tolerance – mackaycartoons

Friday May 10, 2024

May 10, 2024 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday May 10, 2024

Unraveling Bias: Why Ontario’s Kaffiyeh Ban is a Stitch in Time

April 24, 2024

In a legislative arena often fraught with partisan wrangling and grandstanding, one would expect clarity and consistency in the application of rules. However, the recent uproar over the ban on wearing kaffiyehs in the Ontario Legislature has exposed a glaring double standard, begging for a rational reconsideration.

At the heart of the matter lies the fundamental right to express one’s identity and beliefs, a cornerstone of democratic societies. Garments, whether adorned with political symbols or cultural significance, serve as tangible expressions of these beliefs. Just as a maple leaf pin proudly worn by a Canadian parliamentarian signifies patriotism, so too does a kaffiyeh worn by a member of the Palestinian diaspora represent solidarity with a cause.

Toronto Star: Kaffiyeh ban at Queen’s Park has been a needless distraction. It should be reversed

July 12, 2019

It’s worth noting the longstanding precedent within the Ontario Legislature itself. Political parties have historically displayed their colours through attire without censure. Liberal premiers sporting red ties, Progressive Conservative MPPs donning blue, or NDP members proudly wearing orange—these are accepted as manifestations of political affiliation. To arbitrarily single out the kaffiyeh as “overtly political” while allowing other forms of expression is not justifiable, but rather smacks of bias.

Moreover, this ban undermines the rich tapestry of cultural diversity that defines Ontario. The kaffiyeh, with its centuries-old tradition among Palestinians, holds profound cultural significance beyond its political connotations. It’s akin to denying the Scottish parliamentarian his kilt or the Sikh legislator his turban—a suppression of cultural identity under the guise of maintaining decorum.

Opinion: Of course the keffiyeh is political. But it still shouldn’t be banned from Ontario’s legislature

July 19, 2019

Speaker Ted Arnott’s decree, while perhaps well-intentioned, reflects a myopic view of what constitutes political expression. In a world where symbols evolve and context matters, clinging rigidly to outdated notions of neutrality risks stifling meaningful dialogue and understanding.

In light of these considerations, it’s imperative for Speaker Arnott to reassess his stance. A reversal of the ban on kaffiyehs would not only uphold the principles of free expression and cultural diversity but also signal a commitment to fairness and inclusivity within the legislative chamber. After all, in the mosaic of Ontario’s democracy, every thread—be it red, blue, orange, or patterned with the iconic black-and-white of the kaffiyeh—contributes to the vibrant tapestry of our shared identity. (AI)

Thursday June 10, 2021

June 17, 2021 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday June 10, 2021

What happened in London should be a pivot point for Canada — and its politicians

In a speech in 2015, while reflecting on Canada’s treatment of minorities, Justin Trudeau said that the inclusive idea of liberty that typifies the best of Canada “requires Canadian political leadership to be sustained.”

Six years later, the killing of four members of a Muslim family in London, Ontario is a moment of reckoning for Canadians — but also for this country’s political leaders.

If it’s necessary for Canadians to reflect on themselves and their country, it’s equally necessary for politicians to consider what they could have done better in the past and what more they could do in the future.

In 2017, there was Motion 103. Tabled by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, it asked the House of Commons to condemn Islamophobia and endorse a study of how the federal government could better combat racism and discrimination. It did not pass quietly or easily. Eighty-six Conservative MPs — including current party leader Erin O’Toole — voted against it.

August 25, 2020

O’Toole’s first response to the attack in London this week described it as an “Islamophobic act of terror.” He used the word “Islamophobia” in his remarks to the House of Commons the next day.

Maybe that counts as some small measure of progress, too. But even if O’Toole appeared to turn a page this week, should politicians ever be allowed to move on so quietly?

Does he regret his vote on M-103? How does he feel now about what the previous Conservative government — which he served as a cabinet minister — said and did in regards to the niqab? What about that same government’s talk of “barbaric cultural practices?”

February 16, 2017

In the 2015 election — during which Stephen Harper suggested he would consider extending a ban on the niqab to the public service — was hardly the last word on anti-Muslim prejudice in Canada.

Trudeau put himself ahead of other leaders on the issue of the niqab when he delivered that speech in 2015. Unfortunately, it was possible then to think he had taken a political risk in so loudly criticizing the Harper government’s ban. New Democrats ended up blaming their losses in that year’s election in part on the fact that Tom Mulcair eventually was compelled to condemn the policy.

October 3, 2019

If Trudeau is ahead of his federal counterparts now on the matter of Quebec’s Bill 21, which would ban public servants in the province from wearing religious headwear or symbols, he’s not ahead by much.

O’Toole deferred to Quebec when he was asked about the so-called “secularism” law last September — another thing he might be asked about now. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has criticized the bill but has stopped short of saying an government led by him would intervene.

Trudeau has criticized the bill but is still alone among federal leaders in saying that the federal government might someday need to participate in a legal challenge against it.

That wasn’t much — but then Trudeau seemed to move backwards this week. Asked by a reporter whether he thought Bill 21 “fosters hatred and … discrimination,” the prime minister responded, “No.” (Continued: CTV)

Wednesday October 25, 2017

October 24, 2017 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday October 25, 2017

Trudeau, Scheer and Singh do the math in Quebec and none champion an anti-racist stance

The tepid response from federal leaders to Quebec’s ill-conceived and offensive Bill 62 tells us three truths about Canadian politics.

They are not comfortable truths.

September 14, 2013

It tells us that all three major party leaders may harbour suspicions that the bill forcing face coverings to be removed while accessing public services may be more popular both inside and outside Quebec than what might be expected.

They may be right. This has all the trappings of a Donald Trump presidential run or a Brexit referendum in that the louder the protestations and the deeper the indignation of the mainstream pundits, editorial boards and the elite, the more popular the candidate or the legislation.

Secondly, it tells us that the further from power one is, the easier it is to be the champion of rights and liberties.

And thirdly, because it is Quebec, we know that any federal intervention is seen as a political third rail, which would not be the case if, say, a government in Manitoba or Nova Scotia had passed such legislation.

This is particularly true when the Quebec premier is a federalist.

No one wants to poke the hibernating PQ bear, everyone is leery of meddling in provincial jurisdiction, particularly when you have opposition parties who believe Premier Philippe Couillard’s absurd bill does not go far enough. (Source: Toronto Star)

SaveSave

Thursday July 6, 2017

July 5, 2017 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday July 6, 2017

‘Odious’ or overdue: Reports of Omar Khadr settlement draw sharply different reactions

A case that has divided Canadians for nearly 15 years continued to do so Tuesday as news leaked that Ottawa would apologize to Omar Khadr and offer a settlement of more than $10 million for the abuse he endured while in U.S. custody in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.

The vitriol was most intense among fringe commentators on the far right and left, but the issue quickly drew political reactions from across the spectrum, with former members of the Harper administration taking to Twitter and other social media to weigh in.

“Odious,” wrote former Conservative defence minister Jason Kenney, now leader of Alberta’s Progressive Conservative party, on Twitter. “Confessed terrorist who assembled & planted the same kind of IED (improvised explosive device) that killed 97 Canadians to be given $10-million.”

Others praised the government apology as long overdue. “Finally we have seen the light!” wrote Shelly Whitman, executive director of the Roméo Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative.

While Khadr’s case has always elicited a vigorous debate, news of the settlement triggered extreme commentary Tuesday, including calls on social media for Khadr’s murder and the deaths of the journalists reporting the story, or of advocates who support a government apology. (Continued: Toronto Star)

Saturday August 24, 2015

August 21, 2015 by Graeme MacKay

By Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday August 24, 2015

“I am very sorry:” They smoked, he sprayed Glade

Ed Steel says, quite simply, that he couldn’t take it anymore.

After what he says was weeks of having to wheel his common-law spouse through a constant crowd of smokers every time he went in or out of Dundurn Place, and after complaining to everyone he could think of — the long-term care home’s administration, the police, the health department, even a city councillor — nothing had changed.

“It’s illegal — there are signs right there. But it all just goes into a dead ear. Nothing happened.”

His frustration arises, he says, not just from the disregard for the law, or the health of those who have to pass through the smoke, but because of his first wife, who he says died from a smoking-related illness.

So on Monday, Steel brought a can of aerosol air freshener with him from home and as he passed through the smokers gathered by the front door in their wheelchairs and scooters, he let off blasts from his air freshener “to show them that I deserved some fresh air.”

On his way out, one of the smokers challenged him, he says, told him “he’d better not spray that again.”

So out came the Glade.

“I sprayed it at the ground, not at anybody’s face … if the wind blew it her way, I am very sorry.”

Police tell a different story and unfortunately for him their witness Ingrid Boiago, the centre’s director of clinical nursing, was until very recently a Hamilton police officer.

Steel was charged the next day with two counts of assault with a weapon; in their press release police allege Steel sprayed the women in the face. In an interview Boiago declined to go into specifics of what she saw.

Kevin McDonald, a manager at Hamilton’s Public Health Services, says Dundurn Place “is a challenging location” for the department partly because some of the long-term care residents have a diminished capacity “and it’s a challenge for them to understand the requirements.”

Enforcement staff have issued 11 tickets (minimum fines start at $365) and these have yielded some convictions, but also some charges have been withdrawn because of diminished capacity. McDonald said staff have met with Dundurn Place staff this week in light of the incident.

Ironically, the Mary Street facility is the only long-term care home in the whole city to have a legal, indoor smoking area, a specially ventilated room that meets provincial requirements and is inspected annually. It also has a rear patio that can be used for smoking.

But many residents, McDonald says, prefer the front entrance because that’s where all the action is.

Leslie Watson, Dundurn Place’s administrator, acknowledges smoking at the entrance “is an ongoing issue. We continue to go out and ask the residents to go down the ramps (away from the front door). I take it extremely seriously and we work very hard to get the residents to understand the requirements.”

For his part Steel, 67, hopes the attention this incident has generated will lead to a more permanent solution and in the meantime he’s looking to move his spouse to a different facility to finish her rehabilitation so she can come home.

“If this is all for nothing, then I’m going to be really upset.” (Source: Hamilton Spectator)