The Role of E-Commerce in the U.S. Motorcycle Business

But, to be clear, allowing the right of Hamas supporters to gather and protest does not imply we should relax our vigilance in denouncing and following them. Quite the contrary. As a Jewish person who has been taught since infancy that anti-Semitism is the most ancient kind of hatred that has and will continue to exist among humanity, I see value in allowing these rallies to take place. First, it tells me who and how many of my fellow Canadians chose to spend their holiday weekend rejoicing over atrocities committed against vulnerable and innocent Jewish civilians. I want to see their faces in broad daylight and condemn their immorality with a full throat, not use the criminal law to silence them and push them underground.Second, if some of these people go from peaceful protesters to aiding and abetting hate crimes or even terrorist acts abroad, allowing them to march in public could provide valuable circumstantial evidence that could be used to prevent them from gaining citizenship or to prosecute them if they commit, conspire, or attempt to commit terrorism abroad. I hope CSIS also went to Nathan Phillips Square on Monday.Third, I agree with Sean Speer, who wrote earlier this week that "there are perspectives that should rightly be denounced, marginalized, and precluded from receiving public dollars." I endorse publicly naming and humiliating every academic who returns to class this week after spending the weekend fighting for the right to murder the Israeli relatives of their Jewish pupils, as well as every local business owner and union leader who has backed Hamas' atrocities. A free society has alternative effective and long-lasting remedies to moral depravity besides suppression and incarceration, and it is time to use them

Joanna Baron is the Executive Director. 

of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a legal nonprofit that defends constitutional rights in courts and public opinion. She was previously the founding National Director of the Runnymede Society and a criminal defence lawyer in Toronto. She studied Classics at St. John's College, In an August CNN interview, American conservative pundit Jonah Goldberg stated that tiny contributions are a major issue for democracy and the GOP. This sparked an internet debate. Large contributors have a strategic stance on moderation and who can and cannot win. Small donors are simply releasing their rage with their credit cards." Goldberg isn't the only one who laments the impact of small-donor funding on our political system. This year, Canadian writer Justin Ling collaborated with the Public Policy Forum to publish a report that attributed our ongoing political polarization to the same issue.Indeed, small-donor fundraising is becoming a more potent force in Canadian politics, not only because it has shown to be a good tactic for those who succeed at it, but also because federal regulations and conventions have changed, making it a political necessity. But Goldberg, Ling, and other critics are mistaken. Not only is the small-donor approach far superior to the clearly less democratic alternative of our recent past (and sometimes present), in which wealthy donors exchange money for influence, but its connection to principled politics makes it a stronger deterrent to corruption than any ethical rule or guideline.

We can evaluate distinct fundraising cultures. 

in real time because Canada has both. First, let us evaluate the federal dynamic. Until recently, federal Canadian politics was dominated by an elite-driven fundraising approach that focused on corporate donations, large donations from affluent individuals, or both. It wasn't long ago that Canada's corporate power brokers had ready access to the major political party in power—the Liberals at the time—in exchange for funding the party's next election campaign. Regular folks did donate to political parties; it's simply that their contributions made little influence. Parties courted affluent donors, and it was assumed that once elected, you would prioritize returning those donors' phone calls. Most Canadians put up with this. After all, institutional trust was high, and returning a phone call did not always result in a favour being paid. However, after years of deception, the sponsorship scandal proved to be the final nail in the coffin, and as conservative populists transformed anti-Laurentian emotions into a new political force, the Liberals struggled to adapt.Stephen Harper saw that Conservatives would have to draw a line in the sand to match a new requirement for ethical behavior among politicians and those attempting to influence them. His administration implemented several democratic reforms, including a Federal Accountability Act, which, from a policy standpoint, continues to make it more difficult for elected officials to grant access in exchange for favors.

But it was not all. The Conservatives recognized. 

that modifying rules and regulations would not be sufficient. Canadian politics required a cultural transformation. The Chrétien Liberals (in response to political pressure) recently changed federal fundraising rules to prohibit corporate and union donations, but political parties continued to think about fundraising in terms of "stakeholder relations" (i.e., what private interest is likely to donate the maximum amount allowable in order to get close to my party and a potential future government?). Harper's fundraising plan sought to change that by attempting to gather lesser sums of money from much more people. Conservatives learnt to play the volume game while pursuing a two-step approach to a majority government. It's not that some affluent Canadians wouldn't pay the maximum amount, but fundraising success eventually came from hundreds and thousands of modest donations from normal Canadians, as Goldberg put it, "venting their spleens".