Category Archives: Liberal

You might know the basics when it comes to John Wilkes Booth, America's original three-named assassin.

His acting career. His pro-slavery stance. The gun at the theatre. "Sic semper tyrannis." The outpouring of grief for Abraham Lincoln.

But did you know that John Wilkes Booth came from one of the most prominent acting families in America?

That his dad's acting fame was only rivalled by his bigamy charges?

Or that Booth, one of history's most famous white supremacists, was raised in a home that was anti-slavery, atheist, and vegetarian?

The fascinating story of the Booth family, a wild bunch of actors, charmers, and drunks, is the focus of Booth, a novel by the American author Karen Joy Fowler.

But rather than shine a spotlight on John Wilkes Booth, Fowler focuses her attention on the people that surrounded him his famous dad, brother Edwin and sisters Rosalie and Asia all fascinating historical characters in their own right.

"I feel offended at the idea that a person who kills someone else is instantly an interesting person and more interesting than his brothers and sisters who didn't kill anybody," Fowler tells The Book Show on ABC RN.

"I think I wanted to make the argument that they were every bit as interesting as their notorious brother."

And interesting they were.

The children's father was Junius Brutus Booth, an English-born Shakespearean actor, who was a huge celebrity in 1820s and 1830s America.

The poet Walt Whitman was a fan, describing one of Junius's performances as "one of the grandest revelations of my life, a lesson of artistic expression".

Junius moved in exalted circles. He was friends with Edgar Allen Poe and the American general Sam Houston. He even had a brief friendship with the US president Andrew Jackson until in a twist that seems too strange to be true he sent the president a death threat.

In 1835, Junius wrote a letter to Jackson, demanding that the president pardon two pirates who had been sentenced to death. He wrote: "You damn'd old scoundrel I will cut your throat whilst you are sleeping."

Fowler says it's a strange coincidence, knowing that Junius's son John would go on to kill a president. But the letter wasn't given much attention at the time.

"[Junius] was not only famous as for his acting but also famous for his bouts of insanity, so I don't think anybody took his threats seriously and I'm not sure he intended them seriously," Fowler says.

Indeed, the legends about Junius Booth, and his strange behaviour, are numerous. He drank heavily, and his performances when he turned up could be wild and unpredictable.

There's a surprising story about a pigeon funeral he conducted near his home in Maryland. But the most shocking headline, with implications for his children in America, was his bigamy.

Junius Booth already had another wife and son back in England, Fowler explains.

"And then he fell in love with a pretty young woman named Mary Ann Holmes (John Wilkes Booth's mother) and he persuaded her to run away with him and ran all the way to America," she says.

"And whether Mary Ann knew there was (another) wife or not, is not at all clear."

Twenty-five years after her husband left England, Junius Booth's first wife, a woman called Adelaide, came looking for him. She stayed in Maryland for three years until she could be granted a divorce. Fowler says the scandal caused huge embarrassment for Booth's American children, including John.

"They were all strangely protective of the family name," Fowler says.

"They really wished to bring honour to it in some way, to do something that would make the family name an important one.

"They believed in their father's importance, and they tried their best to curate the stories about him so that his genius was the topic and not his strangeness.

"But I think whatever impulse they had towards trying to protect a family name was enormously heightened by learning that they were not actually his lawful children."

Junius Booth's politics were progressive for the time. He was opposed to slavery though he did hire slaves to work on the family farm. He also raised his children to be atheists, and vegetarians.

"I was surprised that anybody was a vegetarian during that period, and such a committed one as Julius Booth was," Fowler says, although she suspects the family didn't always stick to the diet while their father was travelling away from home.

So how did Junius's son, John Wilkes Booth, who was raised in such a progressive household, become the pro-slavery, confederate sympathiser who killed Abraham Lincoln?

"I think that [John's] politics came out of a period when he was at a boarding school," Fowler says.

"He was there with a lot of wealthy planters' sons, and I think that he wanted to be a part of that cohort.

"These people were wealthier than he was and higher placed than he was I think the family were all very hyper-sensitive on the issue of what it meant to be a Booth and whether they were respected."

Fowler says John was treated better than Edwin, his older brother, who often travelled with his father trying to keep him out of bars.

"His father was often very unkind," she says.

"And yet [Edwin] grew up much better adjusted a more careful, more charitable person then John, who was indulged at every moment."

Karen Joy Fowler's book is told from the perspective of three of John Wilkes Booth's five surviving siblings. (Four other Booth children didn't survive to adulthood.)

Before the assassination, Edwin Booth was by far the most famous.

After his difficult childhood, he went on to become an acclaimed actor in his own right, with some theatrical historians calling him the greatest actor of the 19th century.

He was most acclaimed for his portrayal of Hamlet with his quiet, naturalistic style standing in stark contrast to grand, bombastic performances that made his father a star.

Edwin's politics were vastly different to those of his brother. However, his association with John Wilkes Booth saw his career take a hit in the months after Abraham Lincoln was killed.

He is said to have disowned his brother after the assassination, forbidding the name John Wilkes Booth to be spoken in his house.

Far more forgiving was his sister, Asia Booth, who eventually became a writer of books and poetry. Amongst her works was a book called John Wilkes Booth: A Sister's Memoir.

Fowler says the book reveals Asia's unwavering love for her brother, even after his terrible crime.

"Even as she tries, at the end, to agree that what he did was terrible she can't help but defend him," Fowler says. "You can see her forgiving him."

The third sibling featured in Fowler's book is the eldest Booth daughter, Rosalie. Unlike her famous siblings, Rosalie was a mystery to Fowler.

"Very little about her remains," Fowler says.

"Her brothers and sisters always refer to her as an invalid and as 'Poor Rose'. I can't even find what was actually wrong with her if anything was actually wrong with her."

In Fowler's retelling, Rosalie is a gentle woman who gradually descends into a quiet alcoholism.

"There was just this sort of hushed polite discussion of Rosalie's infirmities, and one source that I read suggested that that that she drank quite a bit.

"Their grandfather was a terrible drunk, their father was a terrible drunk, the brothers were terrible drunks, so it would not surprise me if she had a tipple now and then."

While Booth is a novel, Karen Joy Fowler says she tried at every moment to stick to proven facts. In parts, though, the truth is still hard to pin down.

"The problem is that there is a lot of mythology around the family as well," she says.

"So if you're trying to write a book, and you are trying, as I was trying, not to be inaccurate, it's a struggle to sift what appears to have been truth from stories that people told about them later."

Go here to see the original:

The liberal, theatrical family of John Wilkes Booth were 'every bit as interesting' as the presidential assassin himself - ABC News

There is no point putting a very low income, probably welfare-dependent, family in the best street in Brighton where the children cannot mix with others or go to school with other children or where they do not have the same ability to have the latest sneakers and iPhones, said Victorian Liberal MP Wendy Lovell last week during a parliamentary debate on homelessness and public housing.

Opposition Leader Matthew Guy conceded the comments were clumsy but made with the best intention.

Lovell was right about one thing, we need to talk frankly about whats happening in the best streets of our neighbourhoods.

This is a delicate and painful conversation, but its time to break the taboo around the subject. Because theres no point in people living where they dont actually fit in. Alas, this is precisely whats going on: in so many neighbourhoods we find people who stand out like a sore thumb.

These people might describe themselves as tree-changers, sea-changers, empty-nesters, aspirationals, or, most commonly, established residents. They each have a story about how they wound up where they are, wearing white sneakers, flashing the latest iPhones, which they have no idea how to use. But theres no sanitising reality: theyre Liberals.

They are not to be confused with Greens, with which they share certain characteristics, both breeds being members of the same Affluent family. But look closely, and youll discern some unique features. They are often observed swinging golf clubs, and berthing yachts unfortunately these are boats we cannot stop. Theyre tennis-elbowing to the front of the queue of grocery stores stocking multi-coloured watermelon and artisanal fig crusted heritage sourdough for $30 a loaf. Their Ferraris, Bentleys and Mercs clog local roads like plaque clogs arteries.

Victorian Liberal MP and party housing spokeswoman Wendy Lovell.

Over and over we see the same sad trajectory. The neighbourhood is a fragile ecosystem; it doesnt take many Liberals to tip the balance. Too many Liberals and the shopping strip is reduced to a dreary succession of antique sellers and exclusive knitwear.

In the winters, the older generation migrates north; in the summers, they swan off to Aspen. During these seasons the Liberals offspring and descendants are left to house sit. At such times the tragic and deepening cycle of intergenerational dysfunction and substance abuse is thrown into sharp relief.

We might forgive the older generation of Liberal for occasionally crashing their Jaguar into a family home after consuming just a few wines at a friends dinner, and is later found to have a blood-alcohol reading of more than twice the legal limit.* We can muster compassion for the Liberal accused of inadvertently chair sniffing while at a fundraiser for the Peter Reith Foundation for Industrial Democracy.

Excerpt from:

Golf clubs and sports cars: Whos ruining your neighbourhood? Its the Liberals - The Age

Seamus O'Regan, Minister of Labour and MP for St. John's South-Mount Pearl speaks at the Confederation Building in St. John's on Feb. 14.Paul Daly/The Canadian Press

Including striking workers in a proposed anti-scab bill was a major component of negotiations while hashing out a confidence and supply agreement with the Liberal government, according to the NDP.

The deal promises to introduce a new law by the end of next year that would ban the use of replacement workers also known as scabs if unionized workers in federally regulated sectors are locked out or on strike.

Its a huge win, said Matthew Green, the NDPs deputy labour critic.

The use of importing replacement workers completely undermines the democratic principles of having unions and collective bargaining.

The Liberals committed to limit the use of replacement workers in their 2021 election platform, and that is repeated in the mandate letter for Labour Minister Seamus ORegan.

But theres a key difference: the mandate letter specifies the rules would apply when workers are locked out by their employer. The deal with the NDP also includes workers who are on strike.

A spokesperson for ORegans office said the change is reflective of ongoing conversations and feedback from stakeholders, but Green said the NDP is taking credit for using our power to put it on the table.

The Canadian Labour Congress said that difference is important because almost 85 per cent of federal work stoppages are strikes, not lockouts.

Unions have been lobbying for the change for decades, and both the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP have introduced anti-scab bills in the past. Theyve all been defeated by Liberal and Conservative votes.

In 2007 then-Bloc MP Richard Nadeau told the House of Commons he wanted to amend the Canada Labour Code to prohibit strikebreakers and end the disparity between the labour codes of Canada and Quebec.

Quebecs law was adopted by the Rene Levesque government in 1977 after a number of bitter labour conflicts. British Columbia is the only other Canadian jurisdiction with a similar law, which has been on the books since 1993.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada, whose 240,000 members include the federal public service, said it welcomes the pledge. But national president Chris Aylward said the government must move quickly to enact it.

That cautious optimism was echoed by Mark Hancock, the national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Ill really believe it when I see it, but were really happy about it, he said.

Hancock said bringing in replacement workers shifts the power dynamic in a labour dispute.

Its like dropping a grand piano on a scale, he said.

When we go on strike and were giving up that paycheque, its a strong incentive for us to stay at the bargaining table and work out a deal. Employers who can utilize scab labour dont have that same incentive to negotiate in good faith.

Toronto labour lawyer Chantel Goldsmith said anti-replacement worker laws, on the other hand, give unions a ton of leverage during collective bargaining and could be hugely detrimental to employers.

If the employer knows that they cant have a replacement worker, then their hands are almost tied in that they have to kind of agree with the unions demands, she said.

A 2009 study in the journal Canadian Public Policy found that anti-scab laws lead to more strikes but shorter ones.

In addition to the federal public service, the proposed rules would apply to many federal Crown corporations as well as broadcasting and telecommunications companies, grain elevators, feed and seed mills, and transportation infrastructure including airlines, airports, ports, marine shipping, railways and road transportation services.

Given those important transportation links, there could be wider implications on supply chains and other businesses if strikes become more frequent.

After two years of pandemic where small businesses have been hurt by the pandemic, many of them had to contract a huge level of debt, said Jasmin Guenette, the vice-president of national affairs with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

The impact of work stoppage for those large companies has a direct impact on many small businesses because they rely on (that) infrastructure to get access to the products that they need, or products they need to ship.

The hope for the NDP is that provincial governments will follow the federal governments lead, once the changes become law.

We have to hold them accountable to the commitments theyve made in the agreement, Green said.

The federal labour minister said the Liberals will draft the bill carefully.

It is important that we get this right and well be consulting with stakeholders and conducting policy research and analysis before legislation is brought forward, ORegan said in a statement.

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the days most important headlines. Sign up today.

Read more:

Federal NDP, unions happy with Liberals including strikes in anti-scab law - The Globe and Mail

Jonathan Turley a constitutional scholar, professor at George Washington University Law School, and self-described "liberal" rebuffed Democrats on Sunday for demanding that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas be impeached.

Leftists and Democrats called for Justice Thomas to resign or be impeached last week over text messages that his wife, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, sent then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows after the 2020 election.

The messages urged Trump's staff to fight against certification of election results. None of the messages referred to Justice Thomas or the Supreme Court. Most of the messages were sent in November 2020, while one message was sent the day after Jan. 6.

Critics of Justice Thomas claimed the messages are proof that Justice Thomas is ethically compromised and therefore necessitate his resignation or impeachment despite zero evidence that Justice Thomas has committed any wrongdoing.

According to Turley, the reaction from Democrats is par for the course, because when you're a hammer, everything is a nail.

Turley explained in an essay that impeachment demands against Justice Thomas are "entirely disconnected from any constitutional or logical foundation" and demonstrate how Democrats have a "raging impeachment addiction."

The constitutional scholar explained his rationale in three points:

What is most ironic about the impeachment demands, Turley noted, is that Democrats have previously praised efforts questioning the electoral legitimacy of former President George W. Bush.

But the demands also pose a significant problem, one the Founding Fathers sought to avoid.

"The calls for the impeachment of Justice Thomas are ludicrous but there is nothing laughable about the impeachment addiction fueling this frenzy," Turley wrote. "People of good faith can disagree on the need of Thomas to recuse himself from certain Commission-related cases.

"However, impeaching Thomas based on these grounds would expose all justices to the threat of politically motivated impeachments as majorities shift in Congress," he explained. "That is precisely what the Framers sought to avoid under our Constitution."

Read more:

Liberal constitutional scholar smacks down Dems for demanding that Clarence Thomas be impeached: 'Raging impeachment addiction' - TheBlaze

A bid by the Northern TerritoryOpposition to impose automatic prison terms on those who assault police officers and other frontline workers has been branded as a "headline grab" by the Labor government.

The Country Liberal Party said it planned to introduce the Sentencing Amendment Bill 2022 to the Northern Territory parliament this week, a legal reform which, inthe unlikely event it passes parliament, would mean mandatory prison for anyone who assaults a frontline worker.

Already, the Territory has mandatory sentencing for those who cause physical harm to a police officer, however,the CLP's new laws would go a step further.

"We know that police and frontline workers are being assaulted at hideous ratesand, as crime continues to increase across the Territory, unfortunately, what we're going to see is more people on the frontline assaulted while doing their job," Opposition Leader Lia Finocchiaro said yesterday.

"It's really important to us that we send a serious message to would-be offenders that, if they assault a police or frontline worker, they are going to have an actual term of imprisonment."

Ms Finocchiaro denied the CLP's policy would put a strain on the Territory's already-crowded jails.

A lack of support from the Gunner government which criticised the bill and holds the majority of votes on the floor of parliament means the bill is likely to be voted down.

When asked yesterdayif the government would support mandatory sentencing for those who assault emergency workers, the Northern Territory'sleader of government business, Natasha Fyles, said it was "a very complex situation".

"Mandatory sentencing is a headline grab by the opposition," Ms Fyles said.

Police Minister Nicole Manison said the Territory"already has some of the toughest penalties in the country for those who assault police".

However, she said, a review was underway to "identify any gaps" where laws protecting police and frontline workers might "be strengthened".

While the government has been backing its recent record on crime, ongoing attacks are still taking place in broad daylight, and ongoing and regular assaults on frontline workers.

The NT Police Association said a "mandatory term of imprisonment would go some way toward community expectations as punishment for the physical and mental impact of an assault".

Continued here:

The NT's Country Liberal Party to introduce bill stipulating automatic prison time for assaults on police, frontline workers - ABC News

Please send feedback to /r/metaNL. For off-topic chat, join the community in the pinned discussion thread.

We welcome people of all political persuasions as long as civility standards are observed.

With collectivism on the rise, a group of liberal philosophers, economists, and journalists met in Paris at the Walter Lippmann Colloquium in 1938 to discuss the future prospects of liberalism. While the participants could not agree on a comprehensive program, there was universal agreement that a new liberal (neoliberal) project, able to resist the tendency towards ever more state control without falling back into the dogma of complete laissez-faire, was necessary. This sub serves as a forum to continue that project against new threats posed by the populist left and right.

We do not all subscribe to a single comprehensive philosophy but instead find common ground in shared sentiments and approaches to public policy.

We reserve the right to remove comments and posts that do not explicitly break these rules in certain circumstances.

I: CivilityRefrain from name-calling, hostility, or any uncivil behavior that derails the quality of the conversation. Do not engage in excessive partisanship.

II: BigotryBigotry of any kind will be sanctioned harshly.

III: Bad faith arguingEngage others assuming good faith and don't reflexively downvote people for disagreeing with you or having different assumptions than you. Don't troll other users.

IV: Off-topic CommentsComments on submissions should substantively address the topic of submission.

V: Glorifying ViolenceDo not advocate or encourage violence either seriously or jokingly. Do not glorify oppressive/autocratic regimes.

VI: BrigadingRefrain from brigading other subreddits, or coming from another subreddit and brigading this subreddit.

VII: Off-topic Submission or Meta postSubmissions should be relevant to public policy or political theory. Meta posts should be posted to /r/metaNL. Don't editorialize submissions titles.

VIII: Submission QualityLow-quality or irrelevant submissions will be removed at mod discretion. This applies in particular to low-quality or repetitive memes.

IX: Use Pings WiselySee the full set of guidelines in our wiki. In short, don't use pings to troll, spam, or brigade. The group members decide what is a good use of the ping system, so listen and respond to their feedback.

X: Bonk-Posting/Sexual ContentPosting inappropriate content of a sexual nature. Both SFW and NSFW content can qualify. Repeat infringements can lead to bans.

XI: Toxic NationalismRefrain from condemning countries or their inhabitants at-large in response to political developments, mocking people for their nationality, or advocating for colonialism or imperialism.

Go here to read the rest:

reddit: the front page of the internet

On the surface, it is difficult to see what purpose is served by the new Liberal-NDP alliance or supply and confidence agreement, to give it its proper name for all the attention it has attracted. Its a bit like the metaverse: you know youre supposed to be excited by it, but damned if you can say why, or even quite what it is.

Supposedly the agreement commits the Liberals to certain pieces of legislation dear to the NDP, in exchange for the NDPs promise to keep the Liberals in power until 2025: that is, they will vote with the government on budget bills (supply) and other matters of confidence. But the Liberals dont need the NDPs votes to remain in power the numbers in the House are such that they can govern with the support of any one of the three main opposition parties and in any case the NDP were not about to vote to defeat the government, with or without an agreement.

For their part, the Liberals would hardly need to have their arms twisted to enact most of the policies on dental care, pharmaceuticals, a bank tax and so on to which they have now agreed. Some of them were even in the Liberal platform. So its mostly an agreement for each to do what it would have done anyway or not, as the case may be. Deals between political parties, after all, are not like deals in the real world. They are only binding until they arent until one side or the other decides it does not want to abide by them any more.

Whats the point, then? If neither side needs what they supposedly get from the deal, what do they really get from it? What do they really need? Start with the NDP. It isnt the government that needs to be protected from an election. Its the NDP. Or rather since the government can still call one at any time, the provision of the Elections Act forbidding such calls notwithstanding it needs to to be protected from election speculation. It needs to take the whole idea of an election off the table.

Why? Every minority Parliament is an extended game of chicken. In this particular minority Parliament, the game is not so much between the government and the opposition since all three opposition parties would have to vote to defeat the government at the same time, the governments hold on power is actually quite secure as it is between the opposition parties.

You can see it being played each time there is a confidence vote, such as after a budget. One or other of the parties will rush to the microphones to announce its intention to vote against the government, in hopes of putting its rivals on the spot. Do they want to be responsible, as it will be perceived, for bringing down the government, and most likely precipitating another election?

No one wants an election just now, of course. The problem for the NDP is that, of all the parties, it wants an election least of all and all the other parties know it. After three elections in six years, without the fundraising capacity of its larger rivals, the party simply cannot afford another one any time soon.

So the likelihood was that, some time in the coming months, and again and again over the remainder of this Parliament, the NDP would be put in the humiliating position of being, in effect, the last one to the mike: forced to prop up the government, over and over, for no reason other than because it was too scared not to. Whereas now it can say its because we are bound by the terms of our agreement. We did it for dental care.

They may find, however, that this amounts to burning the furniture to heat the house. For when the election finally does come, what will be left of the partys brand? How will the New Democrats differentiate themselves from the Liberals, having transferred title to some of their signature policies to them?

For their part, the Liberals are also using the agreement to satisfy a short-term need again, at potential cost to their longer-term position. The short-term need is not to ensure they can pass legislation that is not in doubt, for the reasons given but to insulate themselves from parliamentary inquiries into matters the Liberals would rather not discuss: for example, the sudden dismissal of two Chinese scientists from a top-security infectious disease laboratory in Winnipeg.

You will recall the government went so far as to sue the Speaker of the House before the last election rather than yield to Parliaments demands for documents related to the affair. Ultimately, the only weapon Parliament has to enforce its will upon the government is to vote no confidence in it, or to threaten to. The credibility of any such threat would now appear to be very much in doubt.

There is, as I say, a cost to this insurance: by aligning themselves so closely to the left-leaning NDP, the Liberals risk giving up the centre ground to the Conservatives. That, however, assumes the Conservatives have the wit to seize it. The Liberals may be calculating that the Tories have become so toxic to moderate voters as to make the gamble worthwhile: that they can expand to their left and still hold onto the centre.

Whether that proves to be the case will be decided, in part, by the Conservative leadership race. On the tenuous assumption that the Liberal-NDP pact makes an early election call less likely, the race will now be informed by two additional considerations: that whoever is elected will not have to be ready for a general election the day they become leader, but will have some time to prepare; and that by the time the election finally does roll around, they may be facing someone other than Justin Trudeau as Liberal leader.

Perhaps that may even cause one or more potential candidates to reconsider their decision: either to stay out of the race, or to enter it.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Go here to see the original:

Opinion: The Liberal-NDP deal: short-term gain for long-term pain? - The Globe and Mail

Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada are no friends of labor. It is therefore strange that the same government that has had no qualms about repressing strikes by postal and port workers is now signaling a willingness to support an anti-scab bill in Canadas House of Commons. A new confidence and supply deal between the Liberals and the New Democratic Party (NDP), which will keep the Liberals in power until 2025 in exchange for support on key NDP priorities, contains a commitment to table a ban on scabs next year.

An anti-scab law would prohibit employers from using replacement workers to keep their workplaces operating during a strike or lockout. Replacement worker bans typically prevent employers from hiring new workers once collective bargaining begins. They also block employers from assigning employees from another part of their business to perform the work of striking union members.

What form a Liberal government anti-scab law might take remains an open question. Prior to last falls election, Trudeau and the Liberals vacillated on the issue. In 2009, while in the opposition, Trudeau voted in favor of the failed anti-scab legislation introduced by the sovereigntist Bloc Qubcois (BQ). Since forming government in 2015, however, the Liberals have voted down NDP anti-scab bills.

In their fall 2021 electoral platform, however, the Liberals committed to introducing their own anti-scab legislation. This uncharacteristic proposal was very carefully worded. Rather than prohibit the use of replacement workers during all work stoppages, the Liberals only appear willing to ban scabs during employer-initiated lockouts. Given that roughly 85 percent of work stoppages in Canada are strikes, confining the ban to lockouts would make it all but meaningless.

In keeping with the Liberal commitment to maximalist rhetoric and minimalist action, the details of the plan are far less inspiring than the headline. Labor and the Left should seize this opportunity and push the Liberals to implement a robust version of anti-scab legislation.

In Canada, provincial governments have primary responsibility for labor and employment law. Outside of the federal public service, few private industries fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Federal legislative responsibility is largely limited to sectors which cross provincial or international borders, industries deemed to be in the national interest, and Crown Corporations.

Federal labor legislation thus has relatively limited reach. The Canada Labour Code governs the employment of approximately 910,000 workers in air, rail, and interprovincial road transportation; banking and telecommunications; some mining and natural resource extraction; postal services; ports and international shipping; as well as some First Nations government workplaces.

However, workers in Canadas federal jurisdiction are somewhat uniquely situated to benefit from an anti-scab law. Compared to those whose labor is regulated provincially, firms in the federal jurisdiction enjoy some forms of market protection and are much less subject to foreign and domestic competition. The jurisdiction is also characterized by a greater proportion of large firms and higher union density than is the case across the provinces. As of 2018, 82 percent of federally regulated employees worked for firms employing a hundred or more people. Private sector union density nationwide stands at roughly 16 percent, but it is over 34 percent among workers employed by federally regulated private firms.

All these factors could make passing a federal anti-scab law more feasible. Small employer hostility to the bill would likely be negligible. And the effects of the bill could potentially impact a greater number of union members than comparable legislation might in any of the provinces where it is currently lawful to hire scabs.

At present, only British Columbia and Quebec ban scabs in their respective provincial labor relations codes. At the federal level, the Canada Labour Code currently allows employers to freely hire replacement workers. However, the scab hires must not be used to undermine the representational capacity of the union. Further, scab hires are not granted employment ahead of union members when a work stoppage ends.

Beginning in 2017, the federal government committed to making various reforms to federal labor law. They convened an Expert Panel on Modern Labour Standards to recommend reforms for nonunion employees, and have since reintroduced a $15 per hour federal minimum wage, limited employee misclassification, and provided long-service employees with more paid vacation time.

In December 2021, the Liberals belatedly passed a bill, with NDP and BQ support, granting federally regulated workers ten paid sick days annually. The ensuing consultation process overlong and still ongoing has almost certainly been arranged to give employers ample time to partially defang the legislation by influencing its regulatory implementation.

As in other capitalist democracies, strike activity in Canada is at a historic low. The vast majority some 95 percent of collective bargaining rounds are completed successfully without a work stoppage. Strike levels have fallen precipitously since their high point in the early 1980s. Over the past decade, there have been roughly a hundred fifty average annual work stoppages nationwide, across all firm sizes. The story is much the same in the federal private sector where the proposed ban on scabs would apply. The last time there were more than fifteen federal work stoppages was 1987.

Interestingly, while the number of annual strikes has gone down, the average length of strikes has risen. Over the past ten years, average strike duration has increased by two and a half times. In short, unions are striking far less frequently and employers feel emboldened to wait workers out for longer.

In the context of growing inequality and inflation that is outstripping wages, low levels of strike activity dont indicate a well-functioning collective bargaining regime, but rather union weakness. To what degree would a federal anti-scab law help reverse this trend?

Historically, hiring scabs has been one of the most provocative actions a boss can take during a strike. In many instances, a picket line that successfully halts or substantially impedes production can be the determining factor in a job action. By allowing employers to legally replace striking workers, union leverage is diminished. It is therefore reasonable to assume that a ban on scabs would incentivize employers to bargain in good faith.

Employer use of scabs can also increase the likelihood of violence on picket lines, generating tension in communities experiencing a strike or lockout and harming long-term labor relations. Moreover, employers frequently hire private security firms and obtain court injunctions to ensure scabs are able to enter struck workplaces without union interference.

However, scab bans are not beneficial to bosses and pretending otherwise is foolish. In the past, some anti-scab proponents, including unions and labor centrals, have lobbied for a scab ban by emphasizing its potential to reduce the number of days lost to labor disputes. On this question, the evidence is mixed. For example, in the two years after anti-scab laws were introduced in British Columbia and Quebec, the number of strikes increased, though average duration shrank. From labors perspective, this is a desirable outcome. But we shouldnt expect that employers or Liberal governments will consider it to be supportive evidence.

That said, it is true that anti-scab bills can aid in industrial peace. Strikes and lockouts that turn into bitter, protracted standoffs often provoked by an employer that is determined to impose drastically inferior conditions of employment or even entirely break a union could likely be prevented by a strong anti-scab law.

In May 2021, Unifor (formerly the Canadian Auto Workers) launched a nationwide campaign for anti-scab legislation. According to the union, when employers used scabs against Unifor members, the average work stoppage lasted 265 days; when no scabs were involved, the average length was just 42 days. Although Unifors experience is not necessarily representative, it is a good benchmark to look to.

There is no one-stop panacea to reverse the historic weakness of Canadian labor, but a strong federal anti-scab law would doubtlessly increase the bargaining power of affected unions. Legislation that strictly prohibits scabs, protects workers who honor picket lines, and imposes steep fines on contravening employers could go some distance is reviving the efficacy of strikes.

Admittedly, anti-scab laws are necessitated by North American labor relations systems which substantially restrict the ability of unions to strike. There is a reason why Scandinavian labor law doesnt ban scabs: high union density, a greater willingness to strike, and a relatively more permissive legal regime make employers think twice about bringing in replacements. North American unions, on the other hand, look to the state to legislate what they themselves cant impose in practice. Even so, a federal ban on scabs would be a significant win for Canadian unions and could set an important precedent for those provinces that still allow employers to temporarily replace striking workers.

The Liberals recent confidence deal with the NDP makes the partys vague promise of anti-scab legislation a real possibility. But in order to ensure that a ban on scabs has teeth, unions will need to be prepared. We can expect the Liberals to propose an anti-scab bill that will be far weaker than past NDP versions. Organized labor and the federal NDP will have to guard against this. In the event that scabs are successfully banned in Canadas federal private sector, it will be up to labor to capitalize on the victory.

See original here:

Trudeau's Liberals Will Require Pressure to Make Good on Their Anti-Scab Bill - Jacobin magazine

The left-right divide over Covid-19 with blue America taking the virus more seriously than red America has never been the pandemics only political divide. Each partisan tribe has also had its internal disagreements.

Republicans have long been split over vaccination, with many eagerly getting shots while many others refuse. Democrats have their own growing schism, between those who believe Covid precautions should continue to be paramount and those who favor moves toward normalcy.

The key dividing line appears to be ideology. Americans who identify as very liberal are much more worried about Covid than Americans who identify as somewhat liberal or liberal. Increasingly, the very liberal look like outliers on Covid: The merely liberal are sometimes closer to moderates than to the very liberal.

That is a central finding of a poll conducted last week by Morning Consult for this newsletter. The poll is a follow-up to one from January. This time, to go deeper than partisan identification, we asked respondents to choose one of seven labels: very liberal, liberal, slightly liberal, moderate, slightly conservative, conservative or very conservative.

Why does political ideology so strongly shape Covid beliefs?

Donald Trump certainly plays a role. As president, he repeatedly made false statements downplaying Covid. Many Republican voters adopted his view, while many liberal Democrats went in the other direction. They came to equate any loosening of Covid restrictions with Trumpism, even after vaccines tamed the viruss worst effects.

But I dont think Trump is the only explanation. Every group of Democrats disdains him, yet Democrats disagree about Covid. Apart from Trump, the pandemic seems to be tapping into different views of risk perception.

Very liberal Americans make up almost 10 percent of adults, according to our poll and others. Many are younger than 50 and have a four-year college degree. They span all races but are disproportionately white, the Pew Research Center has found.

In recent years, these progressive professionals have tended to adopt a cautious approach to personal safety. You might even call it conservative.

It is especially notable in child rearing. Parents seek out the healthiest food, sturdiest car seats and safest playgrounds. They do not let their children play tackle football, and they worry about soccer concussions. The sociologist Annette Lareau has described the upper-middle-class parenting style as concerted cultivation and contrasted it with a working-class style of natural growth.

A cautious approach to personal safety has big benefits. It has helped popularize bicycle helmets, for example. In the case of Covid, very liberal Americans have been eloquent advocates for protecting the elderly and immunocompromised and for showing empathy toward the unvaccinated.

Yet the approach also has downsides. It can lead people to obsess over small, salient risks while ignoring bigger ones. A regimented childhood, with scheduled lessons replacing unstructured neighborhood play time, may lead to fewer broken bones, but it does not necessarily maximize creativity, independence or happiness.

When it comes to Covid, there is abundant evidence that the most liberal Americans are exaggerating the risks to the vaccinated and to children.

Consider that Democrats younger than 45 are more likely to say the virus poses a great risk to them than those older than 65 are which is inconsistent with scientific reality but consistent with younger Democrats more intense liberalism. Or consider that many liberals (including Sonia Sotomayor) feel deep anxiety about Covids effects on children even though the flu kills more children in a typical year and car crashes kill about five times as many. Long Covid, similarly, appears to be rare in both children and vaccinated people.

The truth is that the vast majority of severe Covid illness is occurring among those Americans who have chosen not to be vaccinated and boosted.

I know that this newsletters emphasis on liberals Covid fears has angered some people. And I understand why many Americans including some moderates and conservatives, as our poll shows remain so focused on the virus. It has dominated daily life for more than two years, and some risk remains. Shifting gears is hard.

But trying to eliminate Covid risk, and allowing the virus to distort daily life, has costs, too. Thats why much of Europe, which is hardly a bastion of Trumpism, has stopped trying to minimize caseloads.

The American focus on Covids dangers, by contrast, has caused disruption and isolation that feed educational losses, mental health troubles, drug overdoses, violent crime and vehicle crashes. These damages have fallen disproportionately on low-income, Black and Latino Americans, exacerbating inequality in ways that would seem to violate liberal values.

Rather than eliminating the risk of Covid, youve got to manage the risk, Elizabeth H. Bradley, a public health expert and the president of Vassar College, told me recently. If you really go for minimizing the risk, youre going to have unintended consequences to peoples physical health, their mental health, their social health.

She added: Its Public Health 101.

Many Americans seem to have adopted this view. But there are still holdouts.

More on the virus:

Russian forces remain stalled outside Kyiv, taking heavy casualties. The Ukrainian military yesterday claimed to have shot down 10 Russian planes and cruise missiles.

Russia does control large sections of eastern and southern Ukraine. Many cities there are desolate and ruined: There is no one to bury the dead, an official said.

This morning, Russian missiles struck the outskirts of the western city of Lviv, which had been a haven, its mayor said.

In Mariupol, a southern city that hasnt fallen, rescuers are pulling survivors from a bombed theater. The death toll is unclear.

The House voted to allow higher tariffs on Russian goods. The bill now moves to the Senate.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the U.S. would punish China if it gave Russia military aid.

Russias stumbles in Ukraine reveal the weaknesses of autocracies, says David Brooks.

Michelle Goldberg profiles Peter Marki-Zay, the Hungarian politician trying to unseat Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Elena Ferrante, the pseudonymous author of the Neapolitan novels and more, has published a collection of lectures about writing and reading. Here are a few takeaways:

She kept a notebook as a teenager. The writer, her young self wrote, has a duty to put into words the shoves he gives and those he receives from others.

She balances tidiness with disorder. Love stories become interesting to Ferrante at the moment when a character falls out of love; mysteries gain intrigue when she understands that the puzzle wont be solved, The Timess Molly Young writes.

Shes a rereader. To read a book is to absorb, consciously or not, all the other books that influenced that book, as well as the books that influenced those books, and so on; to interpret even one paragraph on a page is to vector endlessly back in time, Molly writes.

More here:

Covid and the 'Very Liberal' - The New York Times

A proposal in the new Liberal-NDP agreement to create a national dental care program for low-income Canadians could deliver the largest expansion of Canada's public health care system in decades.

"It is a matter of dignity," NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said Tuesday. "This will make a massive difference for health and for people's quality of life."

The dealto create a dental program is part of the new Liberal-NDP "supply-and-confidence" agreement. The agreement will see the New Democratssupport the minority Liberal governmenton confidence votes until 2025 in exchange for action on several NDPpriorities.

The NDP campaigned on a promise of a national dental care program during Singh's two elections as party leader, but previous Liberal governments never moved on the project.

Here is what we know so far about the dental plan how it would function, how much it would costand the effect it could have on the roughly6.5 million Canadians who don'thave dental coverage now.

Under the program, families with annual incomes of less than $90,000 lackingdental insurance would be eligible for coverage.

Anyone making less than $70,000 annually also would not have to make co-pays the flat rate fee which otherwise can be charged each time a person makes a claim. Dental fees would be fully covered bythe government for any person or family with an income under $70,000.

The proposal is nearly identical to the policy plank inNDP platforms for the 2019 and 2021 elections.

The system would function along the lines ofprivate insurance plans. The plandoes not call for specific investments in health care infrastructure or for workers to support the needs of dentalpatients.

About 6.5 million Canadians are believed to be eligible for the plan. Thatfigure is projected to decrease slightly to 6.3 million by 2025 due to demographic shifts and improving labour market conditions.

The plan is tobe phased in over three years before theLiberal-NDP agreement expires in 2025.

Starting later this year, children under 12 would become eligible for the program.

In 2023, the coverage would be extended to 18-year-olds, seniors and people living with disabilities.

The program would be fully implemented by 2025 under the proposed timeline.

Laura Tamblyn Watts, founder and CEO of the senior advocacy group CanAge, said the program would make a "huge difference" in the lives of seniors who don't have coverage and can't afford dental care.

"Older adults desperately need the access to dental care that right now we don't have consistently across this country," she said.

Watts said Canadian seniors without dental coverage often turn to hospital emergency rooms when experiencing dental issues.

"We know that ERs are overwhelmingly the country's dentists of seniors and thatshould not be the case," she said.

The price tagcould be revealed in the federal budget expectedin early April, but previous NDP proposals alreadyhave been examined and costed.

An analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officerin 2020 estimated the cost of a similar program at $1.3 billion over the year following the plan's announcement, and $4.3 billion during the first year of the plan's operation. The program would then cost about $1.5 billion annually until 2025.

The much higher cost in the program's first year is based on the expectation that people with unmet dental needs would seek care when they become eligible.

But the new proposal calls for the program to be phased in over several years, which could change prior cost projections.

"While it will cost a little more on the front end, it will save money on the back end and make life more affordable," said Armine Yalnizyan, an economist serving as the Atkinson Fellow on the Future of Workers.

"I know that people are going to say, 'Why are we spending money?' But that's being penny-wise and pound-foolish."

Conservative interim leader Candice Bergen said the Liberal-NDP agreement will lead to reckless spending during a time of economicuncertainty.

"Some Liberals have told me they're very worried about the economic direction under the Justin Trudeau government," she said on Tuesday. "I can't imagine how they're feeling now that they have a Jagmeet Singh-led government in charge."

Read the original here:

Everything we know about the Liberal-NDP dental care proposal - CBC News