Canadians are obsessed with the Robo-call scandal at the expense of the more titillating one involving a federal cabinet minister

Who actually listens to computer-dialed telephone calls?Photo NST

By Catherine Ford : Canadians have a juicy scandal to rival many in the United States, but we are loathe to admit it.

Take a bow, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. (Rhymes with knave, the dictionary word which ever-so succinctly defines “a dishonest or unscrupulous man.)

Not a dishonest or unscrupulous minister of the Crown, but the squidgy entanglement surrounding his divorce. All of the allegations are contained in papers filed by Toews’ ex-wife and are public documents. Public means just what everything thinks it means – open to public scrutiny. And that should be that.

Just hang up

Instead, alas, we focus on irritating and maybe illegal telephone calls. The curious question is: Who actually listens to computer-dialed calls? That split-second lapse between “hello” and the answering voice is an invitation to hang up. Any call from a real person doesn’t have that gap and personally, I hang up immediately. Nothing good ever comes from computer-generated calls.

But we are obsessed with the telephone – invented by a Canadian after all – leaving anything that smacks of sex and infidelity to those ugly Americans. One can hear the collective “eeuw” when conversation involves Canadian politicians and sex. We are curiously puritanical about this, yet the people who truly are Puritans can’t wait to revel in the wandering eyes and other body parts of their public figures, (Think of any number of married American politicians from John F. Kennedy to Bill Clinton to the lesser lights of Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain who have had to hang their heads in shame – metaphorically if not actually – for being incapable of keeping their pants zipped.) The list of philanderers, cheats and serial adulterers is so long it would be easier to find an American male politician who has not tomcatted around.

Here in Canada, we seem affronted when public documents are actually made public. Apparently, we believe the definition of public” is “me, but not you.” When some functionary apparently employed by the Liberals set up a Twitter account revealing some of the more sordid details of the Toews’ divorce, there was outrage. Voices were raised. How dare this happen? This is the private life of a Canadian cabinet minister.

As it is, except when the self-same minister and his spouse take their marital quarrels into the court system. Then it becomes public and the more squeamish who don’t like to read about the sordid goings-on in a marriage, don’t have to pay attention. But when an elected official – like so many in the U.S. – talks about “family values,” a cabinet minister who looks upon gay marriage as a threat to the “sanctity” of marriage, his own actions – particularly those that belie his public statements – are fair game.

But that’s not the Canadian way, particularly the Conservative way. Everyone else is fair game for ad hominem attacks, but not the Conservatives. They don’t get that turnabout is fair play. If someone wants to keep details of his life private, don’t take it to the courts. Duke it out in private.

Conservative outrage won and interim Liberal leader Bob Rae apologized in the House of Commons. (That’s rich: an apology for telling the truth. But I digress.)

Only in Canada would we be obsessive about computerized telephone calls at the expense of the more lurid and titillating scandal involving a federal cabinet minister, an alleged affair purportedly involving a pregnancy and a subsequent divorce.

But no, Canada is consumed with the so-called Robo-calls. Yes, it’s serious, as anything might be that involves tinkering with the mechanism of democracy, particularly on Election Day. But it’s such a polite scandal, except in the House of Commons where the governing Conservatives are practicing the predictable tactics of deny, blame a junior staff member, deflect attention to the Opposition, deny some more, and accuse everyone who doesn’t hew to the hard line of nasty politics of being Commie sympathizers and wimps. Or Liberal party supporters, which has come to mean the same thing.

Choice of scandals these days is a scandal in itself. I’m only saying this because it’s an embarrassment not to have a juicy sex scandal of our own.

There’s some hope left for Canada to step up to the scandal sheets yet: This past week, a Winnipeg judge ruled Toews can see who was rifling through his divorce file. According to the Winnipeg Free Press, Judge Rick Saull ruled: “When one considers public policy, it seems to me at its core unfair that someone should have their personal matters revealed at the whim of any passerby and not be able to know who it was who had access, regardless of the motives of that person.”

Canadians have a juicy scandal to rival many in the United States, but we are loathe to admit it.

Take a bow, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. (Rhymes with knave, the dictionary word which ever-so succinctly defines “a dishonest or unscrupulous man.)

Not a dishonest or unscrupulous minister of the Crown, but the squidgy entanglement surrounding his divorce. All of the allegations are contained in papers filed by Toews’ ex-wife and are public documents. Public means just what everything thinks it means – open to public scrutiny. And that should be that.

Just hang up

Instead, alas, we focus on irritating and maybe illegal telephone calls. The curious question is: Who actually listens to computer-dialed calls? That split-second lapse between “hello” and the answering voice is an invitation to hang up. Any call from a real person doesn’t have that gap and personally, I hang up immediately. Nothing good ever comes from computer-generated calls.

But we are obsessed with the telephone – invented by a Canadian after all – leaving anything that smacks of sex and infidelity to those ugly Americans. One can hear the collective “eeuw” when conversation involves Canadian politicians and sex. We are curiously puritanical about this, yet the people who truly are Puritans can’t wait to revel in the wandering eyes and other body parts of their public figures, (Think of any number of married American politicians from John F. Kennedy to Bill Clinton to the lesser lights of Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain who have had to hang their heads in shame – metaphorically if not actually – for being incapable of keeping their pants zipped.) The list of philanderers, cheats and serial adulterers is so long it would be easier to find an American male politician who has not tomcatted around.

Here in Canada, we seem affronted when public documents are actually made public. Apparently, we believe the definition of public” is “me, but not you.” When some functionary apparently employed by the Liberals set up a Twitter account revealing some of the more sordid details of the Toews’ divorce, there was outrage. Voices were raised. How dare this happen? This is the private life of a Canadian cabinet minister.

As it is, except when the self-same minister and his spouse take their marital quarrels into the court system. Then it becomes public and the more squeamish who don’t like to read about the sordid goings-on in a marriage, don’t have to pay attention. But when an elected official – like so many in the U.S. – talks about “family values,” a cabinet minister who looks upon gay marriage as a threat to the “sanctity” of marriage, his own actions – particularly those that belie his public statements – are fair game.

But that’s not the Canadian way, particularly the Conservative way. Everyone else is fair game for ad hominem attacks, but not the Conservatives. They don’t get that turnabout is fair play. If someone wants to keep details of his life private, don’t take it to the courts. Duke it out in private.

Conservative outrage won and interim Liberal leader Bob Rae apologized in the House of Commons. (That’s rich: an apology for telling the truth. But I digress.)

Only in Canada would we be obsessive about computerized telephone calls at the expense of the more lurid and titillating scandal involving a federal cabinet minister, an alleged affair purportedly involving a pregnancy and a subsequent divorce.

But no, Canada is consumed with the so-called Robo-calls. Yes, it’s serious, as anything might be that involves tinkering with the mechanism of democracy, particularly on Election Day. But it’s such a polite scandal, except in the House of Commons where the governing Conservatives are practicing the predictable tactics of deny, blame a junior staff member, deflect attention to the Opposition, deny some more, and accuse everyone who doesn’t hew to the hard line of nasty politics of being Commie sympathizers and wimps. Or Liberal party supporters, which has come to mean the same thing.

Choice of scandals these days is a scandal in itself. I’m only saying this because it’s an embarrassment not to have a juicy sex scandal of our own.

There’s some hope left for Canada to step up to the scandal sheets yet: This past week, a Winnipeg judge ruled Toews can see who was rifling through his divorce file. According to the Winnipeg Free Press, Judge Rick Saull ruled: “When one considers public policy, it seems to me at its core unfair that someone should have their personal matters revealed at the whim of any passerby and not be able to know who it was who had access, regardless of the motives of that person.”

Catherine Ford
Columnist
Troy Media  www.troymedia.com