Paul Wells' interview with Jane Philpott left me with the same feeling as Jody Wilson-Raybould's statement to her constituents. Nice sentiments, but conflicting.
Put in terms of a personal relationship, since this scandal broke, the behaviour of the PM and his closest people, toward Jody Wilson-Raybould (and frankly, many other women in his sphere) parallels an abusive partnership. I don't think it's a stretch.
It makes me wonder how anyone who has been on the receiving end of this sort of behaviour can continue to be around, and more suprising -- to represent the brand that is inflicting it on them.
I can't imagine still stumping for a team I felt was cheating, or manipulating or interfering -- and yet these women are. Why? One bad apple does spoil the lot if it's not purged. It hasn't been - and worse, every effort is being made to sustain the status quo and to undermine the testimony, opinions and public statements of these women. Why are they still willing to play on the team? Especially when both women contend that we only know part of the wrongdoing -- that there's more (and, my inference) worse to be heard.
None of this makes sense to me. The political interference part, I could forgive on a personal level. The people surrounding the PMO felt they were doing the right thing, maybe didn't feel they were crossing a line -- okay -- let's give them that -- but everything they've said and done since this became public has been done with the aim of maligning Wilson-Raybould, and now Philpott by extension. On a personal level, how do you just shrug off the ongoing campaign to shut you up and to paint you as hysterical and vindictive?
I don't get it. Most of Liberal team has backed Trudeau on this one. I don't know how these women can reconcile their decision to stay on that team.
canadianna
Put in terms of a personal relationship, since this scandal broke, the behaviour of the PM and his closest people, toward Jody Wilson-Raybould (and frankly, many other women in his sphere) parallels an abusive partnership. I don't think it's a stretch.
- there's denial (haven't a clue what she's talking about - didn't happen at all)
- incredulity (I didn't realize - if only she had told us how she felt)
- rationalization (only happened because Scott Brison resigned)
- minimizing the problem (20 times over four months? That's nothing)
- calling the accuser a liar (the people accused are too good to have done what she said)
- blaming the accuser (she could have said 'no' and if it really happened, she would have quit)
- resentment about going public (we're like family, this should have been handled internally)
- suggesting the accuser had ulterior motives for her accusations (didn't want to lose her dream job)
- promises to be better (this is a learning experience)
- shutting down the conversation (we've heard as much as we need to hear. It's over)
It makes me wonder how anyone who has been on the receiving end of this sort of behaviour can continue to be around, and more suprising -- to represent the brand that is inflicting it on them.
I can't imagine still stumping for a team I felt was cheating, or manipulating or interfering -- and yet these women are. Why? One bad apple does spoil the lot if it's not purged. It hasn't been - and worse, every effort is being made to sustain the status quo and to undermine the testimony, opinions and public statements of these women. Why are they still willing to play on the team? Especially when both women contend that we only know part of the wrongdoing -- that there's more (and, my inference) worse to be heard.
None of this makes sense to me. The political interference part, I could forgive on a personal level. The people surrounding the PMO felt they were doing the right thing, maybe didn't feel they were crossing a line -- okay -- let's give them that -- but everything they've said and done since this became public has been done with the aim of maligning Wilson-Raybould, and now Philpott by extension. On a personal level, how do you just shrug off the ongoing campaign to shut you up and to paint you as hysterical and vindictive?
I don't get it. Most of Liberal team has backed Trudeau on this one. I don't know how these women can reconcile their decision to stay on that team.
canadianna
4 comments:
Good post, Canadianna. I find your 10-step summary of the events particularly on point. I wish the female CPC MP I saw interviewed earlier this morning was as articulate as you. Mind you, I guess I would be even more inarticulate than she was (IMO) if I'd had to stay up all night to vote on all those motions. I think Conservatives should leave drama to the well-known practicer of that art.
As for the marathon voting ... I may be wrong, but I don't recall pundits calling those antics "childish" when the then-opposition Liberals & NDP did the same thing to express their opposition to the Conservatives' omnibus bill in 2012.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/after-24-hour-voting-marathon-mps-finally-pass-tories-omnibus-budget-bill.
--Gabby in QC
P.S. I hope my comment doesn't show up as a double post. I may have not clicked when I should have
Thanks Gabby. It wasn't until I started typing the list that I realized how spot-on it is.
I'm always sad when they pull these stunts, but you're right, when they were in power and others did the same, it barely registered with me.
Don't think it's gonna work here. The government controls all. I think this goes away by Easter, but I would be happy to be wrong.
I have been wondering where Sophie Trudeau has been since this SNC scandal has become public. Is the LPC keeping her away from journalists in case they ask about Justin's feminism?
Garfield
You know, Garfield -- I've been wondering that too.
Post a Comment