The Rat King

I’ve had a few different jobs over the past twenty years. Cashier, bookseller, university lecturer. I even had a stint as a census taker and escaped with my liver intact! Was it because it was only a census of local businesses or because I probably wouldn’t go well with a chianti? Who knows!?

Of all the things I’ve done, working as an editor at the McMaster campus paper, The Silhouette, was probably one of my favourites. And, up until recently, it was also one of the most complicated.

***

Undergrad was a chaotic four years in my life. Like it was for so many others, it was a time of self-discovery, growth, and maturation for me. I took to heart the recommendation from welcome week orientation leaders, professors, and general community members to sample widely from everything campus had to offer. In my first year on campus, I attended concerts, free lectures, socials, game nights, and rallies. I tried different food, took a wide array of courses, and spent time studying in every corner of campus.

Ultimately, I narrowed my academic interests to political science and history and decided the one club I would become very involved with would be the McMaster Campus NDP. By second year, my degree trajectory had been set and I was the president (and, eventually, sole member) of the Campus New Democrats. After taking a political theory class, I decided to try and get involved more in student government on campus in a misguided attempt to live out the Enlightenment ideals of reason, debate, and direct democracy that I had picked up in class. Part of my strategy to make a name for myself as a political figure on campus involved writing op-eds for The Sil, drawing off the tips I had received from political activists off-campus.

This was, of course, a silly idea. Campus politics doesn’t operate the same way off-campus politics does, so few voters are likely to support you based on the op-eds you submit to the campus paper. While I floundered around in campus politics, the one group of people who did sit up and take notice of my op-eds were the paper’s editors themselves. At the end of second year, I was encouraged to apply for a position, so I naturally put myself into contention for the post of Opinions Editor.

Imagine my surprise when I was instead offered the role of News Editor. I took the role and accepted the one condition from the editorial team: I had to step down as president of the Campus NDP.

***

And so my third year of undergrad started as a paid editor at the McMaster campus newspaper, joining a storied institution for which figures like Eugene Levy, Dave Thomas, and MP John Bryden wrote for during their time on campus. The Sil was an award-winning paper, renowned across Canada as one of the last campus broadsheets, keeping a finger on the pulse of campus life and civic affairs.

Granted, The Sil wasn’t without controversy. The paper was always a refuge for scoundrels and troublemakers, eager to push the boundaries of acceptability and make a name for themselves. A notable example comes from the 1991 edition of The Sil’s April Fools Day gag paper, The Hamilton Speculator, which made references to then-Alderman Dominic Agostino’s rather voluptuous lips. Agostino’s complaints, as well as broader accusations of sexism and poor taste, led the McMaster Student’s Union to cut funding to the paper.¹

For my part, I was determined to make the paper a serious outlet that bridged the divide between campus and the wider community. One of my first big pitches was to have the paper cover the 2010 Municipal Election, profiling each mayoral candidate and looking at the race for Ward 1 councillor. Working with the graphics department, we had caricatures drawn of Bob Bratina, Larry Di Ianni, Fred Eisenberger, and the oh-so-campus-coded Michael Baldasaro and ran them with the articles each of our editors had written after interviewing the frontrunners. We pushed the city on why polling locations on and around campus had been cut back, attended campaign launches, and, on election night, had a team at city hall to report on the results. Together with an amazing editorial team, we produced some incredible election content. I felt like I was making a difference, even if I had to keep my opinions a little closer to my chest.

But I was also determined to provide better coverage of the McMaster Students Union. The undergraduate body was a multi-million dollar organization that had incredible sway on campus, yet few in the student population really knew what it did. So, as third year dragged on, I would connect with elected leaders, read through reports, and sit in on meetings of the union’s governing body, the Student Representative Assembly (SRA).

After a while, the old itch returned. I was watching government, but had no say. I could see the problems, but couldn’t directly fix them. I had ideas, but my only outlet was writing about them.

I became close with some of the elected student leaders who less-than-subtly encouraged me to join their ranks. By mid-March of 2011, the urge to run was simply too strong. I sat down with my editor and poured my heart out. I rather naïvely believed I could run for office and remain a news editor until the end of the academic year (mid-April at that point). But, after expressing a desire to run for office, I was informed I could no longer remain in my position and was rather quickly replaced as editor (albeit by an eminently qualified volunteer journalist who ended up doing an incredible job).

So, for my fourth year on campus, I was an elected representative on the SRA. While once I sat at the back of the room, reporting on student union issues, now I was one of the members around the table. I thought it was finally my chance to make a change. Oh boy was I wrong.

Within weeks, the SRA became polarized between a faction that wanted to take a more activist approach and a faction that wanted to remain close with campus administration. Thanks to my habitually sharing my opinions, I was branded a communist radical and was quickly ostracized by other members. My old colleagues at The Sil began writing scathing op-eds about how dysfunctional the student union had become, simultaneously breaking my heart and making me question my choices. When I ran for the presidency of the student union, things deteriorated even more. The fractious activist coalition with which I had been associated splintered, The Sil took a deeply critical look at my platform, and the stress of it all resulted in my developing the second worst case of strep throat I’ve ever had in my life.

After I lost the election for student union president, I felt entirely defeated. I had cut my journalism career short, so I couldn’t apply to journalism schools. I had shared too many opinions, so I couldn’t get a job in campus administration like so many of my colleagues. I had not toed the line well enough to pivot into active politics. I had no job offers, no fallbacks, no clear pathways. I was too opinionated, too inexperienced, too public, too complicated, too chaotic. So, naturally, I went to grad school.

By the time I turned 22, my life resembled the legendary rat king: a rodentian mass bound together by blood and goo and excrement, knotted at the tail, each part trying desperately to go its own way, doing nothing but making the situation worse with every frantic step.

That is the same feeling I have right now, all these years later.

After a few years bouncing back and forth between Hamilton and Montreal during my PhD, I made the decision to return full-time in 2020 to weather the pandemic in my hometown. I immediately threw myself into local politics, becoming the campaign CFO for the incredibly talented Roberto Henriquez during his 2021 campaign for MP in Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas. I served on candidate search committees, joined electoral district associations, and organized fundraisers for the amazing MPP Sandy Shaw. And, during the 2022 Municipal Election, I published my “School Board Trustee Candidate Tracker” sheet to raise awareness about the oft-forgotten down-ballot office.

At the same time, I was conducting research and publishing papers. I had already been identified as a “local politics expert” by folks in the media, but things really took off after my work during the last municipal election. Reporters would regularly ring me up when they wanted the perspective of a researcher and politics watcher. I had the gossip, I had the research, and I had the soundbites to blend it all together.

I started this newsletter in 2023 after the symbolic death of Twitter. My modest readership grew with each edition and it became a space for me to share my research, my views, and my rather eclectic style of humour. My focus quickly turned to council and the antics of our elected leaders, much as it did when I was an editor at The Sil so many moons ago.

But then I got a job offer I couldn’t refuse. I went from a critic of City Hall to someone working on the political side of the operation who still, with growing intensity, critiqued City Hall. The more I saw, the more frustrated I became, and the more that came out in my writing.

And then the saga of last summer occurred.

***

After my personal information was shared with community activists and without my consent by (as best I can tell) a colleague at City Hall, the disparate strands of my life became increasingly knotted together. I wasn’t just a researcher; I was a hack academic with an agenda. I wasn’t just a local nerd who wanted to share his perspectives; I was a wannabe journalist with an axe to grind. I wasn’t just a communications advisor; I was a nefarious political actor seeking to advance my radical agenda.

Even after the investigation into my activities - an investigation that cost taxpayers untold sums and wasted hundreds of human hours that could have otherwise been employed in the service of this city - concluded with a full exoneration, the knotted tail did not loosen. Indeed, it has only seemed to tighten.

In many ways, the investigation had one of its intended effects; while I wasn’t fired, I became fearful of posting almost anything online lest I find myself subject to further retribution. While the complaint against me wasn’t a public Code of Conduct investigation (I’m a political staffer and, therefore, subject to confidential HR procedures, not the same ones applied to elected officials), it follows the same pattern that we’ve seen in the city since 2022. That’s because, in an attempt to make the system more accessible, the city ended up making it painfully easy to abuse.

After council decided to remove the $100 fee associated with submitting a Code of Conduct complaint, the number of such complaints jumped by 500 percent from 2021 to 2025. As of late February, the city’s Integrity Commissioner told the Spec that he received seven complaints in just the first two weeks of 2026 alone. The overwhelming majority of these complaints are dismissed outright, but the onslaught is having a chilling effect on local governance.²

Let’s be extremely clear here: the Code of Conduct complaint process is being weaponized. It is being used as a cudgel by political opponents of all stripes against sitting members of council. What was intended to be a way to improve transparency has become a drain on resources and a political distraction. It costs taxpayers, it wastes time, and it, at best, results in an embarrassing apology tour for members of council that their political opponents use to throw them off their game.

That was the intent when the complaint was lodged against me. And, frankly, it has thrown me off my game.

And the complexity of my situation became incredibly clear after yesterday’s General Issues Committee (GIC) meeting at City Hall.

***

Following yesterday’s GIC meeting, North End resident Kelly Oucharek announced her bid for the office of Ward 2 councillor in this October’s civic election. Oucharek has been an outspoken activist, particularly around the issue of homelessness, encampments, drug use, and the various tiny shelter projects that have been proposed or set up in the city. She has rapidly built a profile in the community complete with very passionate supporters and equally passionate detractors, which explains the extremely positive reaction to her announcement in the North End Facebook group and the extremely negative reaction to her announcement in the r/Hamilton subreddit.

On a personal level, Oucharek was critical of me during the Code of Conduct investigation last year. Along with her political ally, announced Ward 3 council candidate Andrew Selman, Oucharek posted repeatedly about my situation. She wondered aloud (on both Bluesky and Twitter) about whether I wrote a piece critiquing Selman’s posts about my softball league “on [my] own time or as a city staffer” and quickly followed it up with the claim that I was “leading a group” of staffers seeking to unionize. She followed this with a post alerting local journalist Joey Coleman to the matter.

In my posts detailing the issue in August and October of 2025, I stated clearly that I work for a wage not a salary, that I have never and will never write my own newsletter content “on City of Hamilton time”, that my employer has never directed or commissioned any newsletter content, and that I was not moonlighting as a union organizer (I’m afraid I simply don’t have the time but, again, I am deeply supportive of every employee exercising their Charter rights to join a union). I believe my comments clearly highlight how the reality of the situation differs from some of the ways Oucharek presented my activities on social media.

Oucharek’s posts about the issue remain up to this day. In the time since the investigation concluded and I was found to have not violated any city policies, neither Oucharek nor Selman have retracted any statements or acknowledged the outcome in any way.

As a citizen - a living, informed, opinionated, educated, voting citizen - I have many personal opinions about Oucharek’s candidacy. This is for the simple fact that, based on the facts I have available, we do not share the same worldview.

On the issues about which she has been most vocal, we just plain don’t align. I personally disagree with her stance on and characterization of the safe supply of drugs based on my research and the conversations I have had with healthcare practitioners and activists in the field. I am uncomfortable with her posts which include videos and photos of vulnerable people experiencing homelessness or using drugs as I personally don’t believe it is appropriate to document such things and post them widely given the vulnerable situation of many of the people involved (specifically the high proportion of people in similar situations in Hamilton who are living with mental illnesses, are minors, are fleeing unsafe situations, etc.) And I’m uneasy with her comment telling someone who chose to stay masked after the WHO declared the COVID-19 Pandemic over to “ditch the mask”, as I personally believe it is an individual’s right to protect their health using evidence-based medicine.

More abstractly, I personally have issues with her public notes of encouragement to Adam Zivo, the reporter seen as controversial by groups like PressProgress for his brand of activist journalism and who has become an increasingly (self-professed) dedicated opponent of issues relating to the transgender community. Notably, I have a personal issue with this note of support Oucharek left on one of Zivo’s posts about “gender radicalism” (it is important to note that Oucharek did not positively or negatively address Zivo’s main point on the post, instead bringing it back to his reporting on drug policy - it is unclear if her comment “keep it up! needs to be said” was in reference to Zivo’s original point or his reporting on drug policy). And I am personally unsettled by the main point of controversy that has come up following her announcement, namely her reposting of a tweet during Pride Month in 2024 that ends with the lines: “There probably is some errant genetics at play for why some people are gay. That’s okay. But LGBTQ+…is total Perversion of Normality”.

To her credit, in a response to a community member on Facebook, Oucharek wrote that she “does not support or endorse content that is harmful or discriminatory towards anyone.” I appreciate the clarification, though I should note that both posts remain up as of writing.

A side note, but I think it needs to be stated very clearly right here and right now: trans rights are human rights and that isn’t up for debate. I will not personally engage in any debates about the humanity of my friends in the trans community or in any debates about my humanity as a gay man. Full stop, end of story. This is simply an informational side note about my perspective that I think needs to be stated, not a comment on any real or perceived perspectives from any candidate mentioned anywhere in this piece.

It should come as no surprise that I personally have different political beliefs than Oucharek. I have different political beliefs than Selman and Vito Sgro and Jason Farr and Matt Francis and Rob Cooper and Hayden Lawrence and Fred Bennink and Chad Collins and a great many other political figures in Hamilton. They are free to share their perspectives, run for office, and advance the causes in which they believe just as it is my personal right to hold different views and, in my own personal time, work to advance the causes in which I believe.

In a healthy and functioning democracy, people - no matter where they work or what their background is - this is not a bad thing. People should be given the space to express their political opinions and advance the things in which they believe. People deserve to ask questions about one’s beliefs, interrogate their reasoning, and have rational, evidence-based debates.

But I simply can’t do that right now because I’m all tangled up.

***

The rat king that is my life is becoming an issue.

I have a deep and gnawing desire to do “investigative” style work like when I dug into the conspiracy theory that people experiencing homelessness were being “bussed” into Hamilton or my dogged pursuit of the clandestine figures behind “Concerned Hamiltonians” (side note, but an “anonymous” survey from an as-yet-unnamed shadowy source has popped up in town “polling” Ward 2 residents on “the current direction of Ward 2” and the qualities that “matter most to you in a Ward 2 councillor” - all I could think of when I saw that was “try President’s Choice’s new sauce ‘Memories of Concerned Hamiltonians’, now with 50% less flavour!”).

But doing that kind of work in the current political climate and given my current position has become almost impossible. I have to word things with such delicacy, I end up scrapping most editions before I can publish them. Even just the couple paragraphs above that directly relate to Oucharek’s had to be rewritten a handful of times to ensure they clearly pointed out that:

1. All opinions expressed are my own personal opinions, none of which are in violation of the City of Hamilton’s employee Code of Conduct which I have studied with great intensity;

2. Each point that could be challenged has accompanying references and is presented as close to as it was originally;

3. No point incorporates any level of humour or commentary that might, in some way, skew the meaning of the comments; and

4. In the most neutral way possible, my own perspectives differ on some issues she has raised in the community but do not, in any capacity, represent anyone or any other organization’s views other than my own individual, personal, autonome opinions as a free citizen in a democracy.

Writing like that results in a bland, repetitive word salad that no one would spend any significant time reading. But I have to translate my work into pseudo-legalese just to stay above board.

And that’s because I like my job. I like working at City Hall. I like helping to make sense of the extremely complicated decisions and policies that come from our local government. I like being able to put my education to use in service of my community.

But I also like having somewhere to live. I like buying groceries. I like feeding my cats (they made me say that…I know they’ll turn on me the second the kibble runs out).

I don’t want to be a distraction to anyone in the community. And I don’t want to throw the life that I have and the lives of the people I love and care about and admire into jeopardy. The more I comment on these matters given the position I’m in, the more likely that becomes.

So it’s time to start untangling the rat king.

***

First thing’s first: I wish Oucharek and Selman and all the other candidates running the best of luck in the upcoming municipal election campaign. If the voters of Hamilton see fit to send both of these community activists and any of the other folks with similar views to council, then that is the outcome I will acknowledge and accept as a citizen in a democracy.

But, given the fact that the work I do on this newsletter and the work I do in the community have already been tied together thanks to last year’s investigation, I can no longer comment on their actions or the actions of any candidate in the way I had previously done.

I want to make it abundantly clear that I do not believe Oucharek or Selman or any other announced or prospective candidate with whom I have an ideological or policy or personal difference has or will use the complaint system to stifle debate or attack their opponents. As is always the case, political figures and campaigns have their supporters, some of whom take action independently in ways they deem appropriate to support the cause or people they back. Similarly, there are people who simply love procedure and may take issue with any perceived conflicts I may have. With that said, given the weaponization of the complaints system, my precarious work situation, and the nature of the commentary I provide, it is simply impossible to distinguish between all the pieces of my life.

This means there will be some changes to the newsletter for the next while.

I will still publish The Incline, albeit on a less-than-firm schedule. I will post when I am able, which may be a challenge given the requirements of my work (I should note that I work three distinct part-time positions, each at different places, to make ends meet, as well as do unpaid academic and independent research when I can).

My main focus, at least during the municipal election campaign, will be on one of my favourite topics: local history. Writing about the history of Halloween in Hamilton, the relocation of The Alpha Neighbourhood, and the lives of Brothers Michael Baldasaro and Walter Tucker brought me such incredible joy and reminded me of a paper review I once got that (and I’m paraphrasing here) may have been trained as a geographer, but have the soul of a historian. Our city has such a rich, vibrant, incredible past that is all-too-often forgotten. I love diving deep and presenting our shared past in my own unique way.

I may also take some space to discuss provincial matters. My perspectives on the government of Doug Ford are very well known and I will not stop raising my voice about the damage I believe he and the Progressive Conservative Party are doing to this province.

But, ultimately, I will avoid discussing the municipal election campaign and civic affairs for the foreseeable future.

I know this may come as a disappointment to some. And, for that, I apologize. I know the city’s media landscape is not as deep or inquisitive as many would like. I have personally heard from so many people that they appreciate my analysis, my focus on issues that mainstream outlets ignore, and my takes on the issues that impact our city. I am truly sorry I will not be able to do that going forward. I hope you understand and seek out answers to the questions you have wherever you can.

And, most importantly, I hope you get involved in the upcoming municipal election in the way that makes the most sense to you, whether that’s as a candidate, a campaign volunteer, an organizer, a letter writer, or just a voter. This is your city. You have a say. And your perspective matters.

***

I don’t know if I’ll ever be in a position to “pick a lane” when it comes to how I participate in our democracy. I love writing, but I also love electoral politics. I love campaigns, but I also love working “on the inside”. I love research, but I also love promoting policy.

I might figure out how to make all that work together one day. But today is not that day.

Today, I’m learning how to live with the rat king that is my life. I’m trying to distinguish between the parts, untangle it where I can, and, most of all, do everything I can to not get bitten.

1  _{Ken Peters. “Mac gag paper called ‘utterly disrespectful’” Hamilton Spectator, April 6, 1991 (Spec archive link); Adrian Humphries. “Annual Spectator spoof stifled as Mac student union cuts funds” Hamilton Spectator, March 5, 1992 (Spec archive link).}

2  _{Mac Christie. “Hamilton sees jump in integrity commissioner complaints — and costs” Hamilton Spectator, February 23, 2026 (Spec link - Paywalled).}