Drawing the Lines of Power: Why the United States Needs an Independent Redistricting Commission

Posted on November 10, 2025 by Chris McBean

Every ten years, Americans count themselves, and then politicians carve the nation into pieces. In theory, these lines are the skeleton of democracy, each district meant to represent a roughly equal share of the people’s voice. In practice, however, the scalpel is often in partisan hands, and the result looks less like democracy and more like a game of political cartography gone rogue.

A System That Rewards Its Own Abuse
The U.S. Constitution leaves redistricting to the states, with Congress retaining the right to regulate the process. Yet for more than two centuries, Congress has chosen not to exercise that right in any meaningful way. The result is a patchwork of state systems, most of them controlled by whichever political party happens to dominate the local legislature.

Both parties have used this power when it suits them, but in the modern era, sophisticated mapping software and microtargeted data have turned gerrymandering into a science. Districts now snake through neighborhoods like drunken serpents, connecting voters who share little except their predicted loyalty. In some states, the shape of the line, not the will of the people, determines who governs.

When the Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) declared that partisan gerrymandering was a “political question” beyond its reach, it effectively shut the courthouse doors to citizens seeking fair maps. The message was clear: if Americans want integrity in their elections, they must legislate it themselves.

What an Independent Commission Could Offer
Other democracies long ago recognized that fairness cannot coexist with self-interest. Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia entrust their electoral maps to independent, arms-length commissions. These agencies are staffed by nonpartisan experts; demographers, judges, geographers who follow clear criteria: compactness, respect for communities of interest, equal population, and transparency. Public hearings and judicial oversight ensure that citizens, not party operatives, shape their representation.

The results speak for themselves. Voter confidence in the fairness of elections in these countries consistently exceeds 80 percent, while American confidence has hovered around 50 percent in recent years. In Canada, where each province’s independent boundary commission reviews the map after every census, electoral boundaries are rarely the subject of scandal or court challenge. People may disagree on policy, but they do not argue about the legitimacy of their ridings.

The Case for a Federal Solution
The United States could adopt such a system tomorrow. The Elections Clause grants Congress the authority to “make or alter” state regulations governing federal elections. A single piece of federal legislation could establish an Independent Federal Redistricting Commission – a transparent body tasked with drawing all congressional districts using uniform national standards.

Such a commission would:
• End partisan manipulation by removing politicians from the mapping process.
• Increase public trust by making all deliberations open and evidence-based.
• Strengthen democracy by ensuring that voters choose their representatives, not the other way around.
• Stabilize governance by reducing the incentives for extreme partisanship, which flourish in safely gerrymandered districts.

Imagine a Congress in which every member must appeal to a truly representative cross-section of their district; urban and rural, conservative and progressive, wealthy and working-class. The tone of national politics would shift overnight. Legislators would need to persuade rather than posture. Compromise, that most endangered of political virtues, might even make a comeback.

What Stands in the Way
The only obstacle is political will. The party that benefits from the map has no incentive to surrender control of the pen. Both have been guilty at various times, though the imbalance today tilts heavily toward Republican-controlled legislatures that have perfected the art of map manipulation. The proposed For the People Act and Freedom to Vote Act, which would have mandated independent commissions for all congressional districts were blocked in the Senate, not because they were unconstitutional, but because they were inconvenient.

This is the real scandal: that a fix so obvious and achievable is continually thwarted by those who fear fair competition. Gerrymandering is not a feature of democracy; it is a form of quiet electoral theft.

The Moral Argument
Democracy, if it means anything, means that each citizen’s voice carries the same weight. When politicians choose their voters, that principle collapses. Independent redistricting is not a partisan reform; it is a moral one. It says that legitimacy must flow upward from the people, not downward from the powerful.

Americans deserve to know that their ballot is worth as much as their neighbor’s. Until they demand that Congress create an independent, arms-length agency to draw the lines of power, those lines will continue to be written in the ink of self-interest.

The map of a democracy should be drawn by its people’s conscience, not by its politicians’ convenience.

Sources:
• U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 4
• Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015)
• Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019)
• Elections Canada, “Independent Boundaries Commissions and Electoral Fairness” (2023)
• Pew Research Center, “Public Trust in Elections and Government” (2023)

Nuremberg Revisited: A Timely Warning to the Trump Administration

Posted on November 6, 2025 by Chris McBean

The forthcoming film Nuremberg, slated for release on November 7th, 2025, offers more than just a historical drama, it arrives at a moment in time that invites reflection on the nature of authoritarian power, the fragility of democratic institutions, and the price paid when societies fail to hold tyranny to account. In publishing a cinematic depiction of the post-World-War II trials of Nazi war criminals, the film sends a pointed message, especially to the current U.S. administration, about the consequences of unrestrained power and the urgent need for vigilance in protecting democratic norms.

First, the timing of the release is significant: over eighty years since the original Nuremberg Trials of 1945–46, when the victors of the war sought to ensure that those responsible for crimes against humanity would be held to account. The film’s arrival at this milestone moment suggests that the lessons of that era are not mere relics, but living admonitions. For a present-day administration facing pressures from populist rhetoric, democratic back-sliding, or executive overreach, the film signals that the world remembers what unchecked power is capable of. The very act of dramatizing how the Nazi regime’s leaders were judged and how justice was pursued underscores that history is watching.

Second, by focusing on the moral, psychological and institutional dimensions of tyranny through characters such as Hermann Göring and the American psychiatrist mesmerized by his charisma, the film reminds us that dictators do not always rule by brute force alone, they often wield legitimacy, manipulation and institutional subversion. In a modern context, this is a cautionary tale. When a government begins undermining norms, bypassing checks and balances, or valorizing strong-man tactics, it is not merely a political condition, it echoes the first steps of authoritarianism. The release of this film invites the Trump administration (and by extension any power-consolidating regime) to reflect: the fate of dictatorships is grim, and history does not neglect them.

Third, the timing signals an admonition that accountability matters. The heroes of the film are not the dictators themselves, but the institutions and individuals who insisted on judgment, on due process, on shining light into darkness. That message runs counter to any present-day posture that seeks to evade responsibility or diminish oversight. For the U.S. administration, which holds itself up (and is held up by others) as a model for rule-of-law governance, the film is a reminder that even victors in war cannot sidestep justice: they must build systems that can stand scrutiny. The release date thus communicates that the film is more than entertainment – it is timely commentary.

By arriving in late 2025, a time when global politics are turbulent and the boundaries of democratic norms are under pressure, the film functions as a mirror. It asks: What happens when the “good guys” forget that the preservation of democracy requires constant vigilance? The implication for the Trump administration is subtle but unmistakable: look at the outcome of authoritarianism in the 20th century; learn from the decay of institutional safeguards; and recognize that public memory and moral judgment endure long after the regimes have fallen.

Nuremberg does more than retell a famous trial, it sends a message to the present: authoritarianism isn’t just history’s problem, it is today’s risk. By releasing now, the film invites the Trump administration to see itself in the narrative, one where the rule-of-law must be defended, where power must be constrained, and where the cost of forgetting is steep.

Tewin and the Shape of Ottawa’s Future

Posted on November 3, 2025 by Chris McBean

At the moment, I don’t feel I know enough about this developing issue to take a position, so I plan on monitoring the situation and perhaps look at the bigger picture.

Four years ago, Ottawa city council voted to expand the urban boundary into lands southeast of the city to create a massive new suburban community called Tewin. The project, a partnership between the Algonquins of Ontario (AOO) and Taggart Group, envisions housing for up to 45,000 people on 445 hectares of land. This expansion was one of the most controversial planning decisions of the last decade, both for its symbolic weight and its long-term implications. Today, councillor Theresa Kavanagh has re-opened the debate, proposing that Tewin be stripped from Ottawa’s Official Plan. Her efforts highlight the difficult choices cities face between growth, climate goals, and Indigenous reconciliation.

The Promise of Tewin
Supporters of Tewin present it as a once-in-a-generation opportunity. For the Algonquins of Ontario, the project represents an unprecedented role in shaping Ottawa’s future. After centuries of dispossession, Tewin offers not only revenue streams and jobs but also visibility in the city’s urban fabric. This symbolic dimension, land not merely ceded or lost, but built upon in partnership, is difficult to dismiss.

Developers and some councillors also argue that Ottawa must accommodate population growth. With Canada’s immigration targets rising, pressure on housing supply is intense. Tewin promises tens of thousands of new homes, potentially designed with modern sustainability standards. Proponents emphasize that large master-planned communities can integrate parks, schools, and infrastructure in ways that piecemeal infill cannot. In this vision, Tewin is not sprawl, but a carefully designed city-within-a-city.

The Cost of Sprawl
Yet the critiques are no less powerful. City staff initially ranked the Tewin lands poorly during their 2020 evaluations, citing soil unsuitability, distance from infrastructure, and limited transit access. Servicing the site: extending water, sewers, and roads will cost nearly $600 million, much of it beyond the city’s 2046 planning horizon. These are funds that could otherwise reinforce existing communities, transit networks, and climate-resilient infrastructure.

Urban sprawl carries environmental and social costs. Tewin sits far from rail lines and job centres, ensuring that most residents will be dependent on cars. This contradicts Ottawa’s stated climate action commitments, which emphasize compact growth and reduced vehicle emissions. Critics also note that adding a massive suburb undermines efforts to intensify existing neighbourhoods, where transit and services are already in place.

Indigenous Voices, Indigenous Divisions
The Indigenous dimension of Tewin complicates the debate. On the one hand, the Algonquins of Ontario have secured a rare position as development partners, advancing reconciliation through economic participation. On the other hand, not all Algonquin communities recognize AOO’s legitimacy, and some argue that consultation has been narrow and exclusionary. The project thus embodies both progress and tension in the city’s relationship with Indigenous peoples. To reject Tewin outright risks appearing to dismiss Indigenous economic aspirations; to proceed with it risks deepening divisions and ignoring long-standing calls for more inclusive engagement.

A City at the Crossroads
Councillor Kavanagh’s push to remove Tewin from the Official Plan is more than a single motion. It reopens a philosophical question: what kind of city does Ottawa wish to become? If it seeks to embody climate leadership, resilient infrastructure, and walkable communities, Tewin appears to be a step backward. If it seeks to honour Indigenous partnership and ensure abundant housing supply, the project has undeniable appeal.

Ultimately, Tewin forces Ottawa to confront a contradiction at the heart of Canadian urbanism. We are a country that has promised climate action, but remains tethered to car-dependent suburbs. We are a nation that aspires to reconciliation, but often struggles to reconcile competing Indigenous voices. To move forward, Ottawa must do more than weigh costs and benefits; it must articulate a vision of growth that is both just and sustainable.

In this sense, Tewin is not merely a development proposal. It is a mirror held up to the city itself, reflecting both its aspirations and its unfinished work.

Sources:
• CTV News Ottawa. “Tewin development project passes latest hurdle but some say it still doesn’t belong.” August 2024. Link
• Ontario Construction News. “Ottawa councillor sparks renewed debate over controversial Tewin development.” April 2025. Link
• CTV News Ottawa. “Councillor withdraws motion to remove 15,000-home development from Ottawa’s Official Plan until after byelection.” April 2025. Link
• Horizon Ottawa. “Stop the Tewin Development.” Accessed October 2025. Link

Frank McLynn: A Biographer Who Talks Back to History

Posted on October 28, 2025 by Chris McBean

“History is not a static record, and truth is not a simple story. It is a conversation, sometimes a quarrel, and always an argument well made.”

If you haven’t yet fallen into the work of Frank McLynn, consider this a gentle warning: once you do, history will never look quite the same. McLynn isn’t merely a writer of biographies; he is a thinker about biography itself, a historian who insists on a conversation with his peers even as he recounts the lives of figures long departed. His work is a masterclass in the art of writing history that is simultaneously rigorous, readable, and refreshingly candid.

Engaging with History, Not Just Telling It
Take his monumental work on Richard Francis Burton. Most biographers, in approaching a figure like Burton: the explorer, linguist, orientalist, and provocateur would pick a path of reverence, sensationalism, or straightforward chronology. McLynn does none of these exclusively. Instead, he immerses himself in the entire scholarly conversation on Burton, dissecting assumptions, noting disagreements, and then calmly explaining why his own interpretation diverges. He doesn’t dismiss other historians; he engages with them, highlighting blind spots, overlooked evidence, or interpretive errors. The result is not just a biography, but a kind of intellectual conversation that readers can follow and participate in.

This dialogic approach is rare in modern biography. Many writers simply present their research, leaving the reader to assume that their conclusions are self-evident. McLynn, by contrast, shows the intellectual gears turning behind the narrative: why he favors one interpretation over another, why certain sources carry more weight, and why some claims advanced by previous historians are problematic. In doing so, he educates as he narrates, giving readers insight into the historian’s craft as well as the subject’s life.

The Challenge of Burton’s Lost Papers
McLynn’s work on Burton becomes even more remarkable when one considers the obstacles he faced. Much of Burton’s personal material: letters, diaries, manuscripts was deliberately destroyed by his wife, Isabel, after his death. Earlier biographers often treated this loss as a barrier too high to surmount, leaving gaps in the narrative or filling them with speculation that blurred the line between evidence and invention.

McLynn confronts these gaps head-on. He does not pretend they do not exist, nor does he indulge in imaginative reconstruction disguised as fact. Instead, he reconstructs Burton’s world with meticulous care, using surviving letters, published works, contemporary accounts, and even indirect references to piece together a life both vivid and credible. The result is a biography that is as rigorous as it is lively, a rare balance in historical writing, especially given the fragmentary nature of the surviving sources.

What stands out is McLynn’s ethical sensitivity. He demonstrates that historical gaps do not justify careless inference. Rather, he shows how one can be faithful to the evidence while still producing an engaging narrative. Readers gain not only a sense of Burton himself, but also an appreciation for how historians navigate the tension between curiosity and respect, interpretation and invention.

The Ethics and Craft of Biography
This transparency is one of McLynn’s defining traits. He models intellectual honesty in every chapter, reminding readers that biography is as much about interpretation as it is about fact. He acknowledges the limits of sources, the biases of previous scholars, and the moral ambiguity of his subjects. By doing so, he invites readers to think critically, weigh evidence, and arrive at their own conclusions.

McLynn’s biographies are, in a sense, lessons in historiography. Through his work, we see how historical interpretation evolves, how scholars argue across time, and how personal and cultural biases shape the telling of any life. He makes these debates accessible, without ever oversimplifying them, allowing readers to witness the historian’s reasoning in action.

Themes Across McLynn’s Work
Across his wide-ranging oeuvre, from Napoleon Bonaparte to Genghis Khan, from Carl Jung to Marcus Aurelius, McLynn’s approach is consistent. He is drawn to figures who are morally complex, intellectually audacious, or too misunderstood to be captured by conventional narratives. He eschews hagiography and sensationalism alike, favoring instead a careful, nuanced exploration of character and context.

Another hallmark is his attention to cultural and historical environment. McLynn situates his subjects within the broader currents of their times, showing how context shapes decisions, ambitions, and legacies. In Genghis Khan: The Man Who Conquered the World, for example, he paints a rich picture of the Mongol steppe and tribal politics, helping readers understand the extraordinary achievements of a man often caricatured in previous accounts. Similarly, in his Napoleon biography, he balances the public image with the private complexities of the man, providing both strategic analysis and human insight.

Why McLynn Matters
For readers, engaging with McLynn is thrilling. You are not merely absorbing facts; you are witnessing a historian navigate a maze of interpretation, weighing evidence, and arguing with the ghosts of scholarship past. His biographies are immersive, yet intellectually rigorous, blending narrative excitement with careful reasoning.

In a publishing world awash with hagiography, sensationalism, and truncated life sketches, McLynn reminds us why biography matters. He shows that history is a living dialogue, shaped by questions as much as answers. And in every book, quietly but insistently, he is the biographer who talks back, both to his subjects, and to the historians who have preceded him.

“He writes not to canonize or condemn, but to illuminate, and in doing so, he reveals something equally compelling about the practice of history itself.”

For those willing to read closely, McLynn’s footnotes, source critiques, and occasional asides provide a secondary narrative: a conversation about scholarship itself. In this sense, reading McLynn is not just a journey through the lives of extraordinary figures; it is a lesson in how history is written, interpreted, and understood.

Good Cop, Bad Cop, and the Ghost of Ronald Reagan

Posted on October 25, 2025 by Chris McBean

The latest Canada-U.S. flare-up could almost be mistaken for political theatre. On one side of the stage, Ontario Premier Doug Ford channels a hard-nosed populist energy that plays perfectly to American conservative media. On the other, Prime Minister Mark Carney performs the part of the calm, worldly statesman who reassures allies that Canada still wants dialogue. Together they have turned a difficult trade moment with Donald Trump into something that looks suspiciously like a good-cop, bad-cop routine.

The flashpoint came when Ford’s government released an advertisement in mid-October quoting Ronald Reagan’s 1987 radio address on free trade. Using Reagan’s own words, “Over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries.” The ad struck a nerve south of the border. Ford’s communications team framed the clip as a warning to Trump not to reignite trade wars that would hurt both economies. The Reagan Foundation objected, calling it a misrepresentation and claiming no permission had been granted to edit the footage, but the real explosion came from Trump himself.

Within hours, Trump denounced the video as “fake,” accused Canada of using “fraudulent propaganda,” and declared that “all trade negotiations with Canada are hereby terminated.” The social-media fireworks were vintage Trump – equal parts bluster and strategy. Yet the Canadian side, particularly Carney, appeared unruffled. His office reiterated that Canada remained open to dialogue and emphasized the importance of “mutual respect.” It was classic de-escalation language, signalling steadiness in the face of chaos.

Ford, meanwhile, looked quite comfortable being the villain of the week in Washington. His supporters at home applauded the move as patriotic spine, and conservative talk shows in the U.S. replayed the Reagan clip endlessly. For Ford, this was not just about Ottawa’s trade posture, it was also domestic optics. Standing up to Trump sells well in parts of Ontario, but so does invoking Reagan, a hero to many small-c conservatives. The ad’s provocation was almost certainly deliberate.

Carney’s response complemented Ford’s aggression in a way that looked suspiciously coordinated. While Ford’s office blasted American protectionism, Carney quietly engaged in back-channel diplomacy. Reports from Washington described him as “measured but firm,” assuring Trump that Canada sought cooperation but could not accept one-sided terms. The effect was to let Ford raise the temperature so Carney could later cool it down, extracting concessions or at least opening a channel for reason.

For all its drama, the episode underscored a larger point about Canadian strategy. With Trump back in the White House and America’s politics as volatile as ever, Canada seems to be experimenting with pressure and persuasion in tandem. Ford’s bluster makes Carney’s calm look even more statesmanlike, while Carney’s civility makes Ford’s fury appear authentic rather than reckless. It is a risky dance, but one that may keep Trump guessing and Canada’s interests protected.

Whether the Reagan ad was a blunder or a calculated feint, it has achieved something no memo ever could: it reminded Washington that Canada can still play hardball, and that even ghosts from the Gipper’s era can be drafted into the game.

Finally, as a side note, perhaps Ford is double dipping a little bit, by using the Bad Cop routine to catalyze a run at the federal Conservative leadership.

Sources:
Business Insider,
Politico,
AP News,
The Independent,
Reuters.

Food Security Requires a Canadian Grocery Fairness Act to Break the Supermarket Cartel

Posted on October 22, 2025 by Chris McBean

Food prices in Canada are now so high that a growing share of households are skipping meals or relying on food banks, yet the country’s dominant grocery chains continue to post record profits. It’s an economic contradiction that Canadians are no longer willing to ignore. After years of voluntary codes, polite meetings with industry leaders, and vague promises of self-regulation, the time has come for Parliament to act. Canada needs a Grocery Fairness and Anti-Cartel Act to restore competition, transparency, and trust in the food supply.

The data are damning. Between 2019 and 2024, grocery prices rose by more than 25 percent, outpacing both wages and overall inflation. Meanwhile, profit margins at the country’s three dominant players, Loblaw, Sobeys’ parent company Empire, and Metro, reached their highest levels in decades. These three corporations control nearly 60 percent of the national grocery market and, in some provinces, more than 75 percent. Despite the removal of gas taxes and a slowdown in supply chain costs, prices have not come down. The explanation is simple: the grocery sector operates as a de facto cartel.

Canadians have seen evidence of this before. In 2018, a major bread price-fixing scandal revealed collusion among suppliers and retailers that spanned more than a decade. The Competition Bureau’s investigation led to fines and admissions of wrongdoing, but no lasting structural change. The same corporate families and alliances continue to dominate shelf space, dictate supplier terms, and shape consumer prices. Voluntary codes have done little to curb their power. When a handful of companies can quietly move in lockstep on pricing, even without explicit collusion, the outcome is the same: higher costs for everyone else.

A Grocery Fairness Act would not be radical. It would simply align Canada with the kind of market safeguards that already exist in other developed economies. The United Kingdom established a Groceries Code Adjudicator in 2013 to oversee fair dealing between supermarkets and suppliers. The European Union enforces strict competition rules that prevent excessive market dominance and punish “tacit collusion.” Canada, by contrast, still relies on a Competition Act designed for a different era, one that assumes the threat to markets comes from explicit conspiracies rather than structural concentration.

The model law proposed by several economists and policy experts would impose a national market-share limit of 15 percent per grocery chain, and 25 percent in any province. Companies that exceed those thresholds would be required to divest stores or brands until the market is more balanced. It would also make the existing Grocery Code of Conduct legally binding rather than voluntary, ensuring that farmers and small suppliers are protected from arbitrary fees, delisting threats, and other coercive practices.

Most importantly, the law would require large grocers to publish detailed pricing and profit data by category, showing whether retail increases are justified by rising costs. If a chain’s margins expand while input costs stay flat, the public deserves to know. Transparency alone would discourage the kind of quiet, parallel pricing behaviour that has become the norm.

Critics will call this “interference in the market,” but the truth is that Canada no longer has a functioning grocery market in the classical sense. When three firms dominate distribution, logistics, and supply contracts, the market’s self-correcting mechanisms are broken. Economists call it “oligopolistic coordination”; ordinary Canadians call it being gouged at the checkout.

Breaking up concentration would also open the door to regional cooperatives, independent grocers, and Indigenous food enterprises that have been squeezed out of distribution networks. Local ownership builds resilience, especially in rural and northern communities where dependence on a single chain often leads to higher costs and poorer food access.

There is also a broader principle at stake: when corporations profit from a basic human necessity, government has a duty to ensure that profit is earned through efficiency, not exploitation. If the banking sector can be regulated for systemic risk and telecommunications companies for fair access, surely food, the most essential of goods, deserves the same scrutiny.

Canada’s political establishment has been slow to move. The federal government has encouraged the large chains to sign a voluntary code, but participation remains partial and unenforced. Provinces have little power to act independently. The result is a cycle of press releases, hearings, and photo opportunities, while the price of a loaf of bread continues to climb.

A Grocery Fairness and Anti-Cartel Act would mark a decisive shift. It would give the Competition Bureau real structural tools rather than case-by-case investigations. It would make transparency mandatory and collusion punishable by substantial fines or even criminal liability for executives. Most importantly, it would restore the principle that essential markets exist to serve citizens, not to enrich monopolies.

Canada prides itself on fairness. Yet fairness in the grocery aisle has become an illusion. If Parliament wants to restore public confidence and make life affordable again, it should begin not with subsidies or rebates, but with the courage to challenge the corporate concentration that underlies the problem. The country needs a real grocery market, competitive, transparent, and accountable. Anything less is a betrayal of every Canadian who still believes that food should be priced by cost, not by cartel.

Sources:
Statistics Canada, Consumer Price Index data 2019–2024;
Competition Bureau of Canada, Bread Price-Fixing Investigation Report (2018);
Office for National Statistics (UK), Groceries Code Adjudicator Review 2023;
European Commission, Competition Regulation 1/2003.

Rethinking Public Safety: Core Changes Needed in Western Policing

Posted on October 13, 2025 by Chris McBean

Western policing institutions, from the United Kingdom to the United States, are facing mounting scrutiny for systemic failures that undermine public trust and fail to meet the safety needs of communities. Incidents of racial and gendered violence, misuse of force, and institutional culture problems reveal the limitations of the traditional model in which a single, uniformed police force handles the full spectrum of societal harms. This essay argues that public safety requires a reimagined, plural, and layered system. It presents six core principles for reform, grounded in evidence from pilot programs and case studies on both sides of the Atlantic, and discusses the implications for sustainable, accountable, and equitable policing.

Introduction
The model of policing inherited from 19th-century Western institutions, exemplified by Sir Robert Peel’s Metropolitan Police in London and early municipal police forces in the United States, was designed to maintain order and protect property. While law enforcement has evolved considerably, the persistence of systemic failures: including excessive use of force, discrimination, and insufficient accountability, reveals that the traditional, centralized policing model is increasingly misaligned with the safety needs of diverse urban and rural populations. Recent investigations, such as the BBC Panorama exposure of the Metropolitan Police and multiple high-profile police misconduct cases in the United States, underscore the urgency of systemic reform.

Reimagining public safety involves shifting from a monolithic force model to a plural, layered system in which enforcement is distinct from care, accountability is democratized, coercive intervention is minimized, social determinants are prioritized, non-police responders are professionalized, and transparent data guide decision-making.

Principle 1: Separate Enforcement from Care
Crisis responses for homelessness, mental health emergencies, substance use, and domestic conflict are often inappropriate for traditional police intervention. Uniformed officers, trained primarily for law enforcement rather than care, may escalate tensions, criminalize vulnerability, or fail to provide adequate support.

Alternative models, such as CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets) in Eugene, Oregon, and similar community response teams in Toronto, Canada, deploy trained clinicians, social workers, and mediators to handle nonviolent crises. Evidence suggests these programs reduce unnecessary arrests, minimize injuries, and improve trust between communities and public safety agencies. In both UK and US contexts, embedding healthcare professionals alongside response teams reduces escalation and prevents downstream criminalization.

Principle 2: Localize and Democratize Accountability
Public trust is strengthened when local communities have oversight and voice in shaping public safety priorities. Establishing community boards with authority over local response teams, transparent complaint resolution processes, and independent civilian audits creates structural incentives for cultural change.

Both London’s Metropolitan Police governance reforms and civilian oversight structures in cities such as New York and Chicago highlight the importance of independent, empowered bodies capable of enforcing accountability. External oversight must have investigatory authority and sufficient resources to ensure timely and effective review of misconduct or systemic failures.

Principle 3: Reduce the Role of Armed, Coercive Interventions
The routine deployment of armed officers contributes to the normalization of coercion and increases the risk of harm, particularly for marginalized communities. In Western contexts, both the UK and US demonstrate the need to reserve armed intervention for narrowly defined, high-risk tasks.

For routine public safety, prioritizing de-escalation, nonviolent conflict resolution, and restorative justice practices promotes harm reduction and community reintegration. Programs such as restorative justice circles in US municipalities and diversionary policing initiatives in the UK demonstrate measurable reductions in recidivism and enhanced community cohesion.

Principle 4: Reinvest in Social Determinants of Safety
Long-term safety cannot be achieved solely through law enforcement. Investments in housing, mental health services, youth programs, education, and employment opportunities address root causes of harm and reduce the likelihood of criminalized behaviors.

Budget reallocations toward prevention and community infrastructure yield higher returns in public safety than expansion of enforcement. Examples include community-led housing initiatives in Scandinavian cities and youth engagement programs in US urban centers, which correlate with reduced crime rates and increased community resilience.

Principle 5: Professionalize Non-Police Crisis Responders
Alternative responders require clear professional frameworks to ensure effectiveness and sustainability. Developing recognized career paths, standardized training, legal authority, and integration with public safety systems is essential. Professionalization enables accountability, credibility, and continuity, ensuring that non-police interventions are treated as legitimate and reliable components of public safety.

Principle 6: Transparent Data and Outcomes
Transparency is foundational for accountability and evidence-based reform. Public dashboards reporting complaints, use of force, referral outcomes, and demographic impacts allow communities to scrutinize performance and guide policy decisions. Both UK and US jurisdictions increasingly deploy open data initiatives to monitor law enforcement and response teams, enhancing trust and supporting adaptive reforms.

Case Studies and Evidence

CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets), Eugene, Oregon: Mental health crises handled by clinicians rather than police resulted in fewer arrests and reduced hospitalizations.
London’s community policing pilots: Embedding officers with community liaison roles increased reporting of minor crimes and improved citizen satisfaction.
Toronto’s mobile crisis teams: Mental health and addiction response teams reduced unnecessary emergency department admissions and arrests.

Recent BBC Panorama revelations in London illustrate the stakes of failing to implement such principles: custody suites became environments of normalized bigotry and violence, reflecting an institutional mismatch between coercive tools and public needs. Similar patterns in US police departments, documented through DOJ investigations and local reporting, demonstrate that this is a transatlantic problem.

Western policing institutions are at a critical juncture. The evidence indicates that centralized, uniformed police forces, designed historically to maintain order and protect property, are insufficient to meet contemporary public safety needs. A plural, layered system guided by the six principles; separating enforcement from care, democratizing accountability, reducing coercive interventions, reinvesting in social determinants, professionalizing non-police responders, and ensuring transparency, offers a path toward equitable, effective, and sustainable public safety across Western societies.

Reforms must be systemic, not incremental, and must embrace experimentation and evaluation. The lessons from pilot programs and investigative revelations alike underscore a simple truth: public safety is not merely the absence of crime, it is the presence of care, trust, and community resilience.

Sources:

Canada’s Coast Guard Joins the Defence Team: Integration or Quiet Militarization?

Posted on October 12, 2025 by Chris McBean

The Canadian government’s decision to fold the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) into the Department of National Defence marks a decisive moment in the evolution of the country’s maritime policy. Through an Order in Council enacted in early September, and framed publicly as a “historic integration,” the Coast Guard now formally joins the Defence Team while remaining, at least in name, a civilian special-operating agency. Alongside this bureaucratic shift, Bill C-2 – the Strong Borders Act – seeks to expand the CCG’s authority into new territory: maritime surveillance, security operations, and intelligence sharing. The language is cautious, but the direction unmistakable. Canada is re-casting its civilian fleet as a security instrument.

The advantages of this integration are clear enough. For decades, Canada’s maritime operations have suffered from duplication, fragmented command structures, and chronic under-coordination between the military, the Coast Guard, and various federal agencies. Unifying them under the defence umbrella promises better coordination, faster response times, and improved data flow across security domains. The move also signals a more assertive posture in the Arctic, where the melting of sea ice has opened new routes, resource prospects, and geopolitical interest. By linking the Coast Guard’s icebreakers, patrol ships, and scientific vessels to Defence planning, Ottawa aims to strengthen sovereignty and deterrence at a time when northern waters are becoming increasingly contested.

There is also an unmistakable element of fiscal and strategic pragmatism. Integrating existing civilian assets into the national security structure allows Canada to stretch its limited defence budget further without the political or financial burden of creating a new armed maritime service. The Coast Guard already provides an extensive logistical network, technical expertise, and near-permanent presence on three coasts and the Great Lakes. With modest investment, these capabilities can be adapted to enhance maritime domain awareness and support allied security objectives, including NATO’s northern surveillance initiatives. In an era of hybrid threats, where cyber intrusions, illegal fishing, and state-sponsored maritime interference blur traditional lines between defence and law enforcement, this integration appears both efficient and strategically inevitable.

Yet the risks are equally consequential. At stake is the Coast Guard’s long-standing civilian identity and the public trust that comes with it. The CCG has always been seen as a service of rescue, safety, and stewardship: unarmed, apolitical, and oriented toward the public good. As the agency takes on intelligence and security functions, that image could erode. The distinction between civilian protection and military surveillance becomes harder to maintain once the two operate under the same institutional roof. Without robust oversight, the Coast Guard’s evolution could lead to mission creep, where a service designed for environmental response and humanitarian aid finds itself entangled in enforcement or intelligence operations that carry political and ethical complexity.

Legal and constitutional questions also loom. Expanding the Coast Guard’s powers will require new frameworks for information sharing, privacy protection, and operational accountability. The proposed amendments under Bill C-2 would permit the collection and dissemination of security data to domestic and international partners. Such activities raise concerns about transparency, data governance, and proportionality, especially when conducted by a civilian agency with limited independent oversight. Moreover, the shift implies deeper operational alignment with the military and allied security agencies, a change that demands clear boundaries to prevent duplication, confusion, or jurisdictional conflict in crisis situations.

Behind the policy lies a broader strategic influence. The United States provides an obvious model. Its Coast Guard functions as a hybrid institution—part law enforcement, part military, part humanitarian service—operating seamlessly across domestic and defence spheres. Canada’s move appears to emulate that structure, reflecting an understanding that maritime security in North America is increasingly integrated. While there is no public evidence of direct U.S. pressure, the gravitational pull of American strategic expectations is unmistakable. Washington has long encouraged its allies to shoulder more responsibility for continental and Arctic security. As the United States expands its presence through the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) modernization and Arctic exercises, Ottawa’s reorganization of its maritime agencies can be read as a complementary alignment rather than a coincidence.

This convergence serves both nations. For the United States, a better-resourced, defence-aligned Canadian Coast Guard strengthens the North American maritime perimeter. For Canada, closer alignment provides diplomatic cover against accusations of underinvestment in defence and enhances interoperability with U.S. command structures. Yet this alignment carries political trade-offs. The closer the Coast Guard moves toward military functions, the more Canada risks blurring its distinctive approach to maritime governance, a tradition rooted in civilian expertise, scientific stewardship, and non-militarized presence.

The political optics of the transition will matter as much as its operational outcomes. The government has emphasized collaboration, modernization, and sovereignty, avoiding any suggestion of militarization. The opposition has been cautious, wary of the costs and implications but unwilling to oppose measures that appear to bolster national security. What remains missing is a transparent national conversation about what kind of maritime posture Canada truly wants: one that prioritizes civilian safety and environmental protection, or one that integrates those aims within a broader security agenda driven by alliance politics.

In strategic terms, the integration may be both inevitable and necessary. The maritime domain is no longer a quiet space of rescue operations and scientific missions; it is a theatre of competition, surveillance, and geopolitical risk. Canada cannot afford to operate its civilian and military fleets as separate silos. Still, the success of this reform will depend on balance, between security and service, between alliance and autonomy, and between efficiency and democratic oversight.

If handled wisely, this reorganization could give Canada a modern, resilient, and integrated maritime posture worthy of its geography and global role. If managed poorly, it risks politicizing a trusted civilian institution and blurring the lines that define responsible democratic defence. The Coast Guard’s new place within the Defence Team is not just an administrative adjustment; it is a statement about the kind of nation Canada intends to be on the world’s waters.

Sources:
Government of Canada, “National Defence welcomes the Canadian Coast Guard to the Defence Team,” September 2025;
CityNews Toronto, “Federal government begins to transfer Coast Guard to National Defence,” September 2, 2025;
Canadian Military Family Magazine, “Canadian Coast Guard joins Defence Team,” September 2025;
Open Government Portal, “Question Period Brief: Strong Borders Act (Bill C-2),” 2025.

Lines and Shadows: Policing the Border Together

Posted on October 9, 2025 by Chris McBean

For two centuries, the world’s longest undefended border has stood as both a symbol and a contradiction. Between Canada and the United States lies a line that is deeply cooperative yet fiercely guarded, a frontier where trust and sovereignty meet in uneasy balance. That balance is being tested again with new calls from American legislators to expand the reach of U.S. law enforcement onto Canadian soil.

Republican Congressman Nicholas Langworthy, joined by Rep. Elise Stefanik, introduced the Integrated Cross-Border Law Enforcement Operations Expansion Act in September 2025. The bill directs the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to negotiate agreements allowing more American agents to operate in Canada under joint or integrated frameworks. It explicitly contemplates the stationing of U.S. officers in Canadian territory and the extension of U.S. legal protections to them while engaged in such operations. The proposal builds upon the existing Shiprider program, a bilateral maritime policing arrangement first authorized in 2012 that allows mixed crews of RCMP and U.S. Coast Guard officers to pursue suspects seamlessly across the Great Lakes and coastal waters (Government of Canada, 2012).

At its best, cooperation of this kind can prevent traffickers, smugglers, and violent extremists from exploiting jurisdictional seams. Integrated units already share intelligence, coordinate arrests, and conduct joint investigations on both sides of the line. In a world of fentanyl trafficking, encrypted communications, and drone-borne smuggling, no single agency can claim full visibility. The argument for “shared enforcement” rests on practical necessity.

But there is a deeper question about sovereignty and democratic accountability. Policing power is among the most sensitive expressions of a nation’s authority. Allowing foreign officers to act, even in partnership, raises profound legal and moral concerns. Who answers to whom when something goes wrong? What laws govern a use-of-force incident in Quebec if the officer is wearing an American badge? The existing Shiprider framework attempts to answer this by designating the officer in charge to be of the host nation and requiring all participants to be cross-designated and subject to local law. Any expansion would need to preserve, not erode, that principle.

So far, Ottawa has not publicly commented on the Langworthy-Stefanik proposal. The silence may reflect caution: few Canadian governments wish to appear either obstructionist toward U.S. security interests or complacent about sovereignty. Yet the issue deserves open discussion. Cross-border policing already shapes daily life along the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes, and the Pacific coast. The next evolution could redefine how nations share force, intelligence, and responsibility.

What is being tested is not merely a policy, but a philosophy, whether two democracies can defend their people without blurring the line that defines them. The border has long been a place where we practice cooperation without surrender. The challenge now is to ensure it remains so as law enforcement grows more integrated, technologically driven, and politically charged.

The shadow of that line may lengthen or lighten, depending on how both nations choose to police it together.

Sources:
• “Stefanik, Langworthy Introduce Bill to Expand Cross-Border Law Enforcement Operations,” Stefanik.house.gov, Sept 19 2025.
• Integrated Cross-Border Law Enforcement Operations Act (S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 361), Government of Canada.
• Government of Canada backgrounder, “Shiprider: Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement,” Public Safety Canada, 2013

A Transatlantic Lens: Exploring the Biggest Differences Between Europe and North America

Posted on October 7, 2025 by Chris McBean

The feedback I have been getting is that readers have been enjoying my serialised essays exploring subject matter to greater depth. This series of posts is for my friends on both sides of the Atlantic who love to debate this topic, often over European old growth wine and Alberta beef steaks.

Living in North America since the early 1990s as a European, I’m constantly struck by the quirks, surprises, and sometimes baffling differences between the continents. Over the next few weeks, I’ll explore ten key contrasts: spanning work, cities, food, and politics, and share what these differences mean in everyday life.

The Ten Differences

1. Social Safety Nets

In Europe, healthcare, pensions, and social support are expected parts of life. In North America, it’s more “your responsibility,” with benefits often tied to your job. It’s a mindset shift—comfort versus risk, security versus self-reliance, and it shapes so much of daily life.

2. Urban Planning and Transport

European cities invite walking, biking, and public transit. North American life often demands a car for everything. That difference affects how people socialize, shop, and spend their days. Suddenly, running errands isn’t quick, it’s a logistical decision.

3. Work-Life Balance

Europeans enjoy generous vacations and shorter workweeks. North Americans often work longer hours with less guaranteed downtime. Life here can feel like a constant race, while in Europe, there’s a stronger sense of living, not just working.

4. Cultural Formality and Etiquette

Europeans prize subtlety, traditions, and social cues. North Americans are casual, direct, and friendly—but sometimes painfully blunt. Adjusting between the two takes awareness: what feels warm here might feel sloppy there, and what feels polite there can seem distant here.

5. Business Practices

European companies lean toward consensus, careful planning, and stability. North American firms move fast, take risks, and chase growth. The difference shows up in meetings, negotiations, and career paths; you quickly learn when to push and when to wait.

6. Education Systems

Europe often offers low-cost or free higher education and emphasizes broad learning. North America favors expensive, specialized programs. The gap affects opportunities, student debt, and the way people approach learning for life versus learning for a career.

7. Food Culture

In Europe, meals are rituals – slow, social, and seasonal. Here, convenience and speed often rule, and portions are huge. That doesn’t just shape diets; it changes how people connect over meals and how they experience daily life.

8. Political Culture

European politics embrace multiple parties, coalitions, and compromise. North America leans on two parties and polarized debates. This difference affects trust, civic engagement, and how people view the government’s role in society.

9. History and Architecture

Europeans live among centuries of history in their streets, buildings, and laws. North America feels newer, faster, and more forward-looking. The environment subtly teaches what matters: continuity versus reinvention, roots versus growth.

10. Attitudes Toward Environment

Europe integrates sustainability into daily life: cycling, recycling, and urban planning. North American approaches vary, often prioritizing convenience or growth over ecology. Cultural attitudes toward responsibility shape everything from transportation to policy priorities.

These ten contrasts are just a glimpse of life across the Atlantic. In the weeks ahead, I’ll dive deeper into each, sharing stories, observations, and reflections. The goal isn’t just comparison, it’s understanding how culture shapes choices, habits, and even identity. Stay tuned for the journey.

The Rowanwood Chronicles

Conversations that might just matter

Tag Archives: history