Seriously? "Zing"? Are you 12? This is the CPC trying to delude Canadians yet again. Far too few people understand how these debates work and what their history is.
The first televised national leaders' debate was held in 1968. There was one debate, half in English and half in French. They were organised by the primary Canadian news outlets of the time (CTV/CBC), working together. At this time the news was viewed as a "public good".
Robert Stanfield (PC) and Tommy Douglas (NDP) could not speak French. Real Caouette (Railliement creditiste) could not speak English. Pierre Trudeau (Lib) was fluently bilingual. Some accommodations were made.
Incidentally, in the federal election of 1962 Lester Pearson (Lib) challenged John Diefenbaker (PC) to a televised debate. Diefenbaker refused.
Two federal elections went by (1972, 1974) without any televised leaders' debates. In 1979, a debate was held. Organised by CBC/CTV/Global/TVA, all in English. It was moderated by David Johnston, then Dean of the Faculty of Law at Western University, later to be appointed Governot General by Stephen Harper. The questions were posed by a panel of journalists.
In 1984 there were 3 debates. 1 in French, 1 in English, and a special debate in English on women's issues. 1988 saw 2 debates, one in English and one in French. The same occurred for the 1993, 1997, 2000, and 2004 elections.
In 2005/06, there were 4 debates, 2 in French and 2 in English. One pair was held in Vancouver and the other pair was held in Quebec, all with the same organisers. The 2008 election returned to the two-debate format.
2011 also had two debates, one in English and one in French. The date of the French debate had to be moved to avoid conflict with a Montreal Canadiens playoff game.
In 2015, CPC PM Stephen Harper made the unprecedented move of refusing to participate in the 2 nationally organised television debates. The CPC wanted 5 privately organised debates instead. One was hosted by Macleans magazine, one by the Globe & Mail,
/arc-anglerfish-tgam-prod-tgam.s3.amazonaws.com/public/LEM62A4DKRBSXDQV4NREXGR35Q)
one by the Aurea Foundation and Facebook Canada, one by Quebecor, and Harper finally agreed to the French debate by the media consortium, but not the English one. Aurea, incidentally, funds right-wing think-tanks and gave a platform to Steve Bannon.
This time around, there is a new Leaders' Debates Commission which was formed to reduce bias in the process. The Commission is comprised of David Johnston, a representative from each of the NDP, the CPC, and the Liberal Party, a representative of the CBC, a history professor, a human rights activist, and a representative from the Aboriginal People's Television Network. There are many on the right who feel this makes the commission unfairly biased towards the Liberals, but it's hard to imagine that they would be happy with anything less than a completely right-wing organisation. This Commission is organising two televised debates, one in English and one in French. As is now the Canadian tradition.
Macleans/CityTV wants to host a debate (with Paul Wells as moderator) & the Munk Debates wants to host a debate. Both can be seen as quite biased organisers. Paul Wells wrote a glowingly favourable book about Harper. The Munk Debates are administered by the Aurea Foundation, mentioned previously.
Munk Debates' past speakers include Jordan Peterson, Nigel Farage, Henry Kissinger, Newt Gingrich, along with Bannon. Aurea Foundation supports the Fraser Institute, along with at least 7 other neo-liberal (far-right) think-tanks in Canada.
The Fraser Institute and the others supported by Aurea have a long-standing role of churning out "reports" that further the Conservative agenda. These are guided by political ideology rather that scientific principles & are usually wildly skewed if not downright inaccurate.
Yet, in recent years the Canadian media has slavishly reported every questionable report without challenging the findings. This includes the CBC.
So, you see, both the debates that PM Trudeau has declined to attend are traps, plain and simple. This is not offering Canadians more opportunity to see the leaders in action. This is offering right-wing interests opportunities to tear down the Liberal Prime Minister.
I believe we Canadians would like to have a leader who can see a trap for what it is and not wander blindly into it.
There are many ways to skew a debate, as I am sure Ms Raitt is well aware. The moderator can cut off a debater's responses, or allow others to talk over or interrupt. The panel can throw "softball" questions to the favoured debater and "when did you stop beating your wife?" questions to the one they wish to discredit.
It is telling that CPC MPs are trying to shame the PM into entering into a debate that is stacked against him. It is a bullying tactic. It is not befitting a party that wishes to govern Canada. It is the behaviour of a party that is interested in power, not public good.
No comments:
Post a Comment