Private school perks was internal matter forcing Scheer’s resignation before media leak, says insider
News the Conservative Party paid for private schooling of outgoing leader Andrew Scheer’s children was never intended for public consumption, but precipitated Scheer’s resignation, according to a 21-year-old, nascent party insider and co-founder of #ScheerMustGo.
“Spare me the spiel about your family. We all know what this was really all about and when (Scheer) saw the writing on the wall, he thought he would bow out,” Anthony Koch told The Post Millennial late Thursday afternoon, hours after Scheer’s House of Commons announcement that he was stepping down.
Felicia Sonmez has received an outpouring of support from colleagues who were aghast at her suspension from the Washington Post. She was suspended after tweets reflecting mixed emotions over Kobe Bryant’s death, and while the media fusses and fumes over whether or not the suspension was justified, this is a classic case study in contemporary cancel culture. Sonmez took the reins on calling people out for alleged misdeeds, and now she’s being called out for her own.
It goes without saying that Sonmez should not have received death threats on Twitter about her mixed emotions about basketball legend Kobe Bryant’s tragic death. She shouldn’t have had to live in such fear that she retreated from her home to a hotel. All that is unacceptable, but in our age of cancellations and persistent moralistic vitriol, it’s what a person can expect when they befoul the Twitter stream. Sonmez probably should have known all this. She has been vocal about the necessity of removing men and women from their positions without the benefit of due process. This turn of events, where the social media verse turns on her for a couple of tweets wherein she expressed her personal view, should not come as a surprise.
Sonmez is one of the architects of the cancel culture that currently plagues us. She was one of the first accusers of former LA Times foreign correspondent Jonathan Kaiman, sending a letter to the LA Times in which she described him as exhibiting “problematic behaviour.” While they were both heavily intoxicated, by Sonmez’s own admission, she writes: “Even though parts of the evening were consensual, while on the way, Jon escalated things in a way that crossed a line.” She noted that the alcohol made it hard for her to remember, and Kaiman has stated that he remembers it differently. Though he refuted the story, he lost his job, and like Sonmez, he was afforded no due process.
Sonmez is also the person behind two mobbings of women writers. She tried to get Caitlin Flanagan and Emily Yoffe fired from their positions (at The Atlantic and Reason respectively) for the high crime of criticizing her.
Brett Kavanaugh was shamed by Sonmez for his lighthearted speech to The Federalist Society in 2014, which she published along with excoriations against him and his college behaviours. She called him out for comments such as “Always act as if your actions are public,” and “You will make mistakes. Sometimes big ones. Admit it, resolve not to do it again, and make sure you don’t do it again.” Apparently that’s no good when you’re going to end up in confirmation hearings before the Senate and a woman who you don’t even remember ever meeting accuses you of raping her at a party you’re pretty sure you didn’t attend.
Now it’s Sonmez’s job on the chopping block. Maybe she’s looking for a way to apologize and keep her career intact, or maybe she’s going to double down. Neither, as we have seen, is likely to lead to success. There’s no due process for stupid tweets, and we know from years of this nonsense that apologies only lead to further public abrasions. Probably, she won’t lose her friends, so that’s lucky. Lots of her friends and colleagues don’t understand what the big deal is, or why so many in the media are out for her job. Hundreds of her colleagues have signed a letter to Marty Baron and Tracy Grant stating that they don’t think it’s fair that she should have been suspended. The Washington Post’s union has condemned the actions of management.
What they don’t seem to understand is that the plight of Felicia Sonmez is an object and abject lesson about cancel culture. She has done this to others. She has called for the suspension of due process and the termination, of her own peers. Her voice has loudly denounced those who have been hit with allegations without evidence. Sonmez has helped us get used to the idea that accusations are enough to take you down. It’s a commonplace idea, now, thanks to her and her peers in thought crime. Once we are so long immersed in the sludge of it, turnabout seems like fair play.
It isn’t, of course. Everyone deserves a second chance (or a proper first chance)—an opportunity to clear their name, to shake off wrongful incriminations and proceed with life and livelihood. It’s better when we do away with game theory and start treating each other like human beings. After all, life is not a game and the people we love are not players. Sonmez foolishly thought she would always thrive in a world without due process. She thought that due process was irrelevant when we could all discern the truth based on platitudes and hashtag callouts. But her situation is illustrative of the truth that no one survives in such a world. That’s the nature of this beast. The accuser will always become the accused.
Don’t believe us? Just wait.
A 95-year-old Auschwitz survivor feels that she lived through the concentration camp so that she could witness the devastation and pass on the story of those who didn’t make it.
She told CBC, “We had to be messengers, somebody had to survive … and tell the story.”
Edith Grosman—now a Toronto resident—was sent to Auschwitz when she was only 17 years old. She and her sister, Lea, were transported in 1942 from Slovakia.
Grosman recalled being constantly fearful when she was in the camp as she witnessed murder constantly.
“We hoped that somebody will survive … and in the end we say: we were stronger than Hitler!” she said.
Grosman made it through three years of life in the camp but lost her sister along the way.
“I came in and I saw her — she was on the floor, on the stone floor in a coma.”
After Lea became ill, the Nazi’s killed her in a gas chamber on Dec. 5, 1942 along with thousands more, according to CBC.
Grosman said her sister had the ability to do “something important, but they cut off her life.”
“It was hard, and it’s hard ’til now .. I cannot understand anything of it.”
After starting to limp after contracting tuberculosis, Grosman was helped by a Jewish doctor who told her, “Edith, you cannot go to work like this. You will be in the same day in the gas chamber.”
“Her name was Manci Schwalbova, a very nice woman, and I can say that she saved me,” Grosman recalled
Author, Heather Dune MacAdam, said that sisterhood was an important part of getting through Auschwitz.
She added, “What happened with many girls if they lost a family member, a sister or a close cousin, is that somebody else often stepped into that place.”
In her book 999: The Extraordinary Young Women of the First Official Jewish Transport to Auschwitz, MacAdam interviewed survivors of the camp including Grosman.
“You couldn’t survive Auschwitz on your own, you had to have somebody with you who had your back and and helped you look after yourself — and somebody that you could look after.” she said.
The doctor who took care of Grosman would keep her safe and resting until they started to arrange a new transport. She would then send Grosman to work while she appeared healthy which is the reason she survived.
When Grosman was eventually freed from the camp, she recalled feeling a great euphoria.
“It’s a hard life, so that’s why I go, and I speak.”
A recent protest of Ontario Bill 156 has caught the attention of media outlets but the coverage of it can sometimes be misleading. One CBC headline recently read, “Animal rights activists decry Ontario bill that would limit farm protests“. That’s true, it would do that, but there are reasons for not allowing protesters to trespass that don’t seem unreasonable to reasonable people.
One paragraph in the article reads, “An offender could be fined as much as $25,000, a significant hike from the current $10,000 maximum under the Trespass to Property Act.” The $25,000 fine only comes into play for people who are reoffenders, a detail worth mentioning.
The problem here, as far as I can see, is that the animal rights activists are expressing their right to free speech but what muddles this is that the location that they’re expressing it is private property, and furthermore, someone’s home. Farming isn’t your typical occupation, it doesn’t abide by a regular schedule. It’s a lifestyle.
The land you work is also your home, most farmers houses are a stone’s throw from their barn. A cow may calve in the middle of the night, a storm may take out a fence or a coyote may get into the chicken coop. Farmers choose to be farmers, they don’t just fall into it.
In any major industry there will always be a few bad apples, but the majority of farmer’s take pride in what they do, and proper sanitation for animals is a big part of that. The issue with animal rights activists is that their concern has little do with sanitation or practices but with the concept of livestock itself. The fact that they don’t want anyone to consume meat or animal byproducts keeps means they’ll never be pleased until the farms are completely shut down. They also don’t seem to go after the giant corporate factory farms that supply to McDonald’s and their counterparts but rather, medium scale, honest, hardworking family farms.
Another issue is that you can’t reason with someone that has no respect for what you do. I’d be willing to bet my last buck that no activist drives all the way from Toronto up to some farm in rural Ontario only to say, “Actually gang, we think this farm looks pretty good. Although these hogs will eventually go to slaughter, their living conditions are pretty tranquil and the farmer does seem to have an innate appreciation for his livestock. Pack it up folks, I guess we missed the mark on this one.”
Many activists view these farmers as mass murderers. Harvesting an animal is akin to murdering a human, according to their signs. This makes it very difficult to find some common ground and civility, particularly after they’ve trespassed onto your home to begin with. I’m all for free speech, all the way, but it should be exercised within a public space. I think there is nothing wrong with animal rights activists protesting in a town square and voicing their message online, but once you show up onto someone’s property with hidden cameras and the intent to destroy their livelihood, it’s obviously going to end poorly, for everybody. Property rights matter too.
If somebody wanted to bring back Prohibition because alcohol is quite damaging to one’s health there would be a fundamental difference between them protesting in the street and storming the doors of a microbrewery. Protestors often damage property when they arrive at people’s farms, so much so that section 15 of Bill 156 would require restitution for damaged property on behalf of the protestor(s). Section 15 is a direct response to this being an ongoing problem.
Bill 156, as far as I can tell, is less about silencing protestors and more about protecting farmers and their families from inexcusable and illegal behaviour from the animal rights activist mob.
Alberta has long been fueling Canada’s gas pumps nationwide, but since world oil collapsed in 2014, thousands of displaced energy jobs migrated south of the border.
According to a new interview with Calgary-based Osprey Informatics COO Paul Ritchie, moving jobs to Houston was a move that the lone star state has welcomed him with open arms.
The company opened its Houston-based office in January and is budgeted to do a sizable 10 percent of its business out of the states in 2020. That 10 percent, though, is expected to bring in 70 percent of the company’s business, and Canada only 30 percent.
Ritchie told Global News that the move was a no brainer.
“I wouldn’t have left Canada without the opportunity that sits in front of us right now.”
“Canadian companies are so well respected that it’s not even a blip in the road when you’re dealing with somebody. It’s like, ‘Oh, you’re a Canadian company—it’s going to be good, and you’re going to be nice to me.’”
Ritchie says it’s not just individuals who’ve made the moves—companies, large and small, have flocked to states with more welcoming attitudes towards oil work.
“We all know the big names that have left. There are hundreds of smaller companies that are very significant employers here in Calgary that, 50, 60, 70 percent of their revenues are coming out of the United States and they had no choice.”
“This isn’t something that they wanted to do, but if the business is in the U.S. you are going to go where that business is.”
Oil analysts say Ritchie’s case is far from unusual. Tim Pickering with Auspice Capital Advisors Ltd. said there’s definitely an energy exodus happening.
“It’s just a lot easier in Texas in a lot of ways,” Pickering said. “There’s no real edge to being in Alberta and that’s painful to say.”
Ritchie went on to say that the move was a welcomed change in his life, and that he was excited to move to a city like Houston, which reminded him a lot of the city Calgary used to be 15 years ago.
“Houston has a Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Consulate is there, they have three trade commissioners there. They are very active in pushing Canadian companies to the U.S. market.”
Scholz said conversations are happening all over the province in businesses, wondering if it’s worth it to keep their head offices in Alberta.