Once again, a woman for president was just too much for Americans to bear. Kamala Harris was soundly beaten by an angry white man. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 11, 2024.

OTTAWA—After his decisive victory against U.S. Vice-President Kamala Harris last week, Donald Trump needs to get some new hats.

The stench of sexism and racism wafted from voting booths as those who wanted to turn back the clock cast their ballots for a convicted sex offender.

Trump’s numbers in most areas exceeded his previous election bids. In his first attempt, Trump made it to the White House with the electoral vote, but not the popular vote. On Nov. 5, he got it all. There is nothing stopping him now.

David Axelrod, a Democratic adviser to multiple presidents, said after the vote that racism and sexism both played a role in Harris’ loss. Given the United States has previously voted for a Black president in Barack Obama, one has to assume that gender was the deciding Harris negative.

An exit poll by Edison Research found that Harris received the majority of her support from women and minorities. As for women, she won 54 per cent of their votes, while Trump secured 44 per cent. However, the white vote generally gave Trump an edge of 12 per cent. As for Latinos, they moved toward Trump in numbers not seen in the 2020 race.

On the race front, post-election numbers show that Harris garnered 80 per cent of the Black vote, but Obama received 93 per cent. Why was there a 13 per cent drop? Was it because some Black men couldn’t vote for a woman?

Women all over the world are mourning the Harris loss because it felt that, once again, a chance to elect a woman president in American was shattered not by a glass ceiling, but a concrete one.

Harris ran a flawless campaign. She was positive, upbeat, and energetic compared to a waddling Trump who bored crowds with his incoherent, droning speeches.

A woman voter dressed as a handmaid at a Pennsylvania voting booth said it all. Without uttering a word, the anonymous woman sent a clear message of what was at stake in the election.

Margaret Atwood, renowned Canadian author of The Handmaid’s Tale, made her own plea to American voters to support Harris for president.

According to her publisher, Atwood’s novel explores “themes of powerless women in a patriarchal society, loss of female agency and individuality, suppression of women’s reproductive rights, and the various means by which women resist and try to gain individuality and independence.”

That was the narrative for women in this election.

Once again, a woman for president was just too much for Americans to bear. Harris, who took over the Democratic reins from an ailing President Joe Biden 100 days ago, was soundly beaten by an angry white man.

Trump’s multiple character flaws were on painful display in the campaign, including the fact that almost no one who served with him in the White House supported him. His last week of campaigning was a disaster.

The hope that former congresswoman Liz Cheney be put before a firing squad prefaced by a self-inflicted wound at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally in New York. Multiple participants levelled insults at women, Blacks, and Jews.

Harris herself was alleged to be a sex worker working with her pimps. Then came the now infamous insult to Puerto Ricans when a comedian called their home a floating island of garbage.

Harris faced a double whammy. As a racialized woman, she fought prejudice against her gender and her race.

Despite her comfortable majority support with women, the men did her in. The more education they had, the more likely they were to support her. But opposition from young men and those with less than a high school education was ferocious.

Harris cannot be faulted on her campaign. Her message was solid, and she delivered it with an ease of confidence reminiscent of a real leader.

Now Democrats must reboot while MAGA Republicans are already discussing a successor to the aging president-elect. In a media interview, a young Trump voter said he thought the perfect successor was vice-president-elect J.D. Vance.

The man who thinks America is being run by a “bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too” is the next great white hope.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

Iran’s decision to rain missiles upon Tel Aviv last week will unleash a response that means trouble for the whole world. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 7, 2024.

OTTAWA—We are commemorating the one-year anniversary of the Hamas slaughter of innocent Israelis this week.

On Oct. 7 of last year, Hamas attacked young people attending a music festival and old people quietly living in their homes with a fury that seems impossible to understand.

But those of us who don’t understand why have only to take a page from the book of Iran’s supreme leader.

He can tell women what to do and what to wear, and what the penalties are for not following his advice.

If you don’t have your head covered in the right way, you can be subjected to physical attacks and imprisonment. In some cases, those attacks have led to death.

In 2022, Mahsa Amini was killed while in custody after being arrested for not properly wearing her head covering.

Penalties can also be levied for sexual relations outside of marriage, including stoning someone to death.

Likewise, if someone is not heterosexual, sexual relations with a same-sex partner is also punishable by death.

Death as punishment for homosexual relations is unique to Iran in the world, although Afghanistan is currently reviewing the application of a similar policy.

There is a reason that hundreds of ex-patriot Iranians around the world were celebrating the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

Iran is the chief patron of Hezbollah, and has supported Nasrallah’s leadership for 32 years.

Ex-pats blame Nasrallah and the Iranian government for the oppression that has dampened the spirit of Iranian people for years.

A United Nations fact-finding mission concluded that the Iranian government was responsible for Amini’s death, and accused Iran of committing “crimes against humanity” as the result of a months-long security crackdown that killed more than 500 people, and detained more than 20,000.

The UN report said that Iranian security forces regularly used submachine guns and assault rifles against peaceful demonstrators, and noted a pattern of protesters being “branded” by shooting them in the eye, leading to permanent damage.

Iran’s Supreme Commander Ayatollah Ali Khamenei doesn’t see any problem with his country’s internal situation, although thousands of Iranians may think otherwise.

He has been in power since 1979, the year which marked the end of “westernizing” Iran with the departure of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

His government’s view of the Middle East is that all problems would be solved if only Israel would disappear. He blames all challenges there on the Israeli attacks in Gaza and Lebanon.

Thousands of Canadian supporters of Palestine have been lobbying non-stop for an end to the war in Gaza in an effort to save thousands of lives, and end the displacement of thousands more.

There are now more than one million Lebanese who are on the move to get away from the fighting, and to find safety for their families.

Most protesters would not want to strengthen Iran’s hand, but they have been silent on surrogates in the region like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Hamas carried out an unprecedented civilian slaughter on Oct. 7, 2023.

Silence doubles as support for Hamas, and one result of the Iranian attack on Israel is that Iran is no longer silently fuelling Israel’s enemies.

Instead, it is leading the charge with its stated intent to eliminate Israel’s existence.

Israel is receiving international support for the right to defend itself against the Iranian incursion.

Its ground invasion of Lebanon has already led to military casualties.

But the incursion into Gaza and the wanton deaths of thousands of civilians have raised the global ire of millions.

To date, most of the pressure has been focused on Israelis to withdraw from Gaza as the only way to secure the release of the hostages who have now been held for a full year.

But now the pressure point will be on Iran. And those in the Arab world who do not support Iran will be called to engage in the fight.

Iran’s decision to rain missiles upon Tel Aviv last week will unleash a response that means trouble for the whole world.

Already one of the outcomes is a rapid hike in the price of oil, which puts the fragile economic recovery under threat.

The hike may help producers, but will put further stress on Canadian consumers.

Meanwhile, the world is waiting with bated breath as we teeter on the edge of a world war.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

Rosemary Speirs passed away last week just as Lisa LaFlamme was being unceremoniously dumped as CTV’s award-winning anchor. Both were luminaries in the field of journalism.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 22, 2022.

Rosemary Speirs passed away last week just as Lisa LaFlamme was being unceremoniously dumped as CTV’s award-winning anchor.

Both were luminaries in the field of journalism.

Rosemary’s forte was the written word. She was a print journalist for more than three decades, and spent the majority of her career at the Toronto Star covering politics.

Lisa was the modern face of television, an accomplished journalist whose on-camera anchor demeanour exuded confidence and experience.

LaFlamme beat all the rest when it came to national awards for journalism.

Speirs was a stellar reporter, following the old adage of “Just the facts, ma’am.” She was a real example of what a journalist should be. No animus, no hidden personal agenda, just an attempt to get to the story behind the story.

As a politician, I always appreciated an interview by Speirs or Laflamme. They never doubled-down on politicians, never considered us the enemy. They would push us for information without ever being motivated by any personal animosity.

The current crop of male journalists carries their disdain for the political class as a badge of honour. Many are proud of the fact that they have zero belief in political integrity.

They make it known that most politicians are without talent, because truly talented change-makers would not deign to pursue a career in politics.

In Speirs’ case, she saw politics as a craft and as a place where one could effect real change.

Almost a quarter century separates LaFlamme and Speirs, but both focussed on bringing their unique talents into a man’s world.

In Rosemary’s case, one huge change she sought was more women in the political system.

To that end, she was a co-founder of Equal Voice, a national non-partisan organization focussed on encouraging more women to run in politics.

Because of her work, the organization has been actively recruiting women to add their voices to municipal, provincial, and federal politics for the past two decades.

Rosemary Speirs’ life’s work was improving equality in politics.

Perhaps we need that same drive applied to equality in media.

The firing of LaFlamme hit many hard on two fronts. Management’s explanation for the decision—that firing their award-winning, top-rated anchor was sound business—had the stench of sexism and ageism.

LaFlamme is only 58 years of age, yet somehow the brass at CTV believed she was not appealing to new—also known as younger—audiences.

As for gender bias, Peter Mansbridge and Lloyd Robertson, both respected national news anchors, remained in their posts until well past the national retirement age of 65.

Robertson left his his position as CTV news anchor in his 77th year. As for Mansbridge, he enjoyed a year-long pre-retirement celebration, stepping down on Canada’s 150th birthday at the age of 69.

Compare those departures to the sacking of LaFlamme at age 58.

When it comes to the treatment of women, politicians are doing a lot better than journalists.

Look what happened to Wendy Mesley when she allegedly brought up the N-word in a private news meeting to discuss coverage of a book.

She was secretly shoved aside, without a proper explanation of the fact that she was simply referring to the language in the book.

Before LaFlamme, the last great female anchor was Barbara Frum. The atrium in the new CBC building was named after her. She died while still on the job at the age of 54.

That was 30 years ago. But the recent treatment received by LaFlamme is proof positive that in all that time, the status of women in the media has not changed much.

Even the dress code for women is sexist. CTV executive Michael Melling, who dumped LaFlamme with two years left in her contract, also opposed her COVID-era decision to go grey, a decision cheered by women across the country.

LaFlamme kept her professionalism intact. She always looked fabulous, while bringing her measured journalistic skills to the job.

She embodied the likeability factor. People enjoyed watching her anchor the news. She would often find something positive to say at the end of a broadcast, in contrast to the usual negative nature of much news coverage.

Twitter labelled the person who fired her as the most hated man in Canada.

With ageism and sexism rearing their ugly heads, LaFlamme’s firing proves we need a Media Equal Voice.

Rosemary would approve!

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

A close race could help push left-leaning voters toward the favoured Liberals, especially if the NDP doesn’t get its act together.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 23, 2021.

Many punches were thrown in the first week of the campaign. Few landed.

From vaccines to abortions, the two main leaders sparred on the wedge issues that could shape the campaign. But the one issue that could be decisive got no attention whatsoever.

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole unveiled his party’s slick promotional magazine touting various aspects of the platform. Most commentary focused on his buff body and how great he looked in a black t-shirt. The magazine was obviously intended to appeal to the millennial crowd, a voter cohort that has traditionally shied away from the Conservatives. But he will have a tough time beating the TikTok king Jagmeet Singh, who was recognized on the streets of Vancouver not as a political leader but as “that TikTok guy”. Liberals are perusing the Tory document for ammunition they might use to widen the wedge between themselves and their main opponent.

Outgoing Status of Women Minister Maryam Monsef was quick to point out a line in the platform promising to enshrine “conscience rights” for medical professionals in legislation. In and of itself, this might not be problematic, but O’Toole stated in July that he would not intervene if provinces defunded abortions in their health care planning.

“How provinces run their health care system is not what the federal government should be interfering with,” he told reporters during a whistle-stop in Fredericton, where the provincial government refuses to fund abortions performed outside the hospital setting.

The controversy swirls around a clinic that offers reproductive and general services to the LGTBQ community called Clinic 554. The federal Liberals have been withholding health transfers to the province because of their refusal to fund it, and the fact that there are no hospitals providing abortions in Fredericton.

O’Toole went to great lengths last week to convince Quebecers that he was pro-choice. But the fact that the majority of his caucus voted in the last Parliament to limit abortions does cast doubt on his affirmations.

Voteprolife has shut down public access to its website, which tracks abortion views of all candidates in the upcoming election. However, there is no doubt that over the course of the campaign, the views of all candidates will become public, and O’Toole’s solemn personal views will likely clash with his caucus majority.

In the last election, abortion became enough of a wedge to move some doubtful women voters over to the Liberals. I don’t think that is the issue to do so this time. Instead, the positions of the two main parties on childcare will cost the Tories dearly in terms of their capacity to attract support from the swathe of Greater Toronto Area so-called soccer moms so crucial to victory.

The value proposition for parents is clear: do you want money, or do you want safe childcare?

But parents with young children know that money is only part of the problem. The other issue is access to excellent licensed childcare spots. And a $10 dollar a day government-approved childcare establishment gives parents a lot more reassurance than a year-end refundable tax credit.

O’Toole won’t be able to attack the Liberal plan as profligate, since his approach costs approximately the same amount of money. In addition, he will have to tear up agreements with multiple Conservative provinces that have already signed onto the plan. But the biggest blunder is what could happen to his electoral chances in Quebec. La belle province has been living with subsidized childcare since it was introduced for $5 dollars a day by the Parti Quebecois government in 1997. With almost a quarter-century of experience, Quebecers are not about to give up a social program that they believe contributes to positive family and community life. And the government of Quebec has already signed an agreement to top up provincial spending with a lucrative cash transfer from the federal government. The childcare program is supported by the Bloc Quebecois as well, and they will be pounding hard at the Tories on this issue.

With several provincial governments already lining up to introduce more licensed childcare spaces to complement the federal plan, O’Toole’s promise to tear up those deals is not going to win him any support.

Instead, it will turn women off, the very voters he needs if he is to form the government.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

So, we are languishing on the vaccination rollout and medical doctors who are working in intensive care units filled with COVID carriers are not even allowed to get the second vaccine, which has greater protection for variant mutations. What is wrong with that picture?

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 26, 2021.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s tears failed to dampen the unprecedented spike in his unpopularity.

His mea culpa, offered while in isolation at his late mother’s home in Etobicoke, was designed to let people know that their pain was his pain. But nobody was listening.

The government’s decision to announce draconian lockdown measures the previous weekend was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.

Within two days, decisions to close children’s playgrounds and unleash unprecedented police powers on an already suffering populace were hastily reversed.

Ford says he went too far, but that is not the issue. He went to the wrong places.

During COVID, if we have learned one thing, it is that the outdoors is our friend. So why prevent children from enjoying playgrounds and shut down the sports of golf, tennis, baseball, soccer, and the like?

Surely if there is one thing that should be encouraged in a pandemic that is well into its second year is the need to get outdoor exercise through several avenues. The closure of all outdoor athletic venues is absurd, and the notion that you cannot even sit on a picnic table in a park is illogical.

What is not enough is the decision to ignore a plan for asymptomatic testing in vulnerable workplaces like grocery stores, food factory floors and shipping areas.

What is not enough is the decision to deny the most vulnerable workers paid sick leave.

Is it any surprise that without sick leave, and with no random workplace testing that silent and not-so-silent carriers are spreading the virus?

What is also not enough is the way that multiple governments have refused to prioritize hot spots for treatment.

In a Confederation, the vaccines are distributed on a per capita basis, but when one city has more than 1,500 cases per day, and a province might have less than 10, why is that per capital system inviolate?

We literally have dozens of public health experts micromanaging in their own municipalities, but we do not have a national approach for tackling this virus.

Provincial governments just say, give us more money to solve the problem, but they are not willing to play ball with a national “hotspot” strategy.

So, we are languishing on the vaccination rollout and medical doctors who are working in intensive care units filled with COVID carriers are not even allowed to get the second vaccine, which has greater protection for variant mutations.

What is wrong with that picture?

If we have learned anything during this pandemic is that the old ways are not always the best ways, and it makes sense to have a national rollout of a vaccine strategy.

It also makes sense to prioritize workplaces and school sites for onsite, antigen testing to stem the spread of the virus.

Shutting down playgrounds and treating people like criminals is no way to get the population on side.

Ontario’s COVID meltdown overshadowed a national budget rollout that should have put smiles on everyone’s faces.

The promised childcare investment, while lauded by every parent, will be a tough sell in provinces that do not want federal incursion in their field of responsibility.

Better to have $1,600 a month daycare in Toronto than embrace a national plan that makes childcare affordable and accessible wherever you live.

During the pandemic, women are the majority of those who have vacated the workforce and, in some instances, continued working while they home-schooled their children.

The national childcare investment should be applauded by all parties, but as usual, the Conservatives had nothing but complaints to offer.

Right-wing commentators grudgingly argued it might be a good idea but needs further study.

A national strategy for childcare has been studied almost as long as the legalization of marijuana, with the first report on the matter dating back to 1970.

Equality First: the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended 51 years ago that there should be a sliding scale of payment for childcare based on need. Chair Florence Bird would turn over in her grave if she heard that people were still asking for more studies on childcare.

The federal budget charts a path forward for other provinces to follow the lead of Quebec with a truly affordable system of childcare.

The economic burden of the pandemic has disproportionately fallen on women. Kudos to Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s first woman finance minister for investing real money into a national plan fifty-one years after it was first proposed.

Hopefully this plan will actually come to fruition.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.