Poverty and politics often make strange bedfellows. Poverty is often a central issue to many highly contested election campaigns yet the implementation of a viable reduction strategy is often hard to come by.

It seems as though Ontario is not alone in developing poverty indicators this year. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently unveiled a new measure for gauging poverty measures in the city. The previous indicator calculated poverty levels by tripling the amount of money that an average family spent on groceries each year. The new measure attempts to be more comprehensive by including factors such as housing and child care expenses.

While I hardly believe that New York should continue to employ a poverty measure created with regard to the economic climate of the 1960’s, I am weary of using a more praising adjective for the newly developed plan as its application has already produced some peculiar results. In her recent New York Times article, Cara Butler noted that the new model ‘shows shifts in poverty in the city’s boroughs’. She characterizes Brooklyn and Queens as being ‘less poor’ than what is recorded in federal records.

By simply applying a new measure, New York’s most populous regions (combined population of approximately 4.7 million) are now less poor, in an instant.

I would be remiss, however, by failing to note the fact that Bloomberg’s new model factors in costs of living and social assistance. This has led the mayor to set the poverty threshold for New York at $26,138 for a family of four as opposed to the federal threshold of $20,444. With this new calculation Bloomberg purports that the poverty levels in New York are closer to 23% (as opposed to 19% calculated using the previous measure).

On its face, Bloomberg’s plan isn’t bad. In fact, a model that resists the often used ‘one-size fits all’ approach is refreshing indeed. What continues to nag me, however, is the ease in which statistics can be skewed and hard facts changed, all by applying a different standard of measurement.

Interestingly enough, Douglas J. Besharov, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute suggests that the measure works to artificially inflate the poverty levels of the city to keep ‘a lame-duck mayor in the public eye’. Enter here: the politics of poverty. While I wouldn’t extend my reasoning quite as far as Besharov, I must admit, he does present an interesting perspective.

One must question how prudent it is to accept a new poverty plan before considering the motives of the man behind it.

With his personal fortune estimated at a conservative $11.5 billion, Bloomberg’s media empire is the leading global provider of financial data. He retains 68% ownership of the company and has no plans on selling.

In 2006 Bloomberg announced a new annual commitment of $150 million to tackle poverty in the city. He created the Centre for Economic Opportunity to oversee spending and implement poverty reduction programs.

Oh, he also spent $42 million on his campaign; for mayor. According to his 2007 tax return released to the media on Friday, he lent $500,000 to an undisclosed golf club and has begun to rake in profits on commercial real estate on Madison Avenue. A perfect anti-poverty poster boy indeed.

                      Photo By: Edward Reed

After winning his election, Bloomberg set a five-year target to slash homelessness by two-thirds, however his measure for gauging poverty was unveiled only this July, more than four years after launching his ‘offensive against homelessness’. After pouring $710 million dollars into poverty prevention programs, the number of homeless families in New York has barely dropped.

Bloomberg should be applauded for recognizing that the federally established poverty line simply doesn’t work for a city like New York and the cost of living is keeping many residents below the poverty line. He has been widely criticized, however, for extinguishing New York’s middle class by doing nothing about it.

This course of action makes it apparent that the development of poverty indicators is no prerequisite to haphazard government spending. An analogous case can be found in Ontario itself – with the Ontario government funding the Ontario Child Benefit before settling on clear indicators and targets for poverty reduction.

Perhaps the bigger distortions can be attributed to the media outlets that continue to call attention to poverty issues but stop short of asking for change. For example, in January, the New York Times published a praising endorsement of Bloomberg’s under-publicized war on poverty while in the same article citing New York as leading the nation in income disparity. Recent articles have, at best, glossed over Bloomberg’s inability to tackle homelessness and to redirect more funding to the working poor.

Instead, the media has placed more emphasis on his rise on the Forbe’s Richest American List and his inclusion in this year’s Time 100.

The American media aligning their interests with a fellow media mogul is far from surprising. While this is no revelation, I do wonder about the lack of accountability the public has come to accept from major news sources.

Upon a cursory review of his professional and political history, it is apparent that Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s personal interests are inextricably linked to New York’s economy. Reconciling his wealth and business interests with his mandate to reduce poverty is no small order; however, it’s necessary to give substance to a poverty proposal of this kind.

The notion of transparency in politics may be too idealistic for our time. The notion of transparency in the media, however, may be too idealistic all together.

Many believe him to be a free speech saviour, many more see him as a spicy, flavourful and pesky advocate for nearly everything that is strictly conservative, yet others see his views as downright deplorable and as an individual in disrepute for the way he conducts himself.  If you have been keeping abreast of the discussions on this site and the national debate on freedom of expression I’m sure you have a hunch of who I’m talking about, that’s right, our wily and outspoken friend Ezra Levant.

Now let me tell you what he isn’t, it’s simple, he is neither fair nor genuine.

In his latest entry he haphazardly attempts to support his belief that human rights commissions are biased and arbitrary and unavailable to members of the Christian community (what he is really suggesting is that are only accessible by Jews, Muslims and other vulnerable groups).  The example he opines upon is thus: A gentleman has filed a human rights complaint against a tv personality and Showcase TV (supporting this event) for flying a plane pulling a banner with the words “Jesus Sucks”.  For the full account of the story see here.

Here is Ezra’s view on the merits of this claim:

Hotz precisely meets the test of Canada’s hate speech laws: what he did was “likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt”. That’s the wording in the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Alberta code, the B.C. code and other provincial HRCs. If Hotz was a skinhead, and the banner said “Jews suck”, he’d already have had a human rights officer at his  door, and probably a policeman, too.

First off, Dean Skoreyko, the individual championing this complaint, admitted to submitting this statement to the B.C. Tribunal:  “my Christian beliefs and upbringing were publicly ridiculed.” So, he alleges public ridicule and essentially what really boils down to hurt feelings, yet Ezra, who we must remember holds a law degree from the University of Alberta, states that he “precisely meets the test…what he did was likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt.” A self-admitted complaint of public ridicule, yet Ezra strongly suggests it fits the bill.  And accordingly, if this complaint gets dismissed, Ezra sees this “as proof that the HRCs are biased and arbitrary, and that they believe in the Animal Farm Credo that all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”  Clearly this is a spurious argument.

And if that’s not quite enough, according to the The Vancouver Sun, Mr. Skoreyko “filed the complaint because he wanted to make the point that the human-rights system applies double standards.” What happened to all that talk about wasting tax payers money Ezra?

Pushing that aside, is it true that his legally trained mind cannot discern the difference between a statement such as “Jesus sucks” and a compilation of invective articles?  Let’s say that message reached the entire world, is telling the world that “Jesus sucks” going to make anyone dislike Christians?  Even if one takes this to be true, why would it expose Christians to hatred or contempt, if anything people might feel sorry for them for having a less than adequate symbolic leader (or sucky if you will). 

Now if a publisher establishes a pattern of print articles that use inflammatory, stereotypical and racialized terminology when referring to members of a faith community, and suggest that these members are growing in numbers through high birthrates with the specific intent of taking over our institutions, I think it is fair to say societal sentiment would tend to gravitate towards contempt for members of the group in question.

Should either of these situations require state intervention?  Maybe…maybe not, but there is a difference. Are human rights commissions in need of a massive overhaul? Again, another distinct question more than worthy of discussion and debate. 

Moreover, as Ezra is fully aware of B.C. legislation and jurisprudence he knows that a factor of consideration in claims of this nature is the question of the vulnerability of the group being written about and the historical discrimination it has endured.  He should equally beware, that this is also a factor in the analysis of constitutional cases regarding s. 15 of the Charter.  He clearly fails to give this any mention, let alone importance in his analysis. 

And lastly, Ezra bespeaks of a political motif through the “law-fare” epithet, in that Muslims are waging a soft-jihad with the help of the state by advancing complaints through human rights commissions to further their fascist aspirations.  This assertion is made irrespective of the insurmountable documentation showing that discrimination to Canada’s minorities is a pressing concern; albeit an occasionally over-exaggerated and superfluous claim. Yet he is clearly political in his quest to abolish human rights commissions so that public disseminators may pronounce as they wish with no accountability.

With the introduction of the Ontario Child Benefit that came into effect this past July much of the media has focused more attention on poverty in Ontario. The benefit (with a maximum payout of $50 a month) will provide some additional funding to low-income families with children under the age of 18.

Reading through the Toronto Star’s special piece War on Poverty – I continued to see the same committee being named as responsible for tackling poverty issues in this province. The Cabinet Committee on Poverty Reduction headed by Children and Youth Services Minister Deb Matthews is working within a 4-year mandate to fight poverty in Ontario.

The goals set by this committee are interesting in that they aim to break the cycle of poverty by reducing child poverty (hence the introduction of the Ontario Child benefit), but not before developing ‘poverty indicators’ to assess what indeed poverty means and to monitor the government’s progress on these issues. Apparently Ontario requires a team of politicians to decide on a common interpretation of the term as Canada purports no official poverty line.

While it is admirable that poverty reduction has been focused primarily on children, our most vulnerable group, the approach itself is somewhat short-sighted and perhaps even misguided. Of course it would seem reasonable to believe that to break the chain of poverty a government should provide young people with the tools and resources needed to succeed. It is, however, unrealistic to believe that a child’s poverty status can be thought of and dealt with separately from that of his or her guardian(s). I mention this point only because the funding of this benefit has resulted in funds being rerouted from Welfare (Ontario Works) and back-to-school and winter clothing allowances.

With more than one million Ontarians living in poverty it is commendable that the Liberal government has created a poverty reduction committee flanked with high ranking government officials. The roster of members itself has propelled poverty issues into the media spotlight. What is concerning, however, is the lack of discussion generated by the media coverage.

While the Toronto Star has waged its ‘War on Poverty’ it has not questioned why Deb Matthews and her committee have yet to provide Ontario with their ‘poverty indicators and targets’. It seems counterintuitive to roll out a new child benefit before an interpretation of poverty has been settled on and targets for reduction established.

I say this because funding to eradicate poverty in Ontario has been anything but sensible in the past decade. From 1993-2005 the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) received no additional funding and Ontario Works (OW) was subject to major cutbacks. Social Assistance acts as the lifeline for many of the impoverished in Ontario yet it has received little attention in the past or in Ontario’s Poverty Reduction Plan. Organizations, including Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) and the ODSP Action Coalition, provide well informed perspectives on this very issue.

These organizations have made laudable efforts to bring poverty funding issues to the fore. What I believe to be an equally pressing issue is the process by which social assistance is received.

Take for example an application for ODSP benefits. I was hard pressed to find any verified statistics on the granting of ODSP benefits on initial application. Any legal aid clinic in Ontario can verify however that the vast majority of ODSP applications are denied. The same can be said for internal reviews (the second step in the ODSP application process).

While searching for statistics, I did come across an interesting report written by, you guessed it, Deb Matthews. In her report on Employment Assistance Programs for Ontario Works and ODSP, she recognizes and recommends a streamlined ODSP process. She even calls for a reform of the appeals process because ‘a very high percentage of ODSP applications are denied, appealed and subsequently approved’.

This is not news. In 2003 Dawn Ontario published a summary of Forum reports which clearly laid out issues surrounding the application process and provided fair and realistic solutions. Five years later, the appeals process remains the same. Applicants are required to jump through hoops to obtain the ODSP benefit, sometimes years after they initially applied. It is evident that the appeal process is a thinly veiled weeding-out mechanism. After each rejection, fewer and fewer applicants appeal to the next stage.

What is often overlooked, however, is the fact that a large number of applicants have intellectual or mental disabilities. Requiring these applicants to abide by strict deadlines and complete confusing paperwork, repeatedly, may often help to abolish their chances of ever seeing the finish line. In effect, the process imposes bureaucratic impediments which require capabilities that might be lacking in its target population. Perhaps a tad counterintuitive? What seems to be a process that attempts to eliminate frivolous applications could actually be granting appeals in the most arbitrary of ways.

It is clear that the application process is a form of systemic discrimination which routinely diminishes the chances of receiving benefits for many applicants who don’t have the abilities to abide by the rigorous appeal procedures. It is shocking that these issues entrenched within the social assistance system have taken a back seat in the media and in Ontario’s Poverty Reduction Plan.

Perhaps Deb Matthews and her committee should take the time to develop indicators and targets to understand what poverty really is because it is apparent that many politicians are unclear as to where the real issues lie. And perhaps, the next time the media decides to wage war on poverty, they should do a little research and bring out the heavy artillery to encourage real debate and discussion of these issues.

During my regular perusal of Canada’s major dailies, I came across this insightful and commendable piece in today’s National Post.  I say insightful because it was an opinion piece by a former CSIS undercover agent Grant Bristow who investigated and infiltrated the world of hatred and its spread of vile and putrid directives against minorities.  Commendable, not only was it a fair and balanced perspective on the Maclean’s case and human rights commissions but it is an example of a large-scale media outlet–renowned for its conservatives views–providing somewhat of a counterview to its unofficial stance on the abolishment of HRCs.

A couple of choice excerpts:

For years, I saw the impact haters had on Canadian society. I watched as they picked their vulnerable targets, took aim and used evil words to break them down. Sadly, sometimes these evil words and thoughts would lead to evil deeds

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has been at the forefront of the war against hate in this country for decades. I personally believe it played a key role in eviscerating Canadian hate groups in the 1980s and 1990s. It helped shut down vile telephone hate lines and Internet sites that targeted vulnerable minorities

And in closing:

The CHRC is experiencing growing pains — the world is changing, and the commission has to change with it. Growth isn’t always easy. Sometimes it’s messy. But to cut the CHRC off at the knees as it goes through the growth process would be a grave mistake

Irrespective of whether the complaint against Maclean’s proves to be victorious, HRCs do play a vital and pivotal role in preventing and rectifying discrimination and even racist and harmful discourse, that of which is antithetical to Canadian values.

Today is the day Torontonians speak their voices and show their solitude in the rally to repatriate Scarborough born Omar Khadr to Canada. Here is an abbreviated tag line to the event sponsored by the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War, the Canadian Arab Federation, and the Muslim Unity Group.

Tell Stephen Harper:                                                                         
Bring Omar Khadr back to Canada!

Rally & march
Saturday, July 26, 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
U.S. Consulate
360 University Avenue
(north of Queen West, east side of University)
TTC: Osgoode or St. Patrick

Canadian citizen Omar Khadr is the only Western national  left in – Guantanamo Bay, and the first child-soldier to be prosecuted in –more than a hundred years. Khadr was only 15 years-old when -he was captured by US forces in Afghanistan and later transported–to the infamous US prison where he has now spent more than a –quarter of his life. Khadr faces trial by US military tribunal in– October 2008.

Recently released video footage reveals the kind of mistreatment that Khadr has experienced in Guantanamo Bay, where the US has been accused of practicing torture on detainees. Other reports show that Khadr was subjected to extreme forms of sleep deprivation, a form of torture, including a practice called the “frequent flyer program” in which he was woken every three hours and moved to a different cell for 24 hours a day over a three-week period.

Worse still, court documents reveal that the Canadian government was aware of the abuse suffered by Khadr at the hands of US authorities yet continued to assure the Canadian public that he was being well treated…

An In Depth Legal Perspective of the Situation

Yes we do realize that from an advertising perspective it would have been more prudent to give advanced notice to potential attendees. However, showing support for this cause is our main concern and surely this will not be the only important step in the repatriation of one of Canada’s own.

With that said, we contemplated formulating some in depth legal analysis of the situation showing the legal (and moral) inconsistencies from the standpoint of the Canadian government, including their controversial interrogatory interjection and the actions brought against them and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. In fear of muddling up, what takes years of legal scholarship to accurately formulate, we decided to leave this arduous and painstakingly technical task to the experts. Therefore, we would like to direct your attention to one of Canada’s finest, University of Toronto law professor Audrey Macklin.

She has been a public advocate at the same time a legal scholar in this area.  She has meticulously compiled an Omar Khadr resource page, in a manner unique to the academic elite.  It contains PDF files to all the legal documents and cases and decisions in the US and Canadian jurisdictions.  It also sites relevant cases from the UK and Australia - two nations who ardently demanded the return of their nationals.  This extremely informative page also holds links to advocacy and media publications.

Additionally, her publications page lists much of her recent academic work, unfortunately however, only a few of her works are downloadable and easily accessed online.  If you’re going to seek out a couple of hard copies, we recommend taking a look at this one: ”Exile on Main Street: Popular Discourse and Legal Manoeuvres Around Citizenship”, in Law Commission of Canada, ed., Law and Citizenship (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2006), 22-54.

We’ll keep up with some timely postings on this situation and provide some of our own insights in future posts.  Until then…

Judically Sanctioned DNA Sampling

For sex crimes, kidnapping and murder, a DNA sample is required upon conviction although not always demanded.  For crimes, such as criminal mischief, robbery and assault, the decision is left to the discretion of the judge.

The Star analysis of the Canadian Police Information Centre data revealed that “32.5 per cent of those required to provide DNA samples were non-white, even though non-whites make up only 16.7 per cent of those with criminal records.”

When examining the data between paired samples, the analysis found that ”comparing the same kinds of criminal records still shows a difference between whites and non-whites. For example, of people who have a criminal record for violence, 10.5 per cent of non-whites had DNA taken versus 6.1 per cent of whites.”

The literature on racism, which has been actively discussed throughout this site and explained in this post, can account for this discrepancy accordingly.  When left at the hands of the judges, a bias towards non-whites would be extremely difficult to observe based on individual cases as ordering a DNA sample can be strongly justified in any instance for the sake of public safety.

Thus, although judges presumably hold strong egalitarian values and notions of justice and equality, they may without their knowledge harbour racist or (negative) stereotypical thoughts towards non-whites which would result in prejudiced decision making and conduct in seemingly ambiguous situations. 

Irrespective of the precise rationale underpinning these differences, this data provides more than anecdotal evidence that differential treatment does exist within Canada’s justice system.

As a newbie on the blog scene I’d like to give some recognition and show our gratitude to Law is Cool for showing some support and sending traffic this way.

They are one of the few blogs to provide a balanced and comprehensive report on the CIC v. Maclean’s situation and present objective posts on a myriad of other issues.

Those bunch of quirky law students are doing a great job!

Legal Means are Somehow a Disservice

In the latest attack on the far-right’s official Islamic target, public face of the Canadian Islamic Congress Mohammad Elmasry, Rory Leishman, freelance writer for the London Free Press touts the oft too cited fallacy that it is Muslim representatives (Elmasry in particular) who use legitimate legal means to combat ill-will against their community who are disservicing Canadian Muslims and not the hodge-podge of conservative writers.

Ironically, it is not I, Mansur, Steyn or the editors of Maclean’s who are ill-serving Canadian Muslims. It is Muslim leaders like Elmasry. By using rights tribunals to intimidate and silence critics, these authoritarian Muslims are undermining the fundamental freedoms of all Canadians, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

In the quote above, I included his added obfuscation and conflation of the real issue at hand–Islamophobia–with his ostensible fear of the abolishment of fundamental freedoms for all and the improper use of human rights tribunals - perhaps some of the attack dogs will learn a thing or two about appropriate journalistic practice.

But before we delve in and deconstruct Leishman’s palpably misconstrued defensive-offense, let’s take a brief glance at the background of Mr. Leishman.

Who is this Leishman Fellow?

Hmm…according to his own webpage, he is a “member and director of Civitas, a non-partisan, national association of conservative academics, journalists and political activists.”

Pointing out the hypocrisy in this one is all too easy. The fact that he has been singled out as a homophobic writer, coupled with his long list of conservative supportive insights is as far as I will take this one; no need to unravel anymore layers, indeed, I am now totally convinced his organization is non-partisan in their writing and activism.

Besides, since when was activism and writing ever politically oriented anyway?

Let’s Be Clear Here

Getting back to the real issue (again, for most of you neo-conservative writers and bloggers it would be a good time to take out your pads and take note of this), in Leishman’s ‘opinion,’ by trying to shield himself and his community from the inflammatory and vitriolic commentary which constitutes Islamophobia, it is Elmasry who is doing more harm to his community than the very writers creating the anti-Islamic climate.

Therefore, the persons trying to prevent what translates into insidious, overt but more often covert forms of discrimination are more dangerous than the individuals unleashing the fury.

Let’s be clear here, this is no question of the chicken and the egg, Islamophobia and virulent rhetoric precipitated defensive attempts such as Elmasry’s by a long-shot.

Furthermore, Islamophobia and the solutions to its dissemination through Canada’s media network should be seen as distinct from issues of fundamental freedoms as the two are not necessarily conjunctive.

If not for the fact that this is a legally sanctioned route, provided by the state to curb discrimination in specific spheres, then for the fact that, according to the far-right, Muslims don’t have a firm understanding of the culture and historic traditions of a true democracy and are simply using services provided to the entire Canadian population.

They can’t be both ignorant, unalterable aliens invading our state and at the same time expected to comprehend this version of democracy, with deep historic roots that allows freedom of speech to trump the livelihood and equal treatment of minority communities within this great nation.

This is not the first and certainly won’t be the last time that minority populations feel denigrated by media characterizations and portrayals; the issue isn’t and never was about censuring free speech, it is about not being disadvantaged and targeted by racialized discourse.

On January 15, 2000, then fill-in anchor for CTV Newsnet Avery Haines made what turned out to be a very poor judgment call during the taping of her report. Moving past her minor script blunder, she continued on by ranting to an off camera technician, as she assumed that this would not get aired, by making fun of a variety of minorities:

I kind of like the little stuttering thing. It’s like equal opportunity, right? We’ve got a stuttering newscaster. We’ve got the Black, we’ve got the Asian, we’ve got the woman. I could be a lesbian, folk-dancing, Black woman stutterer. What’s that? In a wheelchair … with a gimping, rubber leg. Yeah, really. I’d have a successful career, let me tell you.

Naturally the segment was re-done but due to a technician’s mistake, the tape with the derogatory comment was aired later on that day. Avery Haines was fired from her position two days later during a time of heightened controversy over her remarks.

Several non-governmental organizations raised complaints that Haines’s comments were a reflection of the widespread bigotry against minorities in Canada.

This incident prompted many of her media colleagues in a frenzied defense of her actions and therefore the profession itself.

Borrowing heavily from Henry and Tator’s work on how the media responds to an attack on itself (Discourses of Domination: Racial bias in the Canadian English-Language Press), we can see how the media “closes ranks when one of their own has made inappropriate remarks.”

Outlined in their work is the identification of rhetorical strategies and argumentative discourses utilized by the profession to defend one of their colleagues. For a full analytical description of these strategies please visit the authors’ page here. For now, a satisfactory description of the first and most often used tactic will be layed out, followed by a simple listing of the remainder.

Discourse of Denial: This is Not Prejudicial or Discriminatory Behaviour

- Denial is usually followed by claims that people of colour and other minority groups are hypersensitive about prejudice and discrimination and often see bias where there is none.

These denials are based on a very limited understanding of how racism manifests itself in contemporary society. As noted in a previous post, racism is not the overt expressions that most journalists see as problematic and discriminatory, it is of a more sophisticated kind, draped in clever rhetoric and usually aligned with extreme political movements.

Examples of the discourse of denial:

• ‘There was nothing insulting or derogatory about what she said.’ (Christine Blatchford, This is CTV. You Will Not Be Funny,’ National Post, 18 January 2000).
• ‘Neither Mr. Kowalski nor anyone else has yet identified what, precisely was so objectionable in her comments.’ (Andrew Coyne, ‘To Air Is Human,’ National Post, 19 January 2000).
• ‘One of the most active groups in challenging discrimination in this country is the Canadian Jewish Congress and it is significant that it has issued not a word about the incident.’ (Michael Coren, ‘Apology Should Have Ended It,’ Toronto Sun 20 January 2000).

The Discourse of Reverse Discrimination: Avery Haines is the Real Victim

The Discourse of Rationalization, Justification, Minimalization, and Mitigation: ‘It Was Only a Commonplace Joke Heard Everyday; It Was the Techies Fault’

The Discourse of Otherness and Bipolarization: Political Correctness, Identity Politics, and Tyranny of Special Interest Groups versus Avery Haines, the Good, Compassionate, Fair-Minded Individual

The Discourse of Coercion and Oppressive Public Policies: Employment Equity Legislation is an Unneccessary and Discriminatory Intervention

The Discourse of Popular Support; Most People Don’t Think What Avery Haines Did Was Wrong

This aforementioned list of strategies is not exhaustive; they are the ones most commonly employed to the specific situation discussed above. Stay tuned for a more representative, analysis with modern day relevance; although through time the tactics used simply resurface in a cyclical manner through various forms of rhetoric and different guises.