WARMINGTON: This election campaign has seen both Tomfoolery and sabotage
Whether it's vandalizing election signs or hacking surveys, there are some dark arts happening in this federal election campaign
Article content
They don’t call the “Dark Arts” just because of the sinister nature of election campaign obstruction these methods employ.
They also call it that because often election sabotage happens under the cover of night where at best all you see are murky figures on security cameras that make it difficult to find who did it, let alone hold the culprits responsible.
It was like that in Oakville East where Conservative candidate Ron Chhinzer, whose signs would be there at sundown but overnight would either disappear or be cut in half and thrown across the street.
In York Centre, Conservative candidate Roman Baber had his sign covered up by Liberal signs.
But in Conservative Deputy Leader Melissa Lantsman’s case in Thornhill, the person trying to disrupt her chance for re-election didn’t seem to care who saw what and posted it proudly to social media.
tap here to see other videos from our team.
WARMINGTON: This election campaign has seen both Tomfoolery and sabotage Back to video
tap here to see other videos from our team.
Sure, there was effort to conceal the person’s head, but you can see his or her blue jeans and shoes, and the act itself of taking about five Lantsman election signs and throwing them into the dumpster before stepping on them.
Lanstman, who has been victim of many antisemitic attacks, told the Toronto Sun they brought it to the police’s attention.
“I feel it’s both a potential hate crime and an election violation,” said Meir Weinstein, of Irsrael Now, who posted the video.
He might be right and police are on it. Many feel there would be more fuss if these crimes were on Liberal election signs.
But during election campaigns, strange stuff occurs.
One of the strangest things was brought out by a woman named Lisa who was part of an Angus Reid survey group when she received a series of questions from surveys.angusreidforum.com that were not flattering toward Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.
Here’s what the online survey said: “Now we’ll turn to some reasons people give to support or oppose the parties in the upcoming election. You’ve been chosen to hear about Mark Carney and the Liberals: Which of the following statements comes closest to your own view on why people should vote Liberal in the next election, even if none is exactly right?”
Answer One: “Pierre Poilievre is a radical extremist who would risk the rights of Canadians. We cannot let him win and become prime minister. The only way to stop them is to vote for Mark Carney and the Liberals. They’re the only ones high enough in the polls to stop the Conservatives.”
Answer Two: “Pierre Poilievre would bow down to Trump and let him walk all over Canada. He wants to privatize our healthcare system to be more like for-profit American care. He wants you to pay for your healthcare. We have to stop him at any cost. The Liberals are best placed to challenge him. Mark Carney is the best guy to stand up to Trump.”
Other options included, “None of the above,” and “Don’t know/Not sure.”
Lisa didn’t answer the questions. Instead, she saved them and posted them to X.
“(I) find it strange, indeed,” she told me.
I reached out to Angus Reid who was just as a perplexed as Lisa.
“Yes, we’ve been made aware and had to do some digging to figure out the origin of this. As I stated in previous correspondence, ARI (Angus Reid Institute) is a non-profit research institution, whereas ARF (Angus Reid Forum) is a commercial operation that takes surveys from clients and distributes them to Canadians. We are not privy to all non-ARI surveys, which is 95% of what Forum participants will receive,” said Angus Reid Research Director Dave Korzinski. “The multiple AR names certainly creates some confusion, we are painfully aware! …this isn’t our work.”
That is a relief. And a horror. Somebody may have hacked them.
Shachi Kurl, the president of the Angus Reid Institute, responded on X saying, “We’ve reviewed the question. It came from a 3rd party that uses @angusreidgroup sample services, not @angusreidorg or @angusreidroup. That said, it did not meet our own standards and never should have been fielded. This study was cancelled and pulled from field.”
She added: “Thanks for flagging. This isn’t a question from @angusreidorg, which is a separate entity from @AngusReidGroup. It’s not a question that would have ever been approved by me or my colleagues at ARI. We’re looking into where it came from.”
It’s good that Lisa caught it and that Angus Reid removed it.
It is a reminder that not everything is always as it appears and that even the polling world can be sabotaged – just as Conservative candidates have been.
Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion. Please keep comments relevant and respectful. Comments may take up to an hour to appear on the site. You will receive an email if there is a reply to your comment, an update to a thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.