Conservative Party moves beyond the pale

One of the most important concepts in modern democratic politics is that of “reasonable disagreement.” There are a number of different principles or values that most of us subscribe to, at some level, but in cases where they conflict, it is not entirely obvious how they should be ordered. When should public welfare be assigned priority over personal freedom? How much loss of welfare should be accepted in order to promote greater equality? These are the sorts of questions that define the zone of reasonable disagreement in modern politics. The central distinguishing feature of the right-to-left spectrum of political parties is that they propose different answers to these questions, with the right putting more emphasis on personal freedom, the left more emphasis on equality, and the centre focusing on maximizing welfare. This naturally translates into different views about the role of government in society.

The disagreement is “reasonable” because the underlying principles are ones that are very broadly accepted – they are in fact foundational for a liberal democratic society – the disagreement is more one of emphasis. For instance, I think that personal freedom is important – I like having it – I just don’t think it’s as important as some people make it out to be. So I think it’s a bit strange, for instance, that so many Americans are willing to tolerate mass shootings, in order to defend an individual right to bear arms. To me the loss of welfare that is associated with the exercise of that freedom is simply not worth it. At the same time, I would not want to deny the legitimacy of the gun rights position, or rule it out of bounds. It is (as we would put it in political philosophy) a recognizably liberal view, it’s just that it is a rather extreme one, given the magnitude of the tradeoff it is willing to accept in name of personal freedom. So while I’m committed to arguing against the view, and am happy that it gets outvoted in Canada, I don’t think that the people who argue for it are doing anything wrong, or that those who support them are bad people for that reason.

There are, however, some political positions that fall outside the realm of reasonable disagreement. They are “beyond the pale,” in that they contradict fundamental liberal principles or values. For example, while some people may assign very little importance to equality, and may be prepared to tolerate arbitrarily high levels of economic inequality, to deny the fundamental legal equality of all citizens is totally unacceptable – this is, as it were, a non-negotiable principle, which is why it is accepted by all political parties, and all political actors of consequence. That is also why people tend to get very upset – more upset than usual – when a politician crosses the line, and says something that implies, for instance, that men and women are less than fully equal.

Canadians are a fairly moderate bunch, so it’s not very often that a politician completely crosses the line. That’s why I was astonished/appalled/amazed by the press conference held by Chris Alexander and Kellie Leitch three days ago, in order to announce, among other things, a new “tipline” for Canadians to phone in and report “barbaric cultural practices” to the RCMP. It was, I think, the most despicable thing that I have ever seen in Canadian federal politics. I’m not sure which was worse, the frontal assault on Canadian values, or the fact that it was masquerading as a defence of Canadian values.

In case there’s anyone who genuinely doesn’t understand what the problem is with such a “tipline,” allow me to explain. Both legally and practically, it is redundant. The examples that Alexander gave of the suspicions that Canadians are being encouraged to report are honour killings, forced marriages (including marriage of underage girls), female genital mutilation and polygamy. These are all crimes in Canada (and already were crimes, before they were “recriminalized” by the government’s Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act). And we already have crimestoppers, a tipline where people can anonymously report suspected crimes. So what need is there for a special “barbaric cultural practices” tipline?

If it serves no practical or legal purpose, then what is its intent? Why create such a tipline?

To be more concrete, suppose you suspect that your neighbour is a polygamist (not just a serial monogamist, like the rest of us). Should you call crimestoppers? Or should you phone it in as a “barbaric practice”? Or perhaps you suspect that there is domestic violence going on next door, and that the husband may kill his wife. Are you worried that this may be an “honour killing,” or just a regular murder? On what basis will you make your decision? I think we all know the answer to that question. The “barbaric practices” tipline will be used for surveilling and reporting on brown people, while the ordinary crimestoppers line will be used for white people.

Perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps Canadians will start keeping a close eye on their Mormon neighbours, and start calling in anything suspicious as a “barbaric practice.” But I doubt it. The government of British Columbia twiddled its thumbs for 23 years before deciding to go after Mormon polygamists in Bountiful. I don’t think there has ever been much of a sense of urgency around this issue, until large numbers of immigrants and refugees started arriving from Muslim countries, such as Pakistan, Iraq or Afghanistan, that permit polygamy.

Furthermore, we all know that practices like “going out and getting drunk, then coming home and beating your wife” (or pleading alcohol intoxication as a mitigating factor in a crime) are not considered cultural practices, even though to a Muslim, who doesn’t drink, and whose culture does not tolerate alcohol consumption, it might be regarded as such. The term “cultural” is obviously meant to refer to particular minority cultures, not the culture of “old-stock” Canadians.

As a result, the only possible consequence of this policy is that it will encourage Canadians to discriminate against one another on ethno-religious grounds. I don’t see how the tipline idea can be construed in any other way – there is no innocent way of interpreting it. Furthermore, it is in effect proposing that additional resources be invested in policing certain ethno-religious groups (first and foremost, Muslims) rather than others (say, Christians, Mormons) where individuals may be committing the same crimes. And this is being done primarily for electoral advantage – because anyone who criticizes the idea can easily be caricatured as tolerating the barbaric practices, and that it puts the NDP in a difficult position, given the current atmosphere of insecurity in Quebec.

This is, as far as I am concerned, beyond the pale. Indeed, what the Conservative Party is doing, both with its Zelo Tolerance act, and with this new set of proposals, is not all that different from what the city council in Hérouxville did. And yet in some ways it’s worse, because of the insidiousness of it. It’s not just the government being awful to, say, refugees, it’s the government encouraging ordinary Canadians to be awful to each other. It’s proposing to take tax dollars and spend them in ways that actively promote distrust and discrimination toward immigrants. What’s worse, the entire program would be self-defeating, since stigmatizing minority groups makes it more difficult for them to integrate into Canadian society, and thus less likely to adapt to Canadian values.

On a personal note, I should say that I was extremely disappointed to see Kellie Leitch participating in this terrible spectacle. I have always followed her career with some interest, since thanks to her age and choice of profession, she and I have a number of mutual friends, both from her time as an undergraduate at Queen’s and from her surgical residency at University of Toronto. All of them have described her to me as essentially decent, with perhaps her only major flaw being a streak of intense partisanship. She is also my local MP. To see her disgracing herself like that on the national stage – essentially pandering to islamophobia, presumably because central headquarters told her it would win them votes – was something that I found extremely sad and uncomfortable to watch.

Readers of the blog will know that I usually lean towards the more charitable interpretation of people’s motives. And I try very hard to be charitable with conservatives, in part because I disagree with them on so many points, and so am likely to be biased in the direction of being uncharitable. Thus I have really been working hard to resist the tendency – which many of my colleagues have – of writing off the Conservative Party entirely, as being outside the scope of “reasonable” political conviction. I’ve also been doing what I can to encourage centre-right conservatives to be more assertive in controlling the drift into extreme ideological positions that one can see in the right wing in Canada. At this point, however, I’m starting to have trouble. My most charitable reading of the current situation is that it can be blamed on this Australian strategist they brought in, who’s basically been telling them to play the anti-Islam card, because hey, what does he care what happens to the country – he doesn’t have to live here (never thought I would find myself missing Jenni Byrne!). But even then, I’m having doubts. Psychologically, I’m starting to feel that I should put the Conservative Party of Canada into the same mental category that most people put the National Front in France – not as a representative of a reasonable political position, but as more of a cancer on the body politic. For the moment I’m still resisting that – holding out some faith in the decency of Canadians – but the way things are going I may need to reconsider.

The one thing I can say, however, is that after Friday’s press conference, I can no longer regard it as morally acceptable for anyone to vote for the Conservative Party of Canada. A week ago, I could still persuade myself that reasonable people could disagree over how to vote in this election, but no longer.



P.S. Just an extra, somewhat academic thought to balance things out: people who support the classification of certain offences as “hate crimes” should perhaps take pause to consider what critics of these statutes have been saying for a while, which is that it is a bad idea to start taking into consideration motives that go beyond criminal intent when defining and punishing crimes.


Conservative Party moves beyond the pale — 29 Comments

  1. I agree with you that the new tip line can only be intepreted one way. Or, at least, it’s very, very difficult to give it a more charitable interpretation. But I am puzzled as to how to square this with the way the Conservatives have aggressively courted immigrants, especially in the 905, the so-called Kenney coalition. This seems to be counterproductive to those outreach efforts on which their electoral success may depend. Is there a sublime tactic here I’m missing? Or is it just that they think they’ll gain more than they’ll lose?

    • Simply for votes, to create trust (you aren’t the bad guy, it’s the other Muslim guy). I fear people calling about fn people perhaps participating In ceremonies, protesting legally against pipeline. Barbaric culture practices such as genocide,are ignored, the barbaric is focused on one group. The others. And all of us non old stock Canadians have something to fear from the attack on the brown.

  2. Thanks for this excellent piece that is charitable towards those it disagrees with, yet firm in drawing the line at the point when the opponents’ arguments move outside the scope of liberal democratic principles. I also appreciate the honesty with which you call out someone in your immediate circles for their choice to participate in Islamophobia etc. I also really appreciated how you stripped away the coded language of the tip line by unpacking the term “cultural” as only applying to non-white communities.

    My thoughts on this issue lately is that even if Conservative strategists conceive of their tactics as ‘pushing buttons’ for immediate electoral outcomes, what they don’t realize is that they enable through their strategic actions a very real shift in the country’s spectrum of debate around the issues. Even if Conservative strategists are just insincerely ‘playing the race card’ for electoral gain, they will empower formerly marginalized opinions (and the individuals that hold them) to become empowered to air their extreme beliefs. Extremists effectively are able to come out of the woodwork, possibly join the party and push it farther to the right, or feel empowered now that their formerly marginal and unacceptable viewpoints are now becoming acceptable public discourse. The effect of these kind of ‘strategic’ politics is a self-fulfilling prophecy of extremism that cannot always be controlled. That’s why we ought to be alarmed.

  3. Harper Derangement Syndrome.

    Yes, there is a Crimestoppers line. Why then do we also have rape hotlines? No, it’s not a wicked government insinuation that all men are rapists, it’s because rape is a different kind of crime to (say) burglary, which needs special expertise and training to investigate. Similarly this is why the police have dedicated units to investigate frauds, or cybercrimes, or terrorism, etc.

    The reason we need a specific “barbaric cultural practices” tipline is because these crimes too are different from the run-of-the mill. They may have endemic support in their communities – their victims may not even see themselves as victims. So it requires extra publicity and special police training to bring people to justice – while doing so sensitively.

    It is clear that innocent Canadian girls, suffering mutilation, forced marriages and worse, are nothing more than collateral damage for you in your unhinged campaign against the greatest Prime Minister of the past 20 years. For shame.

    • The ‘rape hotlines’ you’re thinking of are not, in fact, programs of the federal government. They’re typically resources provided by private organizations to do something *other than* prosecution.

      • But if the federal government did set up a rape hotline, would this be a terrible persecution which “serves no practical or legal purpose,” justifying wild speculation about the sinister motives of the people who set up the hotline? Or would it be legitimate government action (which may or may not pass a cost-benefit test in terms of crimes solved versus expenditure, blah blah blah)? We all know the answer.

        Heath has lost his mind.

        • The rape hotline functions as a counselling service, the same as a crisis line. Rape victims are expected to use 911, the same as everyone else.

        • The thing is, the government hasn’t set up a rape hotline. If it did, it would be because rape survivors need specific support and counselling, and because a quick response might be required.

          A better example would be a “domestic violence” hotline, which would cover virtually all the crimes in this bill, and not be racially charged. “Barbarian” is Greek for “foreigner” and you know they didn’t choose that word without a lot of thought.

    • “Yes, there is a Crimestoppers line. Why then do we also have rape hotlines?”

      They’re counseling lines for people who have been raped. Like suicide hotlines are for people who are feeling suicidal, not people who are surreptitiously observing their neighbours and think they might be about to kill themselves, or (more commonly with tip lines) people who don’t like their neighbours and think they could use a little police attention. They’re for counseling and resources, not primarily for crime reports.

      “Harper Derangement Syndrome.”

      That phrase is a bit of a two-edged sword, isn’t it?

    • In addition to Chris’ response, it’s worth noting that the non-federally funded rape hot-lines do not play upon the oldest racist trope there is (barbarism) within their ostensible attempts to achieve social justice.

    • Crimestoppers is for reporting (non-emergency) criminal activity of any kind, regardless of the “special expertise and training” that will be required to follow up specific reports.

      More importantly, you haven’t met Heath’s argument that “barbaric cultural practices” are not fundamentally different from what might be called “normal (non-cultural) crime”. You have asserted that he is wrong, but with no supporting argumentation beyond, “they may have endemic support in their communities.” Heath already dismissed that reasoning in his essay, by noting that the same can be said for any number of “normal crimes” (his examples were polygamy among Mormons and alcohol-induced domestic abuse; I would add drunk driving and police brutality, to name a few).

      Thus we arrive at the interpretation that “barbaric cultural practices” are normal crimes committed by people whose culture is supposedly “barbaric”. In other words, crimes committed by Muslims.

    • Their victims, you say, may not even see themselves as victims. So, what do you propose doing about/to these “not-seeing-themselves-as-victims” people, exactly? Whatever it is, it’s pretty likely that if they didn’t see themselves as victims before, they sure will by the time you’re finished with them. But hey, as the Residential School people no doubt said, you can’t destroy a culture without breaking a few kids, right?

      Look, I have a visceral reaction whenever I see a clip on TV about those squicky Christian “Promise Keepers”, but having the cops swoop in and take away their kids is not a reasonable answer.

  4. (The thing analogous to this “barbaric cultural practices” line would be a “might your neighbour be a white rapist? line,” where the government would talk a lot about how white people are rapists and pass the White Rape Is Now Even More Of A Crime Act of 2015 and then set up a tip line for people who think their white neighbours or coworkers might be rapists. Sounds great, right? I’m sure we would all love that, right?

    It would lead to exactly the thing which a conscientious police force ordinarily tries to prevent, and which this line seems to be designed to encourage: a tip line full of people who are guessing about crimes their white/”cultural” acquaintances might be committing rather than crimes that they know about.)

  5. Now you’re just using a logical fallacy. “Yeah, but what if…” is not an argument, it is a straw man that leads you to an obvious conclusion (to you) that is in your favour.

    Further, Heath has taken great pains to address both sides of the argument and to be as balanced as possible. The same cannot be said for you. Ascribing qualities like “unhinged” to reasonable discourse is ad hominem. Nobody here sounds unhinged but the person casting that aspersion. It is called projection.

    People who set up tiplines specifically to report on the “crimes” of an identifiable cultural, religious or ethnic group have a name. They are called fascists, and there is objective historical evidence to back this up.

  6. Peculiar that genital mutilation (circumcision) of boys who are too young to give informed consent is not mentioned as a barbaric cultural practice.

  7. Salem- I doubt you are engaging in this debate in good faith, but just in case: rape hotlines are for victims to call in, not for neighbors to call and report suspected incidents of rape. Similarly, had Harper suggested a support line for women (or anyone) who are subject to crimes but, for cultural reasons, find it difficult to report these crimes through normal channels, the debate would indeed be very different. This is not what Harper is proposing. What possible reason is there for having private citizens call a seperate tip line if the reason is that these crimes have distinct features? The crime stoppers tip line would be perfectly capable of reporting these crimes to those with the special skills to investigate them.

    • This is a curious reply, especially since the sentence immediately following what you quoted is:

      “And I try very hard to be charitable with conservatives, in part because I disagree with them on so many points, and so am likely to be biased in the direction of being uncharitable. Thus I have really been working hard to resist the tendency – which many of my colleagues have – of writing off the Conservative Party entirely, as being outside the scope of “reasonable” political conviction.”

      He’s read the science; he’s explaining that he purposefully attempts to overcome his own biases by reading what he disagrees with in a more charitable light than he might otherwise.

      • To add to that: Bob, the science is in, and Heath has literally written the book on its connection to politics and rational argument.

  8. Would you mind citing a representative article or book relevant to your point about hate crimes?

  9. But there IS something different about a hate crime. No one assaults a veiled Muslim woman to take her wallet. The point is to dehumanize her, to encourage the like-minded to perform their own assaults, to stir up the mobs. Shouldn’t that be reflected in the offence?

  10. I don’t like when the term “hate crime” is used because it seems to be only be used when a person of a certain origin inflicts harm on another person of a different origin. If a person commits a terrible crime against his own family in my mind it is a hate crime too, and should be subject to just consequences. A so called “hate crime” deserves more punishment ?

  11. Joseph, just a couple of niggles (that ought to matter):

    1) The folks in BC who practice polygamy are part of a fundamentalis offshoot of Mormonism and are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“Mormons”), so are more properly called Fundamentalist Mormons.

    2) While members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (I know: it’s a mouthful) are not Creedal Christians owing to a theologicsl disagreement about the substantial nature and dynamic of the Holy Trinity, they are believers in the Lordship and divinity of Christ as Saviour and Redeemer. So it’s a little redundant to list Christians and Mormons separately.

    Of course, none of that is the primary point, about which I am in complete agreement, including your reflection on the morality of voting CPC. Harper has jumped the shark in his playing of politics. Positively shameful.

  12. There’s a typo in your open letter. First paragraph, “at the heart civil democratic discourse”–missing an “of”. Great letter though. Cheers!

  13. One of the long-standing objections against academic theories of “reasonable disagreement” is that it’s just an abstract, jargony way of dressing up pure political partisanship: e.g., if I disagree with your views, rather than engage them directly, I’ll rule them out of court by appealing to an abstract, jargony theory of reasonable disagreement”. Heath’s post above avoid this vice to some degree, because it does at least engage the issue at hand directly.

    Sadly, the predictably ridiculous letter from academics that followed it does nothing of the kind. It’s a transparent attempt to dress up pre-existing partisan preferences (we hate conservatives, and don’t want to have to acknowledge their existence in any form, let alone have them form a government!) with a lot of disingenuous blather about “pluralism”, and “a politics of mutual respect”, and so forth.

    In order to see the insincerity of the signatories nakedly exposed, consider the following blog post from a few years back, in which one of those same signatories responds to the attempt by the PQ in Quebec to establish a “Charter of Values” that would go much further than anything that the Conservatives are proposing:

    Here the tone is one of disagreement with the PQ, but very respectful disagreement. The Charter is described as an attempt by Quebcers to “freeze the cultural landscape”, but the comment concludes that “The people of Quebec may very well choose the freezing strategy”. There is no language here of “beyond the pale”, “contempt”, “condemn”, “ugly and dangerous”, “disreputable”, “hate mongering”, “no place in Canada”, etc. etc. The latter language is reserved exclusively for referring to Conservatives who are proposing considerably less than the PQ ever proposed.

    My aim here is neither to defend the Conservatives nor the PQ. But it is to suggest that eruptions such as this latter are more cynical than the cynicism that they purport to find in the Conservative Party. These academics are simply looking for an excuse to rule conservative-inclined people out of court, out of existence, to render them as non-entities in their fantastical “politics of mutual respect”.

    (Clear evidence of this last point can be found in the first sentence of the letter, which disingenuously and manipulatively asserts that “We are a diverse group of academics with different political views and different political allegiances” – in the context, this would be highly relevant if they group included any individual of conservative inclination, since then we might take the concerns expressed in the letter as a sincere attempt to persuade individuals of good will; in fact, however, the signatories are monolithically on the left, and disagree only how far to the left one should ideally be – but, in their world, this counts as “diversity”, because, of course, academics are quite happy to see individuals expressing minor dissents from far-left-wing orthodoxy banned from college campuses, shouted down, excluded from hiring, etc., with no letters to the editor on the subject. So “diversity” here simply means: a group of like-minded individuals who don’t think that any of you conservative scum should be considered lucky to be allowed to breathe, and good god we are sick of having to acknowledge your existence, so can you just lose power already….)

    The PQ would not be treated in this spirit by these same individuals, because although they might be viewed as misguided on an issue, their mere existence is not viewed as an offence. They are viewed as democratically legitimate actors whom one must earnestly seek to persuade and show good will towards, even when they make objectionable proposals that go far beyond what the Conservatives are proposing.

    Short version: Heath’s original post might have been taken as a good-faith attempt to articulate sincere misgivings in a way that could lay a claim to being taken seriously by the people it is indicting. But then the ludicrous letter blows up that whole strategy, and shows where the real agenda lies.

    We all know perfectly well that Weinstock, Maclure, Macleod, Eisenberg, and their friends, were never going to vote conservative, and basically consider conservatively-inclined people of any sort to be sub-human vermin that don’t deserve to be sincerely and persuasively addressed, let alone in any position of respectability or influence. We don’t need their idiotic letter to add patina of pretentious, self-righteous horse excrement to their narrow, partisan, and patently absurd notion of “diversity” and “mutual respect”.

  14. John Forrest, nice letter but who are you? I can look up Joseph Heath and see what he stands for and the books he has wrote and who opposes his views. The very Liberal paper The Globe and Mail. What is it you do and what is your body of work? It would give a better idea how to weight your opinion. I am just a retired working class stiff that don’t like the direction our current gov’t has taken our country in the last decade. It is too bad that the Harper Gov’t had of taken the steps to stop the two instances of terrorism that had on his watch.
    Why is it that we continue to alienate these new Canadians and then wonder why they become radicalized? You would almost think we are Yankees. (US Citizens)

    • “Why is it that we continue to alienate these new Canadians and then wonder why they become radicalized?”

      You’re drinking the kool aid. The Conservatives have consistently won a plurality of votes from immigrants and first generation Canadians. And as you can read in today’s Globe and Mail, that is holding true in the current election campaign as well. This is the sort of fact that the signatories of the letter denouncing the CPC conveniently like to forget as well (acknowledging this point would reveal how hollow and hypocritical their blather about “divisive politics” and appeals to “a politics of mutual respect” truly is).

    • Dale, the reason John Forrest evaded your question about his identify and qualifications is because this is a fake name. This person is a human bot. What I mean by this is he/she is a real person alright, but their job is to propagandize on behalf the Harper conservatives. Now, my claim may seem “beyond the pale” at first, but trust your own judgement. John Forrest is trying very hard to obfuscate the known evidence with his lengthy diatribe. What does John Forrest tell us about himself? Well, nothing of course, not even when you asked him directly. What is obvious though, is that he clearly wants people’s attention and wants to be taken serious. However, serious people with credentials do not hide. If anything, people with credentials are proud of their academic achievements and typically post their CV in the public domain. They know that their expertise in a given field provides a level credibility to their argument. But, not the mysterious John Forrest. He is a ghost without credentials and therefore, with no more credibility then anyone who blogs away anonymously on the internet.

      Here is what this person is up to. It is common on the internet for the PR industry to hire undergrads looking for extra pocket money as shills who pass themselves off as all kinds of people. I have personally come across these people on the internet in various chat forums. Over the last few years several were obviously shilling for the Conservative Party. They sound just like the repetitive parroting Canadians have heard for years from Harper and his Cabinet Ministers. Consider Stephen Harper’s behavior since he gained a majority government, and particularly his tactics in this campaign. It would take extraordinary effort to not see that Harper is quite willing to employ just about any tactic and scheme if he believes it will aid him in retaining power. We are told to be appalled by niqab covered faces while we are expected to willingly wear blindfolds. Yeah, I am appalled alright. I am appalled that Harper thinks he can pull the wool over my eyes. I can see perfectly to mark my X come October 19th.

      What this mystery person, John Forrest, is hoping to do here is appear justified and credible in his vilification of ALL 587 academics that signed the open letter. Now that’s a lot of chutzpah from one who hides. In addition, he hopes we will forget that not only has this been the longest campaign in Canadian history, but there has been an unprecedented amount of ongoing polling. The polling is something he wants us to ignore, Well, that’s a tall order because the polling for two months has clearly shown that 70% of Canadians want this government out of office. We are also expected to forget that Stephen Harper has continuously surrounded himself with some very unethical people, from senators under indictment to lawyers who have been disbarred for criminal activity, not to mention the findings of election fraud. When Harper can no longer avoid answering the mounting questions from journalists and Canadians alike, he expects us to believe that as a man who has cultivated a well known controlling management style, he knew nothing about anything. Harper’s explanations are in a word, juvenile. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is not fit to govern. This is what John Forrest wants us not to know. I could go on about the fact that the former Speaker of the House of Commons, Peter Milliken, held Harper in contempt of parliament, and is on record saying he believes Harper is still in contempt, but I think you have the picture. There are many things that have occurred over the past four years, which John Forrest wants us to forget.

      John Forrest should either reveal his credentials, or scurry back to his economic classes because those Christmas exams are just around the corner, and a prerequisite for acceptance at the Chicago School.

  15. I believe Harper has and is doing this country a lot of harm. He’s discharged good people from Cabinet, stopped taking in Syrian refugees, destroyed the economy, etc! etc! It’s time for a change!