andrew Potter being driven from his prestigious post. Sighs and swoons abounded at the very thought that Potter’s scathing denunciation of Quebec’s bungled response to a March 14 snowstorm could trigger such harsh reprisal.

Acknowledgement was made that the former editor-in-chief of the Ottawa Citizen, and widely heralded top-notch journalist, overstretched a titch. After all, he condemned the whole of Quebec society as essentially untrustworthy because the provincial and civic powers left hundreds of motorists stranded for more than 10 hours in blizzard conditions on an arterial route through Montreal.

Admissions were made that Potter’s supporting anecdotes in his Maclean’s magazine piece were sketchy, where they were not outright wrong. There was agreement that his argument, though inflammatory, was inchoate. Potter, manfully and creditably, confessed as much when he resigned.

Still, the media mob’s boots stamped, its fists shook and its ululations made the rafters sway.

“Free speech,” the cry went up. “Academic freedom. Help, help, we’re being oppressed.”

Which is fine as far as it goes. If a gaggle of anonymous academic turnips decided a man must lose his job for publishing an ineptly expressed opinion piece, it deserves all the condemnation it can get. But here’s where the illumination of timing comes in.

The very day the ki-yi-ying over Potter unjustifiably losing his job kicked up, many of those who had been trapped in their cars on Montreal’s Hwy 13 from 6 p.m. until 4:30 a.m. were meeting. They were canvassing legal options for a class action suit they must file to get compensation from their government for what they were put through.

The big media was silent. There was some local coverage. But as a national topic for polysyllabic fulmination? Not so much.

Think about that. Your fellow Canadian citizens were utterly failed at the basic level of civic order. They were left in their cars, stranded, stuck in traffic gridlock, barely able to keep warm for fear of running out of gas. One man reportedly walked through the snowstorm to get insulin to avoid diabetic shock.

Despite 300 calls to 911 being logged, despite this being a major highway in the heart of a major North American city, no one came to help. Not the transportation ministry. Not the police. No one.

No one has yet been fired for this appalling negligence. Two mid-level functionaries have been scapegoated and put on the equivalent of desk leave. The premier has offered a pro-forma apology.

Oh, yeah, get this. Those responsible agreed to cancel fines for cars that were abandoned and subsequently towed away after the shambles ended. (They fined people for being stuck in a snowstorm during the operative breakdown of political and administrative order!)

But the provincial minister responsible remains securely in his job. Meanwhile, the tall foreheads insist the deposing of one of their own somehow outweighs as a cause for democratic concern the fact these citizens must pursue legal action for redress from the government that failed them.

There is what’s truly wrong. It’s also where Potter went wrong. He saw a deformation of trust underlying the social architecture of Quebec for which, he said, the events on Hwy 13 are apt metaphor. But the defect, in this case, is not in underlying social structure. It’s in the overt failing of the political class.

The fault isn’t with Quebec society. It’s with a political world that utterly rejects any talk it must bear responsibility. It’s abetted in that regard by a media class so pulled by the grand sweep of history and high level abstraction that if forgets its primary value: to school the political class for grossly abusing the responsibilities that citizens democratically accord it.

Even Potter, I know, would acknowledge this wrong is hardly confined to Quebec. It just happens that this time it was Quebecers who were snowed by it.

— Peter Stockland is senior writer with think-tank Cardus and publisher of www.Convivium.ca.

    © 2017 Distributed by Troy Media

Snowed under in a political Potter’s field was originally published on The Bulletin

[thebulletintoronto-blog]

Why French Canadians have a right to be offended

Much has been made about the resignation of Andrew Potter as director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada. His departure stems from a column Potter wrote in Maclean’s magazine in which he used a snow removal incident in Quebec to portray Quebecers as pathetically alienated and the province’s society as low-trust. Predictably, many critics expressed their outrage and aligned behind one of two fundamental principles: academic freedom or freedom of expression. But are those the only relevant considerations here? While I believe that Potter’s resignation (forced or otherwise) was excessive, the institute also needs to think about its reputation and what values it wants to project. (Full disclosure: I graduated from McGill University and took courses in the institute.) The core of the issue is how critics respond when the perceived villain is Quebec, particularly French-speaking Quebec. Chris Selley, a National Post columnist, published an opinion piece headlined: “At McGill, Quebec’s ultra-sensitivity meets academic cowardice with Andrew Potter’s ‘resignation.'” Yes, Quebec is “ultra-sensitive.” But, sensitive in the way indigenous Canadians are sensitive when someone brings up controlling their education, given the residential schools experience. There’s a legacy of discrimination and prejudice that someone from that group understands all too well. Indigenous people aren’t the only group that the anglophone majority tried to aggressively assimilate in Canadian history. Selley should check his anglophone privilege. Yes, Quebec is sensitive, because these sloppy prejudicial comments about Quebec happen often. The Potter debacle comes on the heels of another anti-Quebec diatribe, printed in the Washington Post. Political commentator J.J. McCullough wrote a piece headlined, “Why does ‘progressive’ Quebec have so many massacres?” The piece, in very sloppy fashion, tried to explain why six high-profile murders in the province since 1984 can be attributed to a dark, racist and corrupt history in the province. The author’s unfounded correlation and causation would never pass any introductory statistics class. In the same way, Potter admits he made some sloppy connections to Quebec society. Too often, then, it seems permissible to make sloppy, unsupportable assertions leading to sweeping negative comments about Quebec. Watch the media discourse. Whenever something bad happens in Quebec – especially involving minorities or racism – a convenient narrative sounds: “We knew it all along, Quebec is a racist or hateful place.” Quebecers are all still blamed for Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau’s post-sovereignty-referendum words in 1995, in which he blamed “money and the ethnic vote.” The blame remains even though he immediately resigned and was universally criticized within Quebec. Anti-Quebec prejudice is one of the last remaining acceptable bigotries in this country. I’ve followed closely the federal Conservative leadership race and encountered many references to Quebec candidate Maxime Bernier. One poster says, “No more prime ministers from Quebec.” Is this a territorial reference or is the sentiment really: “No more French prime ministers”? It’s chilling that these comments are mostly left unchallenged. The larger question of why French Canada is sensitive about these attacks requires a look at Canadian history. Although the Quebec Act of 1774 allowed French Catholics to preserve their language, religion and culture, it didn’t take long for anglophone Protestant settlers to say they wished French Canadians would disappear. Lord Durham’s 1839 Report on the Affairs of British North America expressed a preference for Upper and Lower Canada to unite into a single province, in order to assimilate the French. Durham also couldn’t resist insulting the French. Flip forward to the unjust treatment of the mainly French-speaking Metis and their leader Louis Riel. Or flip to the Manitoba Schools Question in the late 19th century, where accommodating French students was deemed too much. Now when francophones act to preserve their unique character within North America, they are attacked as hateful by the same society that sought their assimilation for years. No wonder we French Canadians are sensitive. Just read our history. — Joseph Quesnel is a Nova Scotia-based policy analyst.

©2017 Troy Media

Why French Canadians have a right to be offended was originally published on The Bulletin

[montrealrampage]

The Malaise of Quebec - Through My Brown Gay Lens

The Malaise of Quebec – Through My Brown Gay Lens

It speaks volumes of a society when a mere 500-word piece requires people to come to the defense of its identity. I was shocked to see the number of apologies being rendered (to whom may I ask?), explanations being supplied by defenders of the decision which resulted in Andrew Potter quitting his job at McGill University. Freedom of speech…anyone?

I don’t need to assert the inviolable right to…

View On WordPress