Patrick Brown sues CTV for $8 million.

He'll never win it, however. It will be dragged through the courts for years, and the other, less savoury things will come out about him that will make his head spin.

And nothing will change.

CTV has little worry about. The PC Party was a little too happy to rid themselves of him for a reason, and they have moved on to the point that the Liberals are genuinely terrified for their fortunes. Their previous snickering and smug smirks vanished the day Doug Ford won, and they reek of fear. Brown should take a careful note and realize that Ford has what doesn't, and he's taking that with him on this doomed battle.

Brown's Alpha Male chest-thumping is meaningless, and if he is trying to salvage his dignity, that ship has sailed a long time ago...


Everybody loves a loser: Why Patrick Brown's downfall got the blow-by-blow attention.

Maclean's has been having a field day over Patrick Brown's cringeworthy downfall here, here, and here. Rarely has the Canadian media gone into such excruciating detail over someone's public demise. While they were protective of TVO's Steve Paikin and dismissed the accusations outright without bothering with any details, Patrick Brown's accusers were taken seriously from the start, and every second of Brown's takedown has been chronicled for posterity.

Maclean's article is detailed (and had outlined what I said earlier that his accusers were not "anonymous", but unnamed as he knew of their identities, particularly as CTV had told him of it), and is interesting in that the press often loves a loser more than a winner.

And Brown played the part perfectly with cartoonish zeal.

Brown is the perfect Patriarchal character, and the news media gets the Patriarchal perfectly. It was a perfect story for them: detailing his actions fit in perfectly.

When it comes to stereotypes, journalists can write about them forever, regardless if the truth is more complex. Brown's downfall is reassuring to the press as it reminds them of their glory days: taking down the losers, and then chronicling their final days in power.

It is something the press can relate to these days all too well.

Patrick Brown out again: Some people never learn. He wasn't wanted, and now the games begin.

Patrick Brown is out of the race he should have never gotten into in the first place. I have said before that what will sink him will not be being #MeTooed: it will be for the other things.

And it was.

He will be very fortunate if he does not wind up facing criminal charges. He will now be too busy in the fight of his life to meddle in something the PCs wanted him to stay clear from.

CTV stands by its story, and now this latest wrinkle doesn't hurt them.

Now the games begin...

Patrick Brown will take his chances in court with CTV as he is being sued for defamation himself by the Premier. If he thinks her suit is just a "stunt", then what is his suit? Another stunt?

Patrick Brown is suing CTV for libel, because he claims he was wronged. Yet, just in December, he was slapped with a defamation suit from Premier Kathleen Wynne, but he dismissed that suit as a stunt.

I do not know how her suit was a stunt considering he said something that wasn't true, she demanded he correct himself, he refused, and then she warned him she would sue him for defamation, and he didn't correct himself, and then she made good on her threat (which she had done with the previous Ontario PC leader, so she was not one to just talk a good talk).

Considering the number of different sorts of accusations and internal investigations against him, he is going to have a much harder time in court than the typical man. There are too many fires, and his reputation is already in serious question, as he already comes off as something of a spoiled and conniving man-child who must be micro-managed.

As I have said before, Brown is going to be in far more serious trouble, but it isn't #MeToo that will sink him. That was just an opening salvo, and a sucker punch. The fact that it all came out before the upcoming election is interesting. The Wynne Liberals would have easily won at least a minority running against him. Wynne's numbers mean very little. Donald Trump's numbers were also nothing to write home about, but when you are running against a propped up turnip, all you need is a single catchy platform, and you can skate to victory. There are far too many teachers and civil servants who will vote Liberal no matter what. They may not like Wynne, but they like their jobs, and want to keep them just as they are.

Wynne is shrewd. She was an underdog in the Liberal leadership race. She managed to turn a minority of an unpopular regime into a majority. No one in Toronto would vote for a Barrie boy when you have one of your own in the race. No matter how bad Wynne's numbers are, she can pull a rabbit out of her hat. I have no doubt of her political acuity. Brown is no match for Wynne on any level. He needs a posse to prop him up. Wynne has her wits. She doesn't need to be liked to win, and that is a rare quality that most politicians do not possess.

Brown losing face was in the Grits' favour, but not the turns now unfolding: Ford, Mulroney, and Elliott could snatch away just enough of a base to unseat her. I wouldn't count her out if Ford (the most unlikely winner) won. I also wouldn't write her off if Elliott won. Wynne, like Jean Chretien, is, at heart, a street fighter. She plays to win, and she does her best campaigning.

I would say Mulroney would be her biggest threat, despite the fact she is a newbie on the job. So was Justin Trudeau. Canadians love brand name politicians -- even if the previous generation was reviled when leaving office. We still have interest in a British monarchy. This is the next best thing to having one. If Mulroney runs, she would handily win. In this country, pedigree trumps street smarts every time.

Wynne has a talent that shouldn't be wasted, and she ought to set her sights to a federal platform instead. The Right in this country hate her guts, and that always helps to show your own base what prowess and power you possess. At this point, she is wasting her talents. She got the brass ring here. If Brown was still in play, she could walk all over him to retain that crown.

But Brown is a sinking ship. He is not a comeback kid. It will not matter how his libel suit turns out -- win, lose, settlement -- he has too many strikes against him, and he greatly overestimates his own cunning. When the going got tough, he ran away like a scared little boy. The first reaction is the only one that counts.

As is the first reaction of his own party. The PCs has been beaming and brightly once he was kicked to the curb -- and all those so-called members he supposedly signed up are turning out to be as genuine as Twitter followers.

What has already sunk him is his own party's jubilance at his ouster. When you are in a dysfunctional free fall at the absolute worst possible time, and are happier because the previous status quo crushed your spirit -- the province reads the memo and knows exactly why it happened.

And when your own traditionalist and staid party celebrates your removal, it signals to the world about the quality of your leadership -- and hints what the rest of the province will face if you are put in charge of them also. He may believe he did nothing wrong, but his own misperceptions are blinding him to the obvious.

But not the rest of the province.

How did Canadian journalism implode? By stringing words and saying nothing at all.

Three unrelated articles from three Canadian newspapers are riddled with a whole lot of nothing, but seem to be saying something. That is quite a feat, and Canadian journalism has a knack for it. Andrew Coyne's column in the National Post is interesting on many levels. It is artful. He seems to be arguing against bailouts, as I have been, and suggests that journalism should look inward, as I have as well.

Until you read it carefully.

The problem, according to Coyne isn't about the core -- but that journalism had clumsy forays into making their products in tune with digital media.

It is a whole lot more problematic than just that. It is more than a cosmetic misstep: the entire profession has never questioned itself, how it conducts itself, how it gathers facts, how it analyzes them, and then disseminates them to the public. It never questions why it never got empirical. It never questioned its own folksy logic. Its entire mindset never kept up with the times. It is a relic of a bygone era because when you have all of the control, you think that's Truth and not a fixed reality that can change at any time. He is still walking lockstep with the rest of that dead profession.

The second article is this knee-slapper from the Toronto Sun filled with innuendo and sophistry that seems to condemn one of Brown's accusers without actual proof or logic. She won an award from CTV as a university student. So what? I interned at CTV when I was in j-school. I also won an award from a woman who and her husband worked at the Hamilton Spectator. I have no pull or connections with either organization. I had a column with the Spec -- and it amounts to nothing. I didn't get the scholarship because I knew the woman or her late husband.

I did visit her in the isolated nursing home a few times after I won the award. She had no pull, either, and I never asked or tried to network with her.

So she won an award -- so what? Brown was a politician in Barrie for many years -- I am certain he schmoozed with those who work at CTV's Barrie affiliate station -- why didn't the Sun mention that?

And speaking of pull, who is chummy are the staff at the Sun with Brown? Have they disclosed any of it in their hatchet job or in their publication in general?

They really should.

Because they have a glaring confirmation bias because of it.

The Sun did elect to mention that Brown "passed" a lie detector test.

Again, so what?

As I have said before, lie detector tests mean zero.

And when you are the one who hires the lie detector firm, it means even less. So what? You can take the test until you pass -- the company that you hired can ask loaded questions to your favour because you are the one paying for it. You also can be a sociopath who can not get rattled, or you can merely be deluded with no sense of reality.

You can pile up an article full of non-facts all you want, but there is nothing in the piece that has any merit. It is pro-Brown propaganda meant to shade and skew, but merely draws attention to its own glaring holes.

The third is a pair of articles from the Toronto Star is an example of puffery dodge.

It is hyped as an "investigation" with Ryerson University -- and for all the puffery, it boils down to common knowledge that is easily accessible: how much jurors get paid according to province (something easily obtainable to an average citizen), and that jury pools come from those who own a house, also not a big reveal.

The article is in response to the Gerald Stanley verdict. A white man shot a young First Nations man and was acquitted because the all-white jury believed the defence theory that the gun accidentally fired.

But the Star's spin masks the real issue that turned the Stanley verdict into a watershed moment: the town where the trial took place had a First Nations population at about 40%, but it was not as if the pool was exclusively Caucasian. The defence lawyer merely picked off potential jurors based on race until he rigged the racial make-up to be all white.

That was the central problem. This is not to say the system isn't dysfunctional and archaic, but the central flaw was not who was called to serve jury duty -- it was that the accused's lawyer literally could have a White's Only decree and the courts could indulge him.

So it doesn't matter who is in the pool -- it is who is allowed to actually serve that is the bigger problem. The Stanley trial was not in Ontario -- so the fact that Ontario pays the least than the other provinces also would not have made a difference in the Gerald verdict. Those jurors were paid more and began as a more diverse racial make up from the get-go.

It didn't matter how much the juror were paid or the skin colour of those responding to the summons -- the outcome was the problem, meaning even if the government paid more and had a more diverse pool coming in -- the outcome would still be the same.

But that is the problem that felled Canadian journalism -- they dance around central and critical issues as they tackle everything else save the thing that must be confronted.

Three different newspapers. Three different articles. Three different subjects with different reporters from different ideological schools.

And all of them make the same error in the same way, informing no one, but skewing perspectives so we cannot even begin to find a solution to any of our problems.

The Implosion of Patrick Brown. Offence is a terrible defence, especially when you are outgunned and outnumbered.

This column from the Globe and Mail echoes sentiments I have expressed before here, here, and here: namely that Brown has infantalized himself, revealing himself to be me-centred, has few allies in a party that was all too happy to throw him under and bus, and that while he is attacking his accusers, he is all too silent on the other problems dogging him. In the old days, a coup d'état would usually end in the dethroned leader conveniently being dispatched gorily, but this is Canada 2018, and we don't roll that way, but at a price. In a nannied society, we see the little brats for who they are really when someone takes away the paper crown and the cools toys.

Brown is behaving like an ill-behaved child in a toy store once he realizes mommy isn't going to buy him anything because they are there to buy someone else a birthday present. He once had a bland and innocuous way about him, but now the his explosive temper is coupled with excuses and finger-pointing, he is turning out to be someone very different than what he once pretended to be.

And he is showing the worst qualities a leader could possibly possess: he did not see the storm coming. He had no loyalty among the ranks with some of the most powerful members of both the federal and provincial levels distance themselves from him. He is making excuses. He obviously has never had crisis management training -- something every good leader has in emergencies, and there is always a possibility for an emergency.

He reminds me of Hillary Clinton not preparing a concession speech in the even that she lost. The fact that she didn't entertain a Plan B showed how poorly prepared she was as a leader. You don't make concession speeches because you think you are going to lose: you make them because if you are a capable leader, you have to entertain multiple scenarios because by mere randomness alone, something can come from left field. You may not be able to anticipate what bizarro thing is going to sucker punch you, but you have to be aware that you may not be able to succeed. You still need an exit strategy.

Brown's tactical errors say a lot about him. He, like Clinton, never had a vision or a plan to justify wanting the position.

But now that his stealth advantage has been lost and he now damaged goods, how he plans to win back a seat without his usual bag of tricks will be very instructive for those looking at what was transpiring during his tenure. They can compare and contrast to find out how he won the last time, and what it took, squaring it with what he is doing now.

He has been shrill and coming off as a peculiar mash-up of Mickey Mouse, Goofy, and Donald Duck. The high pitch voice, the sheltered bumbling, and the explosive temper all give off a piteous cartoonish way about him. He is not in charge. He is not shrewd. He acts entitled, and in Canadian politics, a leader does not throw temper tantrums, strut with a paper crown in public, and can never suggest that the system is flawed in any way shape, or form (Justin Trudeau's comments about the jury system has broken a spell with the public for that very reason, but that's another story).

Especially not if you were in charge. Any rot that hits you means it's your fault.

And worst of all, Brown as suddenly found the one thing to defend with his every grain of his being: himself.

If you are going to be a leader in this country, you better have something else you have a passion for, and when you don't, you will not be winning any popularity contests.

Especially if your main defence is an offence. Brown is attacking the women who accused him of being slimy. He is absolutely silent on the "rot" that has been turning up in the party, and his strategy is not one that any adept leader would stoop to using.

He is behaving like a rank amateur, making it increasingly difficult for the press here to defend someone who is not abiding by the unspoken code, and with an entire political party who do abide by it, he is alienating a base who have three luxury names they can support instead. Brown is outgunned, outnumbered, and most of all outclassed. No one wants an excitable gnat at their dinner party. He is making Doug Ford look downright stately now, doing him a huge favour. Christine Elliott and Caroline Mulroney are smart, diligent, have class, and most of all, dignity. It is the reason Elliott lost to Brown once, but now can easily enter the race once more.

Because she carefully thought about her Plan B, and proves who was the better leader for the party the last time.

I would be surprised if Mulroney doesn't win this contest. Compare her to Brown and she wins in that competition. So does Elliott, and Ford.

Brown was always a poor fit. He went for a position out of his league and it showed. Glaringly.

He is imploding as we speak. If the allegations weren't true, he had better options to confront them, but the narrative has long ago drifted away from sexual harassment to the other little problem.

The one that got the party faithful's attention and focus. As usual, he has his guard down where it counts the most, and the knock out punch is coming. This election is the Tories' to lose, and if they lose it, it will be an ugly mood -- and Brown has provided them with a perfect punching bag to take their wrath on.


Manipulating narratives: When critics gloss over the facts to suit their own denial of reality.

Just listening to Jerry Agar on Newstalk 1010 over Patrick Brown. The screened callers aren't exactly informed and are getting their facts messed up with no one to remind them of the basic facts of the case. Someone took issue with Patrick Brown's accusers being "anonymous" and that Brown as a right to "face his accusers". They are manipulating the narrative, without bothering with a single fact. Because Brown knows exactly who his accusers are. Here is a passage of an article I have used before:

So Brown knows who are his accusers. He knows of the incidents in question.

So the narrative that these are faceless women, and poor little boy Brown has no idea who is talking, or what they are talking about is rubbish.

And I am quoting his own words.

Scandal doesn't just happen when something is illegal. Canada is not exactly some country that cracks down on anything. We have the Gerald Stanley verdict to remind us that it doesn't always matter if a law is on the books, you don't always have to answer for your actions.

I don't care if what Brown did was illegal. When a person in a position of power asks an underling for date, that is a form of bullying. You are not on equal ground. That's not flattering. I am not on the job to get dates, or be noticed for my looks. I have to earn a living, stupid.

As I have said before, there are other things that Brown is associated with -- the nomination process in various ridings -- that have bigger ramifications, and show that a clear pattern of strong-arming and bullying. I don't think the PC Party would have kicked him that fast and disavowed of him that quickly unless they saw an opening to rid themselves of someone of that ilk.

And when you see a glow and a popularity surge from a party who is in turmoil at this very inconvenient juncture right before an election, you know that things must have been horrific during the previous regime.

That tells us everything we need to know about Patrick Brown. He is going after women, while keeping quiet on the other issues surrounding his leadership.

But that doesn't suit the narrative of the #MeToo critics who are hoping against hope that Brown can dodge this bullet with his blustering tirade. Harvey Weinstein is blustering, too. It doesn't mean a thing.


Watching the Patriarchal Meltdown: Patrick Brown, Michael Haneke show the shift in a changing world away from the Patriarchal.

The Internet has been a game-changer, for good and for bad. Great White Men made it, and it seemed like a sure-fire way to entrench a Patriarchal structure. It is not as if they had some devious plan, but there is an assumption that rigs are natural, and when they are natural to you, you want to spread that skewed prosperity around. Patriarchal storytelling is very skewed and is rigged to be all about the One and the One is the winner who takes all.

To not be the One means you are either (a) the victim, (b) the inferior supporting cast, or (c) the villain.

So you have the Great Men who stomp all over other people to be the One.

The One is a hypothetical construct. It does not actually exist, but it is a convenient delusion that give people the incentive to give it their best -- so they can "win."

#MeToo has now become the greatest challenge to this dysfunctional mindset: all the Great Men who thought they "won" and did it at any cost have been dethroned to their absolute shock and devastation.

A childlike fantasy has been shattered. This should give other predators food for thought that maybe, their narrative is not actually reality. You make too many victims of your manipulation and tyranny, they become a collective, a One of their own.

Or, more accurately, an Infinite.

The chorus of voices may be faceless (what traditional propaganda uses to demonize an enemy), become stronger than the "face" of the sea-appointed hero (the One).

The One becomes a target to evaluate.

It reminds me of an underrated game show called 1 vs 100.


Do you take the money or the mob? One contestant up against 100 and the point is for the One to answer more correct answers than 100 others.

But once the One wins, game over.

In television.

Reality is very different.

#MeToo seems like a mob to many men who backstabbed, stole, puffed, and bullied their way to become the One.

Patrick Brown of the Ontario PC party has shown himself to be a true Jekyll and Hyde.

When he was the One of the provincial party, he was bland and had no fire to him. He acted as if he was owed premiership of the province and had no fight in him. He played it safe.

But boy, did he change when he was ousted for naughty -- but stealth -- behaviour toward intoxicated prey.

The man turned into an angry monster, all but vowing to destroy the two women who dared say he was less than perfect.

That he was not the man he was presenting to the public.

He was unrepentant when he misspoke about Premier Kathleen Wynne who demanded, not unreasonably, for him to apologize and take back his incorrect statement. He didn't, and now she is suing him for defamation.

Brown is not a man who owns up to his mistakes. He is out with his hired goons in business suits to hit back at those who dare speak against him.

The shift in his behaviour is very telling: he wasn't this passionate when he was campaigning, because he thought he had it in the bag. The rigs that got him to his position of power were firmly in place, and there was nothing to worry about.

Until his plans proved to be child's play to dismantle.

This is an epic temper tantrum.

But as the PCs start looking over other aspects of his brief tenure as leader, they are not liking what they are seeing. For what it's worth, I do not believe his fire actually has much to do with the #MeToo claims, but more with the other little problems the party is now exposing to the public.

With his minions ousted, the protection is gone.

What will get him in deeper trouble will be all those ridings where a candidate was strong-armed into position, and that's the reason he is going full-force after what he would deem the "weaker" targets, and is keeping his mouth shut on the bigger target.

His predatory strategy and campaign to get back at his detractors here is very intriguing to watch. It is the omissions that are worth noting, but he is outclassed by bigger players who are letting him burnout in public.

The Patriarchal imploded on Brown.

And it is scaring the other disciples of that structure.

Director Michael Haneke is whining about how it is all a "witch hunt" that will cause brainless women to "hate" men.

Women are not going to suddenly hate their fathers and sons. Women do not hate decent men who do not abuse people. Because predatory men in power have been historically sheltered from the wrath and frustrations of those they harmed on their climb to being Great Men, they do not understand the explosion of rage that took centuries to swell up and explode.

They have been exposed to the reality of their tyranny thanks to social media -- those sentiments were always there, but there was no outlet to register them. This movement did not come from thin air -- it came because women who were making their way in the world were sick and tired of the unnatural rigs that kept them back and all the garbage they had to endure -- the ignorant comments, the vile assumptions, and the cheats that favoured men, but did not favour the functionality of the whole.

Imagine if social media was around when white Americans owned black slaves: #MeToo would look mild compared the rage and anger of those who were seen as property to be abused at will.

Would Haneke be whining about a witch hunt then?

When your goal is to be the One, you lose sight of the Infinite. You become Machiavellian because being the only One is unnatural.

This resistance was inevitable, and now that the Great Men have to face the voices of people burned by their campaigns, they see that being the One doesn't make you the hero by default.

It can turn you into a villain.

And what was supposed to guarantee entrenching a Patriarchal narrative on the world is beginning to backfire.

And the Great White Men Thinkers are now having a meltdown at the notion that they may have outsmarted themselves.

Renegade Inc. has a piece how technology is killing democracy.

Silly, silly sophistry and scare-mongering.

No, it's not. Machiavelli had done all sorts of underhanded things way back before social media was a thing -- so it is not the technology, it is the bad behaviour of those in power that made them ripe for a backlash.

A One who can control the Infinite? That's what is truly meant by the term "democracy" -- you can do anything you want, so long at the One deems it okay to do it.

What we are witnessing is a genie out of a bottle.

The Patriarchal was always flawed, and hinged on people buying into its narrative structure.

But it made being the One the only thing to aim for -- and do you really think people are going to cheer a One that isn't them?

If they cannot be the One, then they are going to take down the One who has harmed them in that battle.

It is now a shift in perspective.

Patrick Brown said something very telling: he accused his second "accuser" of being "the aggressor".

This is absolutely telling of a Patriarchal narrative. There is no way he could have been interested in a young female, come on now. He was irresistible, because he is The One.

Had he not thrown that one out, he would have a better chance to be believed, but that comment says it all.

That he is going by the old insinuations of shaming the women by throwing any dirt he can find in their faces is also telling.

But it's the first remark that is the more telling of the two: it's the oldest trick in the book.

No, no, she threw herself at me!


Of course, you had to be The One. It's always all about you. It's the standard excuse for every philandering husband caught in the act.

When all else fails, you are falling back to the Little Boy Excuse, not the Great Man Solution.

And that is the reason we are, for the first time in history, seeing the Patriarchal structure crumble.

Too many little boys posing as Great Men, and when they prove they are neither, they fall back to the little boy defence.

And that is the reason social media is suddenly hated: because in all the muck, the truth and reality is still making their way through it all.

And it terrifies a lot of people whose house of cards is about to fall.

Is #MeToo being co-opted? If we had a strong press, we would already know the answer.

Of course, as is every kind of movement. Anything, no matter how truthful or noble, can be turned into a Trojan horse.

It doesn't mean a movement is corrupted. It means you have to be vigilant to the realities and separate one thing from another.

In times of chaos, there will always be those who use that chaos to manipulate things to their advantage.

Journalists are usually too blind to see it. They are always about rules.

Politicians, who made it because they know all about co-opting and exploiting, see the world very differently.

You have one, for instance, accusing the "Toronto elites" of hijacking the Ontario PC party to elect a new premier.

It is more than possible. Elites are not elites because they sit around waiting for the tide to turn in their favour. They had a can't-win leader, and I am certain sitting on the sidelines for the next five years is a horrifying prospect. You have more than just the Toronto "elites" salivating; you have had federal Tories coming in to fix the mess.

#MeToo can be easily misapplied. You always need guardians keeping watch on a movement, and in this case, there is no single overt guardian doing that.

If we had a strong journalism corps, the answer to that question would already be known.

But we don't, and what we have is conjecture.


Doug Ford wants to be Ontario PC Leader: Toronto journalists have a meltdown. Their loss of influence's name is Ford Nation. And their foil refuses to crawl under a rock.

Doug Ford made Toronto journalists implode today. 1480700_10152825466572387_2423317138546720393_n

For those not in the know, brother Rob and Doug Ford are to Toronto media what Donald Trump is to American media.

The proof of their death.

Toronto media went after Rob Ford with a nuclear bomb, and he was left standing. Had he not died of cancer, he would still be mayor.

Once upon a time, the press could have driven out anyone they did not like.

But then Rob Ford could smoke crack in a drunken stupor, and his followers would have said, "Awww, how cute!"

They hated the fact that they could not tell enough people how to think.

And the Fords -- whose followers call themselves Ford Nation -- have influence.

Those campaign posters were in Hamilton during the mayoralty election a few years ago -- with no Ford running in that city.

The Toronto Star must be in absolute meltdown mode -- the Fords are the bane of their existence, and that he can announce his intentions of running for something (the way John Tory was always running for something until he won the mayor's seat in Toronto), and people will back him.

Enough people? Enough to be a spoiler, yes.

Enough to show how much journalism in Canada collapsed and lost clout? Absolutely.

Patrick Brown was in over his head. He never had the mettle to be a serious power player. He is the small-town boy who made it so far based on rudimentary feints and ruses, but Rob Ford had far worse scandals, and he is still beloved among his Nation, even in death. Brown could not be chased away with a broom fast enough, because he is no match for the party's oligarchs.

The Fords are one. The Mulroneys are another. This is a rare coveted seat up for grabs, and the cutthroat games are just beginning.

And the best part for them all: journalists will not be able to alter the course of events. If Trump can get to the White House surfing on Twitter as he stuck out his tongue at the press, they can do the same.

Canadian#MeToo media meltdown madness continues: Rick Dykstra is out.

Maclean's had the piece that should have been published in 2014 when it happened. Canadian politics, like its journalism, has always been a Good Old Boys network, but now the rigs that once worked in their favour, have for the moment, at least, been compromised and are working against them:

Senior Conservative campaign operatives discussed dropping MP Rick Dykstra as a candidate in the 2015 federal election when they became aware of allegations that he sexually assaulted a young staffer the previous year.

The campaign decided to allow him to continue to run. He lost his St. Catharines riding and subsequently became president of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, a position he resigned on Sunday night, two hours after he received an email from Maclean’s outlining the allegations contained in this story.

Dykstra should have been kicked to the curb back then, but he not only got the blessing to run, but when he lost, he still got a cushy job with the Ontario Tories who knew all along:

A young Conservative staffer filed a report with Ottawa police in 2014 complaining that Dykstra sexually assaulted her after a party.

The woman, who was then in her early 20s, worked for another Conservative MP at the time, a friend of Dykstra’s. She spoke about the incident to her boss, several friends, an official in the party whip’s office, and finally hired a lawyer but the Conservative government did not take action against Dykstra.

The Patrick Brown Conservatives were throwing their weight around in the party, particularly with regards to the nomination process, parachuting hand-picked candidates, and the "head's I win; tails you lose" method showed.

For many men in politics and journalism in tis country, this is a very scary time: they honestly believed they were so cunning, all they had to do was stick together, intimidate the "competition", and create rigs that always ensured they got everything while shutting everyone else out of their seized little clubhouses.

They maligned anyone who spoke out at being abused, and kept their little cheerleaders hopping.

Then the tidal wave called #MeToo roared from the US, and proved those little boys weren't as brilliant as they thought they were.

Dykstra was a man who failed upward, and now he has managed to lose his position as his past has come back to haunt him.

Those in power in Canada are now in knots: they are like the smug and cocky kid who didn't study, and now has to sit in his own sweat, hoping the teacher doesn't call on him for the answers.

When one falls, all of his cronies and minors are out of a job and lose their protection, and in a country that has few media outlets and places to get a fat pay check with a lofty title, but actually have little to do, the prospects are terrifying.

Brown and Dykstra both got thrown under a bus, and now face a reality women who have been abused by men in power have faced for decades.

And those who supported these kind of players are left in shock.

We don't have to go much further than the US, where Woody Allen's sister has provided the latest conspiracy theory:

“I do feel that it’s an escalation,” Letty Aronson, Mr. Allen’s sister and longtime producer, said in an interview, calling #MeToo a tool that has been used for “ulterior motives.”

And propelling a mediocre and misogynistic propagandist such as Allen into mainstream acceptable had no ulterior motive, such keeping women in an unnatural place of subservience?

Right now, the sycophants are working overtime, trying to use their old tricks of terrorizing, slandering, maligning, distorting, bullying, and rigging to force a genie back into the bottle.

And this time, it is not working.

North America has a serious problem understanding that it is not normal or healthy to abuse women. It does not show how brilliant or strong you are.

It just shows that you are a stupid pig who needs constant supervision.

If you always have to manipulate and control your surroundings, you have a problem.

And now that the world has realized that they do not have to endure it, things are changing.

And it's about time.

Cognitive dissonance, compartmentalization, and a lack of critical thinking: how Canadian journalism's narrative always harmed women.

#MeToo was fine when it was "just" Americans getting the tag of shame, but now, when it is politicians getting outed, many in the Canadian media are behaving as if someone stuffed horse dung deep into their nostrils. They are fuming that it has all gone "too far", and making all sorts of excuses, but there are none, with the standard that somehow women were all but asking to be abused and have to some "responsibility" for it.

The same old narrative used to harm women in this country for decades will just not fly.

Once upon a time, the Men in Power had all the rigs work in their favour. In Canada, to be a "feminist" prime minister, you have to be a wealthy and well-connected white male with a powerful daddy.

It doesn't matter that women around Brown have said they weren't comfortable around him and that there were rumours circulating about him long before the initial report was published. It also didn't matter that we have had now -- for several years, female politicians who have said that sexual harassment from their male colleagues was a thing.

But most of all, journalists covering politics have seen all sorts of stuff up close because journalism is usually requires standing in halls and close to doors waiting for power players to come out.

You know underlings and they gossip. They tell you things.

So much of journalism is edited -- most of it is edited. As I journalist, I can tell you that you see a whole lot more than what the middle class would be comfortable watching or knowing.

But laying the blame on women is the standard to those who shelter and protect predators -- they are the manure shovelers who clean up messes.

If journalism in this country was actually functional and honest (and it is neither), the story would be covered in a completely different way.

First, let's talk about blaming women for getting abused. We shouldn't ignore that predatory behaviour is not the same as normal behaviour. Predators lure, size up, prime, and groom people and create a perception for the prey to believe they are the ones who are the predators. People would rather be in control than admit to being victims. Cognitive dissonance takes care of the rest.

Children who have been sexually abused often believe they did something or had some say in the matter, when they didn't.

It's a rig, not unlike a magician's force choice: you think you have control choosing a card from a deck of 52, but the truth is there is only one card you can take -- the other 51 are feints and red herrings.

Predators are very careful who they choose to manipulate, and what they are doing is called gaslighting. 

This is far different than normal dynamics in a given relationship. A predator, for instance, may always pick someone who is alone, or intoxicated, or in an abusive relationship and pretends to be the knight in shining armour -- they "recuse" a now loyal damsel for the express purpose of having her do something illegal or destructive, and she honestly believes it is her choice to do it.

No, it's not. He is exploiting gratitude to make her do what she would not do under normal circumstances.

And this isn't a man-woman dynamic per se, but those in power often get those positions not because they are competent or capable of the job, but because they know how to manipulate others to rise above those who are capable of the job.

We often wonder why some goober got a lofty position, and yet we don't consider they used stratagems to get there.

So a predator uses cognitive dissonance to prime a target to follow a secret script.

Journalists should know these games by now, but never do. It is always a perpetual surprise when someone is outed as being untrustworthy.

Journalists themselves then have their own moment of cognitive dissonance: they spent years writing positive or even fawning pieces over someone -- never questioning how dark is their dark side -- and so, instead of admitting failure, they up the praise because heave forbid they did something irresponsible.

But it gets worse.

Journalists compartmentalize stories: so they will cover a scandal in a vacuum, and completely ignore all the other factors in play.

In this case, how common sexual harassment is among politicians. All that previous stuff doesn't exist to them.

But to treat an issue as if it were divorced from the others means there isn't any critical thinking going on.

Journalists don't look for any evidence that refutes their grandiose theories, just the facts that seem to support it.

A confirmation bias.

It's why so many blunderers in this country get the Great Man label: we can ignore all the problems and scandals, and cheer them on as we accuse those these men harmed as being troublemakers who lie, or sketchy, and probably a little nutty and slutty.

Grifters get away with a lot, and when they get press coverage, they gain legitimacy.

What journalism here is all about is one thing: opinionated narrative with unfounded assumptions. We have news producers having meltdowns because not everyone has glowing things to say about a particular man in power. Calling what happened a "bad date" is a straw man fallacy: repackaging something to make it seem as if were innocuous.

Al Franken's supporters tried that gambit and failed. They refused to acknowledge what he was practicing wasn't jokey behaviour -- but a way to unnerve the competition through humiliation and ambush.

When someone always keeps sober and yet keeps rounding up others lower on a pecking order whose capacity is less than sober, there is a pattern for concern.

And a legitimate reason to dig deeper into those allegations, not throw a childish temper tantrum as you willfully close your eyes shut as you keep pretending everything is happy and wonderful around you.

That's not journalism. That's the essence of propaganda.

That kind of skewed coverage has harmed women -- and men -- for decades, and it needs to be confronted and stopped -- the sooner, the better.

Canadian journalism's inability to comprehend #MeToo

Women-blaming has been a problem in Canadian journalism. Patrick Brown getting turfed has nothing do to with a witch hunt.

One talk show host doesn't see the any "criminal" element in the allegations against Patrick what's the problem?

It doesn't have to be criminal. If someone is in a position of power is abusing someone in a weaker position, that's bad enough.

Brown's behaviour was known to the PC Party. They ignored it.

And now you have journalists making all sorts of excuses how the takedown of Patrick Brown is a bad and chilling thing.

No, it isn't.

Sexual abuse was always rampant in newsrooms and in corridors of power.

Being a female politician is no protection against workplace terrorism.

Journalists always knew about it, but never bothered to report it.

I was just a j-school student standing in one City Hall corridor and within five minutes, reporters certainly told me about a lot of dirt.

But journalists are twisting the narrative -- in Brown case, the accusers were not grown women or adults -- it was a particular type, and neither case could be accurately as a "bad date". In one case, he was not her "date" -- but had professional power over them.

These are not "mistakes" -- it was deliberately calculating behaviour.

And the griping of career "ruining" was not the fault of the accusers, but the fault of a man who wanted to be a leader but proved to be a very incompetent one. Where was Brown's accountability?

Worst of all, the defenders repeatedly -- and manipulatively -- try to equate power abuse with sexuality.

Nice try, but sophistry is not reality. People have been so conditioned by journalism to always see the rot as blessings, that they are becoming alarmed that their sunny view may actually be a big, fat lie.

Had journalism in this country been about reporting facts -- they would be able to see it.

But they can't see it. They are too busy sucking up to power, whether the power is government -- or business.

Patrick Brown getting treated the same way women in this country have been treated for decades, has shaken Canadian media to the bone.

Because the little rules were supposed to make life simple, and now no predator is safe.

Good. Reality is a wonderful medicine.

And Canadian media needed that medicine a long time ago.

#MeToo lands in Canada. Two politicians out in twenty-four hours as some columnists have meltdowns. An interesting day, wouldn't you say?

I often wonder about those who come to defence of the #MeToo men so vehemently. Is it ignorance of the severity of sexual harassment, or perhaps there are people afraid their employer is going to get outed, fired, and then the defender is going to lose that job as a result? Or are they so used to workplace abuse that they think this is normal? I don't know nor do I care, but after centuries of women not being believed, the shoe is now on the other foot.

And there are journalists who are getting very nervous and agitated, but are trying to shift the narrative.

So well-trained are the defenders of the Men in Power, that they do not question their own fragmented narratives.

It's not fair! they cry with a straight face.


How is it fair to those women whose own traumas were disbelieved because they were up against a powerful, wealthy, and connected man? How fair was the Ghomeshi trial when he had a high-powered attorney, and the accusers had a not very savvy Crown prosecutor leave them vulnerable?

Let's not forget throughout all that trial, he never actually denied anything.

And, while we are on the subject, a fourth woman -- the one who was working at CBC, saw the writing on the wall and never actually got her day in court.

Why don't these defenders ever notice how women were unfairly treated by the court of public opinion?

Are Men in Power just little boys who need mommy journalist to stand up for them because they are incapable of standing up for themselves?

And why aren't we asking the hard questions: why do we need a court of public opinion in the first place?

Because every other institution we have has utterly failed. Journalism failed women. Governments and all their institutional tenacles failed women. Education failed women. Businesses failed women.

They never failed men. Oh, no.

Men are seen as visionaries and titans. That is a given. It doesn't matter if the slobbering is over Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, Justin Trudeau, Barak Obama, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Geoff Johns, Grant Morrison, Kurt Cobain, or Mick Jagger, men have a far simpler time gaining that grit of traction.

We have had the Great Men Theory rammed down our throats for a long time. Sigmund Freud was revered for his misogynistic theories. Stephen Glass was a white hot reporter who just made junk up...but he got further in his career with his lies than any of his female colleagues ever got with writing the truth.

How many of these Great Men were openly -- and proudly -- abusive to their wives, children, siblings, and employees? How many of them stole ideas and money from others and were still icons and legends?

How many gossiped and spread rumours to destroy competitors? How many lied, cheated, stalked, and stole, and then they manipulated a public and got schools named after them and statues in their honour?

How many dark secrets have spilled out over time?

What happened?

One too many women were thrown under a bus and snapped, that's what.

One is too many, but the generations of abuse women have endured by superiors is vile.

There are too many who are going through it right now in silence.

And they are going to believe the accusations because life has been unfair to them for far too long.

And where were the dutiful little defenders back then?

Now these men need defending?

As if this doesn't go on all the time?

Have we already forgotten Dalhousie University's Gentleman's Club?

Do you know why accusers stay silent?

Because they still get thrown under a bus.

You don't like the court of public opinion, use a brain cell or two to figure out why it is being used.

Because every other avenue is rigged.

Because every other avenue doesn't take a woman's reality into its equations.

If you were capable journalists, you would have been reporting on that.

That hello! we have rules that don't actually serve every citizen equally.

For the first time ever on this planet, a rig seems to be -- for now -- working in women's favour. 

For once, crisis management teams, PR firms, lawyers, and image consultants are being stymied just long enough for someone to make someone else accountable.

No drudging up past sexual history as if that mattered. No having to sell the house to defend yourself or ward off combat from the experienced predator with a huge war chest who is out to destroy you.

Are there problems with #MeToo? Yes, a million of them.

But there were infinite problems with the old way of doing things.

So Patrick Brown got sucker punched.

He had a whole team of people who were close to him and worked for him day in and day out.

They all made a decision to walk.

No, the Brown downfall is not an affront to fairness.

Because fairness doesn't exist.

And no man is safe?

Really? And women were ever safe?

No one is safe.

Grow up.

Why is there #MeToo?

Because democracy failed.

Governments failed.

Corporations failed.

And journalists failed.

All this predatory behaviour isn't news.

Women endured until the day it all broke loose.

Had journalists been covering every ugly reality all along, things could have been changed for the better...and there would be no need for any of it.

#MeToo has now landed in Canada, and it already took down a pair of politicians in less than 24 hours.

All that unleashed anger is coming out now.

Anger that should have been dealt with decades ago.


Welcome to the Victorian Age, 2018: Greer, Ghomeshi, Brown, and a board still rigged against women.

Ontario PC leader Patrick Brown is kicked to the curb. In the court of public opinion, he has been convicted. Had he been in an official, court, he would easily walk like Jian Ghomeshi, and could rebuild his fortunes.

Actress Germaine Greer said something that those averse to reality did not want to hear,

Because suddenly, in 2018, women have taken a giant step backwards.


And women have turned downright Victorian.

They have been reduced to being seen as delicate little flowers.

Greer has said something that I heard often in my early twenties from other women whenever discussion of the casting couch took place: I shunned it and refused to swap sexual favours for work. I was told, by other women my age, that there was "nothing wrong" with it, that I was being naive, and that's a good plan.

I wasn't being naive. I refused to play the game, and it cost me work in journalism, but the work I got was substantial. Others who played the game got burned and were sent to positions that were demeaning, and pretty much let the world know how they got their jobs.

That's where Greer is coming from when she talks about women "spreading their legs", but even so, she doesn't get it.

Who put the idea in young women's heads?

Movies, television, and fiction -- where men dominated, telling women that's how cunning women claw to the top. It was rigged for the get-go.

I saw through it. I knew the score: the man in charge would have nothing happen to him if he didn't use the casting couch. If the woman said no, she'd be out of a job.

The narrative was rigged to put the burden of blame on the woman.

But that kind of thinking did Ghomeshi's accusers in -- by his female attorney. Women get abused -- and then go back to the abuser.

To the uninitiated, this implies nothing bad happened.

But it is a Beauty and the Beast rig: the abuse is a challenge, and up to the woman to "tame." She's "done something wrong", and now she must use her feminine wiles and nurturing prowess to tame a beast.

So she goes back. 

So many women go back and marry the abuser who ultimately kills them. She doesn't cut her losses. She takes abuse at work. She takes abuse at home. She is trained since the day she is born, to take abuse and "make it better" as if that were a badge worth wearing.

It is so ingrained in our world, that there is not a single culture or nation that has a truly liberated and matriarchal structure. It is drilled into women from the first bedtime story to the last novel she has read.

Patrick Brown, I am certain, has no idea what pink truck hit him. The trick for #MeToo has been to hold court on Twitter where the burden of proof is low.

If it gets to court, everything falls apart, but both courts miss the point.

Abuse of women in every single culture is normalized. Holding men accountable in the court of public opinion has worked because every institution on the face of this earth is rigged to fail women -- and then blame them for being abused. It merely codifies abuse.

The court of public opinion seems to be more sympathetic, but it comes at a price: women are forced to fit into some Victorian narrative that does not do them justice, or is realistic, meaning sooner or later, the court will no longer work its magic, especially if someone comes out and says some accusers were willing participants and offers proof.

It would more constructive if we didn't expect women to be flawless, and a single negative quality not only nullifies her credibility, but of every woman after her.

The bottom line is if you have power, you cannot abuse it -- not just not abuse conformist people, but the mavericks, too.

It is that default Victorian assumption that made so much trouble for women to make their abusers be held accountable in the first place.

It is not about being sympathetic and having power in people pitying you and feeling superior to you: it's about the simple fact that for too long, men in authority wielded their power very irresponsibly, and rigging social exceptions that always favoured them to be believed as they continued to harm others, priming and grooming their prey into honestly believing they wanted these traumatic things to happen to them and were the architects of it.

No one should be abused: whether she is a virgin volunteering to help the dispossessed in a war-torn country, a hooker walking the streets for her next hit, or all the ones in-between -- and beyond.

If you cannot be professional and civil, you have a problem. 

And it's high time we look at workplace dynamics to see how dysfunctional they are -- not just when it comes to abuse, but how it is structured -- from lousy pay to dangerous working conditions -- to how employees with children are penalized for not being young bachelors.

We never take women into our equations.

And it is time that we did.

Patrick Brown on the #MeToo Hitlist.

At a very inopportune time for the provincial Tories to have accusations surface about Patrick Brown. Ontario_Progressive_Conservative_Party_Logo_(With_Name).svg

He denies it, but his future is doubtful. The team that worked tooth and nail on re-inventing him are cutting their losses.

I always said the party should have had elected Christine Elliott at their helm. She has the credentials, smarts, class, and gravitas to lead the party.

But that didn't happen, and now the Liberals must think they won the lottery.