On Bernier - Agree or disagree, the Conservatives fumbled

I don't want to keep going on about this, but it's bad enough seeing Liberals and the media scorn Bernier and those who agree with him, but it's worse when Conservative leadership lines up alongside. I understand the urge to distance oneself from the perception of racism or anti-multiculturalism, but if instead of the kneejerk reaction, they'd taken a moment to consider how Bernier's tweets actually resonated with a lot of Canadians, and that really, when taken in context as a response to Justin Trudeau, rather than a response to multiculturalism, they could have managed it so it didn't have to be divisive or damaging to the party. Instead, they've let the Liberals set the tone for the Conservative agenda.

They could have said something like,

'We understand Mr. Bernier's concerns, and agree that Prime Minister Trudeau has failed to demonstrate that he values the Canadian identity with the same passion as he does our cultural diversity. We believe, as Mr. Bernier obviously does, that most new Canadians wish to become part of the fabric of Canada and integrate in a positive way, and that our diverse backgrounds and experience enhance our country. As Mr. Bernier has said, we need to continue to find ways to encourage newcomers to do so. 

Unlike the Justin Trudeau's Liberals, we also believe that newcomers to Canada long to be part of a society where they are free to express their political opinions and not be censured or shamed. Mr. Bernier has expressed a point of view which does not incite hatred or violence, but which was, we believe, meant to highlight that it isn't our enjoyment of the flavours, or the dances, or the costumes we see within our cultural mix that makes Canada great as Justin Trudeau keeps telling us, it is our common aspirations for freedom, peace and justice. These are what make us great. These are what unite us and this unity is our greatest strength.'

If, as it appears, the only card Andrew Scheer has to play is being against the Carbon Tax, Doug Ford and some of the other premiers have relieved him of too much worry on that front. How else does he differ from the Liberals? He doesn't seem as simple-minded as Justin, and likely wouldn't embarrass us on the world stage, but he might be pretty invisible. That mightn't be a bad thing had he handled this situation better.

There are just so many ways the Conservative Party could have responded without throwing Bernier (and like-minded conservatives) under the bus and without ostensibly aligning themselves with the Liberals -- you know what-- I am a moderate conservative, and if I have the choice between Justin Trudeau's Liberals and Andrew Scheer's liberals, I'm just staying home next October. If someone is going to run the country like a liberal, then I'd rather it be them. 

I will nevermore be responsible for him by my direct support—even though the consequence should be the election of Jefferson. If we must have an enemy at the head of the Government, let it be one whom we can oppose & for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.

~ Alexander Hamilton, referring to the election of John Adams

Maybe the idea of Scheer is not quite that menacing, but having a Conservative Party that is Liberal lite is not worth the bother.

canadianna

Safe

I started writing this blog because I felt that my Canadianness was being attacked. I don't remember specifics, but if you go back in my archives, it was right around the Sponsorship Scandal and the Gomery Commission and the election that followed.

Throughout that time, the values of the Canadian right were being assaulted (seemingly more than usual) by the supposedly centrist Liberals and of course, the unabashedly far-left NDP. As the Liberals attempted to court 'mainstream' voters, they painted formerly middle turf values as extreme far right, evangelical, unCanadian. This was long before Donald Trump and the apparent rise of the alt-right in the US. Our Conservative Party and our conservatives thinkers were being painted as bigoted, racist, homophobic, misogynists even then in 2005.

I started writing because I felt excluded from the debate. I've always considered myself pretty middle-of-the-road politically, with a slight tilt to the right. None of my personal opinions on things like gay rights or abortion or immigration seemed radical to me, but here I was, nearly every day, reading about some Liberal saying that my opinions were held only by Neanderthals. I wanted to express my point of view.

After scary Stephen Harper was elected, I guess the need to write fell off a bit. I was no longer under attack. There was always yipping from people who hated him in particular and conservatives in general, but for the most part, I felt like all Canadians now had the right to think as they pleased without the government bashing them.

During Harper's time as PM, gay rights advanced, and immigration increased and life went on and no matter what the other side thought about anything, I don't remember any Conservatives telling the other parties or other points of view, that they were unCanadian or unwelcome. Sure they argued and said they were wrong, but not unCanadian. Not even when those people were interfering with the economy by blocking pipelines etc. Everyone was entitled to their opinion. Non-conservatives were not vilified by the government for their opinions... am I wrong?

Here we are, not three years into a Liberal term and here I am again being told that my views and opinions are unCanadian and unwelcome. Not even worthy of discussion. Just objectively wrong. Take the Summer Works Programme attestation requirement. I'm anti-abortion. Oooops. UnCanadian. Can't even discuss it. Can't even suggest that there might be another reasonable point of view beyond the status quo which is absolutely no abortion law whatsoever, so no protection for the unborn at any stage of gestation. Nope. Nope. Shut up. You're wrong - so wrong, that unless you believe how we do on this controversial life and death subject you are ineligible to receive government money (even if your business has nothing to do with your beliefs-- you as a business owner/service provider CANNOT BELIEVE CONTRARY TO THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA ON THIS) and you must sign a values statement as proof.

Canadian values. Liberal style. One thought fits all.

Remember what Justin Trudeau said:

"And I'll give you the quote so that you guys can jot it down and put it in an attack ad somewhere, that the Liberal Party believes that terrorists should get to keep their Canadian citizenship," said Trudeau, in an audio recording first reported by CTV News. "Because I do. And I'm willing to take on anyone who disagrees with that. Because the question is, as soon as you make citizenship for some Canadians conditional on good behavior, you devalue citizenship for everyone."

Trudeau said he's "envious" of new Canadians because they "got to choose Canada".

"The idea that we would say that we'll give you your citizenship, but for the rest of your life you have to be on your best behavior ... that principle that says the government can decide what you did means you no longer get to be Canadian is a very, very scary one," he said.

Read all that carefully -- *the Liberal Party believes that terrorists should get to keep their Canadian citizenship because I do.*

That's why they think it. Because Justin Trudeau does. And they think as they are told.

And, let's just let it sink in that Justin Trudeau does not comprehend the difference between say, murder in a gang fight or domestic situation and treason. Not that murder in other contexts is not bad, but there HAS to be a distinction between generic crime, and crime against country. Has there ever been a real debate on this? A national conversation? It's important and timely, but just another thing that has been done, but will not be discussed because there is no other valid point of view.

And that brings me to the Maxime Bernier situation. Do I think he should have tweeted what he did? NO. But not because I think he was wrong. I think he made some valid points and those points are worth discussing. I think they need to be discussed. But he was wrong to tweet because it's unsafe again for conservatives to voice their opinions.. even if they're carefully worded, nuanced, respectful... Maxime's in my opinion, were borne of frustration with Justin's rah! rah! rah! at the opening of Taste of the Danforth, which, considering the situation, should have been more circumspect... so -- Mr. Bernier was tweeting passionately and perhaps it came across as rejecting diverse peoples rather than rejection of the fake, vapid, costumes-and-flavours diversity that is the only kind of diversity Mr. Trudeau has ever experienced. So, for that reason, if some reading those tweets took them as being directed at new immigrants or at differing cultures... it seemed rude. But if you parse it down and stop reading it from the perspective of someone who WANTS to anticipate antipathy towards minorities by conservatives, you see Bernier is just expressing that he wants our culture, Canadian culture to be respected -- and for that to happen, we first have to acknowledge that there is, in fact, a Canadian culture. Trudeau does not believe that and for some of us, that's difficult to swallow.

Andrew Scheer and other prominent Conservatives have distanced themselves from Bernier, and understandably. We live in a climate where it is again, unsafe to hold opinions contrary to those of the guys in power, and particularly now, with Trump to the south, no one here wants to be equated with that. Innocuous talk by the likes of Lisa McLeod and Michelle Rempel has been called Nazi and alt-right, which of course is meant to quiet discourse and frustrate people on the right who simply hold a different point of view--and maybe push them to the point of tweeting passionately on the subject of culture.

Right now, I don't know the best course of action for Conservatives. Most people aren't following the twitterverse, and are unaware of the level of animosity that exists for all things right-leaning -- most people, voters, are concerned with our borders, but don't *feel* they are racist because of that, but their main issues are always going to be money issues... taxes, jobs, health care etc. But when it comes to an election, a wedge issue like immigration can move people who are otherwise ambivalent -- that's what happened in 2015 when the Syrian crisis heated up and the Conservatives went a little weird with their cultural abuse hotline that had everyone wondering who was running the show... THAT was extreme and weird and creepy -- and utterly unconservative. It made a lot of people uncomfortable, and tipped the vote in Justin's favour. While I don't see Bernier's opinions as being that kind of extreme, the climate has changed and people are very sensitive to the perception of racism, discrimination and bigotry -- in part because you have media like Rosie Barton of the CBC accusing Bernier of using the anniversary of the alt-right Charlottesville Rally as his impetus for tweeting and thereby inciting violence... and later CBC suggesting that his tweets caused the destruction of a sign for a park in Saskatchewan named for the founder of Pakistan. When you have media suggesting that a person's tweets are inciting violence, how close a proximity are you going to keep when you want to win an election in fourteen months?

Sadly, I think Conservatives are going to play it safe. I think all of the things we can't discuss in Canada will remain things that can't be discussed. They're important issues, deserving of our time and energy and even our passions -- because they mean life and death and future. But even when Stephen Harper came to power, we didn't talk about them, because even when it was safe to think them, it still wasn't safe to say them --- or else you might not get re-elected.

If that's what it's all about, just about being elected but then following the liberal status quo once you get there, I don't know why we even bother with the charade.

canadianna     

Speaking of diversity

A lot of media types are implying that Maxime Bernier's tweet thread yesterday means he's anti-immigration/anti-immigrant, racist, nationalist etc.

Did anyone notice the video embedded in the tweet:

First in tweet thread with video of Trudeau at Taste of the Danforth

This is a short version of the video, but you can find others if you look. This is our Prime Minister at the opening of the Taste of the Danforth, less than two weeks after the shootings. Even the longer versions where he mentions the girls who were murdered, there is no solemnity, no sense of the gravity of what has happened to the victims or to the community. It's a stump speech, political in every way. It's rah! rah! Liberal values! But regardless of your values, your beliefs on diversity or multiculturalism, pluralism -- this wasn't the time.

Yes, it's wonderful that in the face of adversity that our city is able to rally around and come together and still feel a sense of community, but the ladling on about diversity being the *reason* for the resilience and what makes it great -- bullshit. Just bullshit. It has nothing to do with diversity -- people came together out of a sense of shared grief, shared horror, a shared need to find a way to find something good, to find a way to move forward from this. Diversity had nothing NOTHING to do with it. Did diverse types people come together? I'm sure they did, but it was their common need to connect, to respond, to make things right again. It was our shared humanity and longing for wholeness -- yes, there were people of many races, religions, genders, ages -- quite common in the western world. It's delightful when it's simple celebration, but in this particular instance, irrelevant I think or at least, not really what you'd expect to be the focus of a speech.

Perhaps if Bernier comes off sounding a little pissed off about diversity, it's less in response to what's happening at the border, or to the ethnic identity of the shooter, and more a reaction to Trudeau's using the Danforth tragedy to campaign about his superior values. The fist pumping political rhetoric had no place at an event like this. The city is still recovering from its shock, and the timbre of Trudeau's address did not match the atmosphere.

I agree with some of what Bernier said, but I cringe because saying it, in our current climate, is toxic. Those who are inclined to believe that all conservatives are racists, pounce on something like this as evidence. In my opinion, it was a man frustrated by the glib and unseemly politicking and blatant disrespect of the situation displayed by Trudeau in that video.

canadianna

Side with the home team

Much as I believe that tweeting diplomacy is stupid, and that Chrystia Freeland and her Foreign Affairs Department were foolish to chastise the Saudis publicly in an attempt to shame them into changing their minds on the imprisoned activists, I also believe that backing down would be morally reprehensible.

Former Foreign Affairs minister, John Baird, has called on PMJT to travel to Riyadh to smooth things over....uh--- no.

The Tweets were ill-advised, but they were not wrong. They reflect our stand on Saudi human rights abuses. Sure, the government has not similarly called out all of the other rights-abusing regimes in the world. Does that mean that we should back down on calling out this one? Absolutely not.

You took a stand. Bad timing. Wrong platform. But you hold your ground. Just this weekend a Saudi air strike took out a group of Yemeni school kids on the way back from a picnic and we're gonna start sniveling to them, begging for what? Oil they've already said won't be affected by this dispute?

There is no need to escalate. We don't want to jeopardize the captives, but at the same time, we should not be apologizing for speaking our truth. Maybe apologize for doing it publicly, on such an informal platform, without regard to typical diplomatic protocols, but no-- we should not be stooping before the Prince of Saud and calling him our 'ally'. We are trading partners, with mutually beneficially business interests. We are not friends with the Saudis, I hope. And it bothers me that because this blunder was made by a Liberal government, so many conservatives are willing to yield our values to mend fences with an evil regime.

I am getting to the point where I loathe Justin Trudeau, but this is bigger than him. His government made a mistake and now, on behalf of Canadians, they have to own it. To grovel before the Saudis is to betray our values and while Justin Trudeau doesn't reflect my values most of the time, right now, he represents Canada. Canada believes in human rights. We cannot apologize for that.

canadianna

A horse in the race

Let's be clear -- Saudi Arabia is awful. Like many other countries around the world, they deserve to be called out, again and again and again on any number of human rights issues. And yet . . .


Here's the thing - Harper called out Russia on Ukraine over Twitter and I have no issue with that. We had no horse in the race. We as a free nation, believed that Russia was in the wrong by annexing a sovereign nation. We called them on it. That's a good thing.


We, as Canadians believe that bloggers and women's rights activists should not be imprisoned for their writing and protests. Why is it different to call out Saudi Arabia on this, on social media? Individual lives are at stake. By publically trying to shame the Saudi regime for its heavy handed treatment of protesters, we have endangered the very people whose captivity we're protesting.


Saudi Arabia is not a rational, thoughtful country, prone to reconsider its actions when chastised on the world stage by a low to middling world power -- they are the sort of nation that feels the need to flex its muscles when challenged. Trudeau and Freeland don't know this? Weakness does not go over well in the Arab world. They laugh at it. They exploit it. They will not capitulate when condemned for wrongful actions -- they will double down. They will retaliate. How do our leaders not understand this? Have they not watched world events in their lifetimes?


You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that publically singling out bad behaviour by a supposedly friendly government is bad form. To do it about a situation where you have a vested interest, and where outcomes are far from certain, is pure idiocy.


Do Trudeau and his diplomatic team think they've made captivity better for the blogger, his sister and the other rights activists? Can they not envision that they might have actually made things worse?


This has never been about calling out the Saudis on human rights abuses. That is an ongoing issue. Nothing has changed from last week, a year ago, three years ago. The difference right now is that the very people Trudeau's team was meant to be advocating for, are now in more danger and less likely to be released due to the constant need for public displays of piety by our government.


Our allies are not backing off on this because they disagree with the sentiments expressed in the tweets, or because we are now suddenly the only virtuous, liberal democracy left -- they are dumbfounded by the stupidity of our leaders. They aren't afraid of standing up to tyrants -- they just know that diplomacy requires tact and subtlety, not grandstanding and praise-seeking. It is quiet, in the background and leaves all parties with their dignity in tact -- regardless of whether they deserve that.


No impassioned Tweet was ever going to gain the release of these imprisoned activists. If the Trudeau government didn't realize that already, it's frightening just how very immature they are.


canadianna

Sticking to script

If you're on Twitter at all, you know that particularly since the Danforth shooting, people have been calling out Justin Trudeau for not responding to the tragedy urgently enough. He tweeted, but waited a week and a day before visiting the city, attending the funeral of one of the girls but missing out on the vigil and the sense of devastation in the days after.

He's been AWOL on NAFTA too. Too busy surfing.

Now this weekend, the Saudis have frozen trade, expelled our ambassador and withdrawn scholarships for 16,000 Saudi students attending university here. Not a peep. Managed to get to the Pride Parade in B.C. though, and today he went to a picnic.

What I've realized about Trudeau through this summer is that, he can't deviate from plan. He cannot respond to a crisis, because there is no script. You can plan to go to Pride, or attend a picnic, but how does someone who can't think on their feet respond to tragedy or someone else going off script?

Poorly.

That's why after the G-7 summit, after Trump had indicated that he was willing to make concessions, Trudeau stuck to his pre-summit plan. He hadn't anticipated a conciliatory attitude from Trump, so the minute Trump got on the plane, Trudeau kept to plan and threw shade.

Here are the links to the videos, thanks to @JohnToryWatch

CBC News re: Trump agreeing to waive the sunset clause

Trump at a presser indicating he expected a deal

Justin Trudeau's press conference where he says we won't be pushed around

Trudeau responding to a second question re: sunset clause

Trump after hearing what Trudeau had said

Trudeau answering questions on sunset in the Commons

All of this indicates that when something deviates from plan, Justin can't keep up. He follows the script, regardless of deviations and then, instead of being able to react on the fly, change plans or mend fences, he doubles down.

The ability to respond to the situation at hand, as it unfolds, is crucial for an adult human being. Justin Trudeau does not have that ability. When Trump went against type and responded positively on sunset, Justin was unable to switch gears and welcome the gesture graciously. He stuck to script... he was amped to swagger which, had Trump been true to form, might have been genuinely brave, but as things stood, his attitude is what has soured Canada/US trade relations ... he's counting on the fact that people will hate Trump enough not to notice.

It isn't his fault really. He lacks the maturity to have the forethought to anticipate and react to fast-changing situations -- which is why, when he planned to surf, he surfed -- it wasn't disrespect for Toronto or the dead and wounded here -- it was the single-mindedness of child who has been told that now he gets to play. Nothing -- nothing is going to stand in his way.

canadianna

Messaging

I've been thinking about it all since they released the shooter's name and his family immediately said he suffered from psychosis. Many in major media covering this have not asked the questions, maybe because that would be rude? So all the headlines say shooter suffered psychosis with no corroboration or disclaimer saying *says the family*. It's just a given now.

Toronto mass shooter Faisal Hussainsuffered from psychosis. Could more have been done to stop him?

Note that the National Post headline doesn't say *If . . . * They have taken the family at its word. The press release has done its job, admirably. It doesn't make it true, but that's what sticks in the minds of readers. To this point, a week since, the narrative has never been about the shooter. It’s been about his poor family and all of the alt-right scaremongers at the Toronto SUN. The family’s press release certainly set the talking point, and straying leaves you marked.

On Twitter, people have taken sides... those who expect proof or evidence of psychosis and those who suggest those who want to know are racist Islamaphobes, and fear-mongering.

I'm not sure why I'm astonished by the number of people, ordinary people, challenging the right of the media (or other ordinary people), to question the mental health status of the murderer, but this is where we are in Canada today. It isn't new... there are lines we have to follow. Trudeau has as much as said so -- if you're pro-life? UnCanadian. Trans-skeptical? UnCanadian. Legal firearms owner? UnCanadian. And you're not supposed to talk about your point of view, or question the *correct* side.

It's been decided. This murderer suffered psychosis. Nothing else is relevant. If you challenge this, you are at best mean, at worst racist.

Let's be honest. Anyone who commits a murder, on purpose, must be mentally ill. Normal people -- sane, rational, people -- do not do this sort of thing. Normal people might be racist or radical or angry about life and their place in it -- but they don't go out and commit crimes against strangers. So, let's just all agree he was mentally ill -- it still doesn't answer, why? Why now? Why this place? Why these people? Why not the brown man in the alley?

Maybe some people think those questions are important. And maybe, because the shooter is dead, we'll never get the answers... but you know what? It is wrong to shut down the conversation on people who are asking. It's the same with the groping allegations against Trudeau... so many people were so quick to say *the woman says it's over. It's over.*

No. It's not over. It's been a week and the coverage on this tragedy and particularly, the shooter, has been abysmal.

Three days after the shooting, when we had only just learned the youngest victim's name and still had not learned the stories of the wounded, we were told this:

TerryGlavin: #TorontoStrong can be strong enough to support the shooter's parents,too

The secondary headline said:  

If people cannot find it within themselves to extend the same compassion to the Hussains that is being shown victims' families, they should be ashamed

Seriously? This was published three days after the attack. There had been no mass hysteria, no vicious retaliation, no public harassment of the family. For what reason were we being chastised into identifying with the killer's family on the same level as the victims'? We hadn't even had a chance to identify, let alone grieve the many victims. Still haven't, a week later, but somehow, a writer for a national publication thinks this is helpful, shaming us if our compassion lies first with those still picking up the pieces of the shooter's carnage? I will not feel guilty for expecting answers. I will not feel shame for not seeing an equivalency between the victims' families and the family of the shooter. And honestly, I might be more inclined to have compassion for them, if I wasn't being told that questioning the authenticity of their statement was tantamount to Islamaphobia.

Canada is getting too good at shutting down debate on important issues by tossing around the words *racist* and *alt-right*. Most people, when confronted with those words about their own worldview, won't change their worldview, they'll just keep quiet about it. It isn't wrong to ask questions and it isn't wrong to hold a differing opinion from the accepted Liberal line.


canadianna

Reasons

Everyone's trying to ascribe blame. Maybe that will make us feel better to think that it's Justin Trudeau's fault, or Islam's fault, or guns, or the shitty mental health system ... but even if there is a reason this happened, there is no changing it. And there is no way to prevent it happening again.

What can we learn from it? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

The smaller the world becomes, and the bigger the city gets, the more crazies, radicals, gangs -- whatever -- will be in our midst. This time it was a Muslim. All summer it's been gangs. In April it was an incel. The weapons differ, but the end results are the same. The only ones to blame are the ones doing the killing.

What's bothering me this time, is the rush to humanize this killer.

The van killer was a radical incel loser... we learned that right away. Needn't even go into the profile of the gang killers if they're caught... they're criminal degenerates. But this guy... CBC quotes someone as recalling his *million dollar smile*, then a slick press release from the family describes a lifetime of mental illness that was so bad it led to this... but not bad enough that they ever thought it might lead to this... reports of a sister, dead in a car accident, a brother in a coma, a father in and out of hospital with health problems, an impoverished neighbourhood... and finally a nice photo released of an ordinary looking guy, so incongruent with the cold-blooded maniac who walked along the Danforth assassinating people.

It almost seems like that's the picture we're supposed to hold in our heads, instead of the one from the video, calculating and evil. All this when one of the dead had yet to be named, and with so many of the victims still in hospital.

When the dust has settled and the city resumes its regular rhythm, the politicians and pundits will still be discussing gun control and maybe terrorism, and probably male violence and the lack of adequate mental health services -- that's all fine -- it won't help, but people need to find ways to process this kind of tragedy. Coming up with lame *solutions* helps with that. Makes people feel like they're doing something and in the aftermath of a tragedy, we grasp at whatever might give us comfort, no matter how specious.

I'm tired of listening to the blame, but I get it. I get the need to find reasons. What I don't get, is some media trying to make us feel for the murderer. When this happens again, I don't want to know his tragic life story. I don't want to see a prettied up photo of the guy next door. Whether it's radical Islam, toxic masculinity, mental illness or gangs -- don't try to make me sympathize or identify with anyone who aims a weapon at another human being and pulls the trigger. He is not the victim. Do not try to lend humanity to someone with no soul.

canadianna

Pushback

This is nothing new, this being told that conservative values are not Canadian values. Back when I started writing here, I found myself astonished by the Liberal Party's continuous attacks on my belief system. That's partly why I started writing -- to defend myself and my way of thinking, my beliefs and values -- to explain if I could, why I believed as I did and why I believed that there wasn't just ONE right way for a Canadian to think.

Even back in 2005, conservatives were being derided as bigots and misogynists. I think the biggest difference now is that more  people are speaking up. Maybe it's because there are more places to voice your frustration, like Twitter, but it's very encouraging.

From the Canada Summer Jobs Program and its vile attestation requirement, to the *progressive* Supreme Court's discernment of non-existent *Charter values* in the TWU law school case, we are being assaulted by a libaucracy, intent on imposing conformed thought. Not three years into their mandate, they've accomplished nothing except to expose their own narrow view of the world and try to shove it down the throats of Canadians.

The absolutist mindset of the Liberals excludes a vast segment of society and marginalizes us for the sin of disagreement. That is un-Canadian.

• Diversity isn't a skin tone or a flavour.
• Equality doesn't just mean the same number of women as men in a group.
• Tolerance and respect aren't only for issues of sexuality.
• Women can believe that the rights of the unborn are valuable and need to be considered, and still believe in equality of opportunity and equal rights for women.
• It isn't racist or fear mongering or 'alt-right' to believe that our borders must be respected. People who hold such beliefs can still be compassionate towards refugees and asylum seekers.
• People of faith can live within their faith and still respect the rights of others who believe differently.
• People can care about the environment and not see the need for a punitive, useless tax.

In Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party, in his Canada, there is no room for people who hold most of the opinions I've stated above. Some of those beliefs would even exclude me from nomination in his party. None of those beliefs is diabolical or uncivil -- they shouldn't even be controversial except in the sense that they are debatable, and yet I would not be welcome at the Liberal table.

PMJT, Gerald Butts and all the others who name-call and vilify those of us who disagree better know -- we are Canadian.

canadianna

Defending the indefensible

In the wake of all the groping allegations and denials, the thing that strikes me most is how hard liberals are working to make it something other than what it is, or to suggest that because the accuser has stated she is not pursuing it, that the conversation is over.

I've been writing here since 2005 when the AdScam scandal was fresh. I've written about literally dozens of incidents and issues, and there are many, many that I took a pass on. Quite often, if I found my preferred party lacking or in the wrong, I didn't bother writing about it because I figured the other side would probably skewer them anyway, why add my voice to the chorus? But looking back, I think I can honestly say that I never tried to justify or rationalize bad behaviour in Conservatives simply because they were my preferred team.

If you look back in my archives, I've chastised the Conservative Party of Canada or the PC Party of Ontario when I believe they're not living up to their obligations to the voter or to citizens. I've defended the Liberal Party, even Justin Trudeau (someone I've always felt was pretty vapid) when I believed they were doing the right things.

You cannot live by the *my guy, right or wrong* mantra. You have to have principles. If your preferred party fails to live up to them, call them out or ... if you can't bring yourself to do that... at least don't try to justify.

Justin Trudeau's personal failure is he sees the world from an infantile point of view. Everything is about him... his socks, his gymnastics, his costumes -- always performing. And like all children, he likes to get his way and sees things in black and white terms. He calls for diversity, but in the Taste of the Danforth, Caribana, Pride, Caravan sort of way -- the colourful, tasty, performative  type of diversity. When it comes to thought diversity, he's pretty shallow --- even before he became Prime Minister he made it clear that his point of view on anything was the only one which would be tolerated within the party. He alone set the tone for gender parity and for activist feminism and now, when faced with the cold truth -- that he's human -- that he messed up -- he's ill-equipped to deal with it. Instead of doing the grown up thing and acknowledging his ill-manners, his rude apology and his over-zealous condemnation of men in similar situations, instead he has given us a group hug and claims to be the guru of our feminist awakening.

So immature -- but so expected of this man-child. The saddest part is the people who are letting him away with it. His female MPs are *proud* of his denials and condescension. It's hard to see people we admire or like do the wrong thing. It's harder still to call them out on it when they do. But in my opinion, it's better to stay silent than to become one of the sycophants or enablers.

What does this say to new Canadians, learning about our gender values? What does this say to our young men, learning to maneuver in the complicated world of flirting/dating/pairing in this generation of heightened sensitivities between the sexes?

I can't think of anything more detrimental to the cause of women's autonomy and equality, than having a self-proclaimed feminist shrugging and saying -- it's all in how you think about it, while a bunch of high profile women nod and applaud.

canadianna

New questions for Trudeau

Upon learning that the touch was in fact a hand on the woman's ass, we have to wonder:

Did he simply forget the incident, and therefore believe he did nothing wrong?

Is the woman lying or delusional and the incident never happened?

Or is putting a hand on a strange woman's ass sometimes appropriate?

His insistence that he is confident that he "did nothing wrong" says to me he remembers -- so which of the other two options is it? Is she lying, or is what he did okay?

I really hope someone asks him but I haven't even noticed the questions on Twitter where it's being chattered about more than in the MSM.

So entitled. So privileged. So ill-mannered and now maybe a liar too.

canadianna

 

Intention - Reaction - Result

Consultant Julie Lalonde suggests on Twitter:

The woman in question does not identify as a victim, did not call it sexual assault and wanted to be left alone.  

The media and partisan pundits hounded her, gave away private info and forced her to go public.

That is what is setting women back.

All due respect for her expertise as an activist and public educator, I disagree.

In an interview with CBC's The House, Ms Lalonde says (to paraphrase) she approves of Justin Trudeau's statements regarding the incident, because by giving the space between intent and impact, he has acknowledged that people can experience things in ways that were not intended and that's an important aspect of this conversation.

And I totally agree. There are lots of times when people offend without meaning to. All of us have said and done things that were taken in a manner that was unexpected and perhaps the negative reaction of the other person has caught us off guard.

But Justin Trudeau created more than *space*... he created doubt. Everything he said and how he said it rang of denial. "I'm confident I did nothing wrong" is a denial. Adding afterwards that the woman is entitled to her own version of events is hardly a validation of her feelings, it's a dismissal them. It's minimizing the *impact* and magnifying the *intent*. It goes to self-preservation, not self-reflection.

No doubt Ms. Lalonde's seminars were intended to have people reflect on their actions. Justin Trudeau has done that, and found himself faultless. The only explanation when the accused says: "I am confident I have done nothing inappropriate" is that either the accuser is lying or delusional. He has left no room for the possibility he might have done something inappropriate. He is confident he did not. Therefore, it is not his memory or his actions that are suspect, but the woman's perception.

On Twitter, Ms. Lalonde suggests that the media and pundits pushed the woman to relinquish her request for privacy and come forward with a statement.

How does she not see the PMO's initial statement that the PM *recalled no negative interactions that day* as being the main factor that has kept this issue at the fore these several weeks?

How does she not see that the Prime Minister's responses to questions have been so tone-deaf, so insulting and demeaning to the *impact* the event had on the woman, that those responses have fanned the current firestorm around the issue?

Justin Trudeau is to blame for the woman having to come forward to make a statement.

Despite contacting her to verify, as is their job, media respected her privacy and did not report her name.

The media received corroboration of the woman's version of events from the two editors she reported the incident to at the time.

The media was in no doubt the incident happened, naming her or interviewing her were not important anymore. What finally drew her out into the public was Justin Trudeau's repeated denials (I am confident I did not act inappropriately) (even after the editorial came out, I did not know to what she was referring) and his *ifpology* (variously admitting to apologizing and then qualifying it - If I apologized, it would have been because I knew she was uncomfortable -- even though he wasn't sure why).

Only after Justin Trudeau put doubt to her word, did the woman feel the need to make a statement to defend her honour and integrity in having reported the incident at all. It is Justin Trudeau who disrespected the woman initially, and through his words, goaded her into the spotlight.

The media did their job -- their questions to him were never about her. They were about the double standard he is applying to himself as opposed to the members of his party who have been brutally disciplined for lesser issues. He's barely been asked what he did or what he remembers about the incident at all.... he's been asked about his handling of it since it resurfaced... and he has reflected on himself and come up pristine.

The blame in all of this needs to be put where it belongs. Not with Warren Kinsella. Not with the media who picked up on it and asked questions. Not with the public as we try to square the Prime Minister's feminist rhetoric with his anti-woman actions. This all comes down to Justin Trudeau. Period. To suggest otherwise is to give him a pass on something that initially, was a minor issue that might have gone away if he'd accepted responsibility.

Having listened to Ms. Lalonde on The House, I suspect that she cannot put the blame on Mr. Trudeau, because he was simply parroting platitudes from her seminar. We know he has trouble thinking for himself, but he can memorize a line. Her interview contained a lot of the stock phrases he's been coming out with. I don't believe Ms. Lalonde's intent was ever to minimize the impact of any incident on the woman, but rather to enlighten men that they must be careful how they interact with women in order not to be perceived in an inappropriate way. Instead, Mr. Trudeau has taken it as a means to vindicate himself and imply over-reaction on the part of the woman. Not Ms. Lalonde's intent, but the impact is disrespectful to the woman, and the consequence is that she was forced to come forward again to defend her original statement.

Perhaps the people excusing the PM and blaming the media have forgotten that the editorial wasn't a response to being groped, but to being disrespected. It was written on the heels of the sketchy *ifpology*. It's intent was not to expose him for *handling* her, but to expose his lack of manners in the way he apologized, given the privilege of his upbringing. 

Everything the Prime Minister has said on this issue from June onward has been a continuation of the contempt and disrespect he showed this woman eighteen years ago. Blame the media for pursuing the issue if you want, but it could have been over with the words, *I concede I might have done something that could be taken as inappropriate, and I'm sorry*. Instead, all we hear is that he's confident he did nothing wrong. When the media told him she had no desire to speak about the issue again, he felt sure he could say whatever he wanted. His statements practically dared her to come forward to set the record straight.

THAT is what's setting women back.

canadianna

Trudeau's shameful lack of respect

If you read the original editorial about the groping incident, the writer is as incensed with the apology as she was with the actual incident. The man apologized --- why did the woman still write the editorial? Why wasn't she over it? Because the apology disrespected her as much as the touch did.

And he's still doing it.

The fact that in apologizing, Trudeau felt the need to let her know that her status as a national reporter would have prevented his *alleged* lechery, is disrespectful to ALL woman, not just the woman he touched. Any woman should be able to live and work without having do deal with some lout's hand on her, and Mr. Trudeau's apology showed that he didn't get it. He still doesn't.

The incident itself has become secondary to Prime Minister Trudeau's dismissal of the woman's reaction. In his interview on CBC Morning, he's still saying *if* I apologized (because apparently he's still not sure sometimes) (questions about it start around 9:12). In an interview with CP24 he even says:

Who knows where her mind was?

Seriously Mr. Prime Minister? What is that meant to imply? What else could have been going on in her head except what she wrote in that editorial? That you have no manners.

First you disrespected her by touching her. Then you disrespected her with some back-handed apology, and now, eighteen years later, you disrespect her yet again, minimizing her experience by repeatedly denying it happened but giving her permission to see things differently from you. Your inability to even concede that you MIGHT have been inappropriate forced her out of privacy to defend her integrity in having brought this incident to light in the first place.

As a feminist, you should be ashamed of what you have put his woman through, when you could simply have said, I accept that I might have behaved in an inappropriate manner. But you are so smug, so arrogant, you cannot see your way to yielding even a bit. No grace. No class and certainly no regard for the feelings of the woman.

The Prime Minister's obtuse ramblings, and his attempts to school the rest of us are just unbelievable. I am not a 'believe the women' woman. I believe every situation deserves to be viewed on its own merit. The fact that Mr. Trudeau is a 'believe the women' advocate -- except now -- is telling.

In this particular case, even if nothing happened -- the Prime Minister's condescension is disrespectful attitude toward the woman, and toward ALL women in his *ifpology* and his disrespect of the men he unceremoniously tossed from their jobs for lesser alleged transgressions is galling.

To use a line from his own phrase book, Prime Minster Justin Trudeau is a sanctimonious *piece of shit*.

Two days ago I could have given him a pass if he'd managed to own up in any way. There is nothing he could say now that would make me think any differently.

And before anyone starts suggesting this is partisan, I've stayed pretty quiet lately and the couple of times I've mentioned Trudeau on this blog, I've defended him. This isn't about Liberal or Conservative because I hold no party affiliation --- this is entirely about a smug, entitled, privileged man who has never had to face the consequences of his stupidity.

Shame.

canadianna

Justin Trudeau's feminist credentials #upfordebate

So what we have learned about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's brand of feminism is that, women take things differently from men, particularly in a professional context, and therefore, upon reflection, Mr. Trudeau is confident that the woman who accused him of groping/handling her eighteen years ago, is just, well, wrong.

But that's okay.

She's allowed to have her point of view and he's not going to speak for her on that.

So, young men of the #metoo generation, here is your takeaway from this, as brought to you by a leading feminist and the Prime Minister of Canada:

You're going to do things that women are going to misinterpret, because, well, they see things differently. They think that if you wouldn't touch a guy in the same situation, then you shouldn't be touching them. I know... dramatic, right? But still.

Reflect on that. You'll probably come to the conclusion that you did nothing inappropriate because if you thought it was inappropriate, you wouldn't have done it, right? You are the arbiter of your truth. You know you're not that kind of guy. She might not be making it up, she's just misinterpreting your moves.

She might accuse you anyway. That's okay. Give the lady permission to feel how she feels, because well, you know women -- especially professional women (the other ones you can use situational judgment, but hey, if they're working when they say you did the deed, acknowledge that you maybe did or did not offend them, but that you're pretty sorry that you forgot to note their employment situation.) Let them know you're alright with them being wrong. You've thought about it, and it's okay.

In the end, just be aware... so long as you are confident you did nothing inappropriate (which of course you are, because you're not that kind of guy, right?) you're in the clear (if you're fortunate enough that the woman just wants to put it all behind her).

It's 2018. It's time we realized that men and women are different, view things differently and when there is a discrepancy of memory, so long as you are confident that she's just wrong, and you reflect on that, you'll be fine.

I could say, okay... you've learned, you get it, if Justin Trudeau had said:

I was young and drunk and I really don't remember. I know myself and I feel like I wouldn't have done anything to offend this woman, and obviously I wouldn't have if I'd realized it would offend her. I'm still not exactly sure what happened, but obviously it upset her enough that she brought it forward, therefore, I apologize unreservedly because whatever my feelings on the situation are, it was obviously a negative interaction for her. If I was not truly sorry then because I was not aware enough of how this might affect her, I have grown as a man, as a husband and a father, and I am truly sorry now that whatever my actions were, that they caused her to feel discomfort and disrespect. It is not the person I am now, and I would like to say that it is not the person I ever was, but I accept this woman's version of events as truth, and offer my sincerest apology. In the future, I will be more sensitive to both women and men, accusers and the accused. I have been short sighted and unfair in my rush to judge others. I apologize for this also.


As it stands, he's practically dared a woman who has asked for privacy to challenge  him.

She said her piece 18 years ago. This is not someone coming out of the woodwork 18 years later and accusing when things are murky. This is someone who reported an incident immediately in a generation that was not yet woke to sexual harassment. She shouldn't have to come forward again, and if he'd have just have given the tiniest acknowledgement that he MIGHT have done something that could be perceived as untoward, I could accept it.


These are not the words or actions of a feminist in 2018.


canadianna

Who's the real sexist?

How is it I find myself defending Liberal MP for his alleged 'sexist' remark to a Conservative MP when her phone rang during an in-camera meeting last month.

Dianne Watts quotes exactly what was said to her in this audio interview. Her phone, with a generic ringtone, prompted a fellow MP to say "Where's your pole to slide down?" He was asked to repeat the comment, and asked again "Where's your pole?"

Although this wasn't part of any commentary, one might supposed Ms Watts, recognizing the ring tone as specific to one person, might have smiled and said "my daughter" before any comment was made. A clip of the ringtone does not sound like any bump and grind stripper song, or anything that might be taken as such.

Could it be that we're just so conditioned to assuming that every remark has some nefarious meaning if it's directed to a woman? All the headlines make reference to a 'stripper pole' yet even in her retelling of the incident, Watts doesn't use the word 'stripper'. She, and the other MPs who heard the remark, either inferred it at the time, or afterward when they were discussing what had been said.

Could it be that MP Nicola di Iorio was thinking of a fire fighter? Or Batman even? Watts was answering a call from her daughter... how many times are we called upon to rescue our kids when we are otherwise occupied. Did her hear her say it was her daughter and make the remark thinking how many times we rush to accommodate our kids? There is nothing remotely sexual about the ringtone, or about the ringing of a phone -- but there is definitely something parental in it.

I would never have thought he meant stripper pole, unless he used those words exactly.... why was the immediate reaction to assume THAT kind of pole? Who is the sexist here?  If a person makes a comment that is not overtly sexist, are they sexist because someone decides to take it that way? Or is it sexist to impute sexist meaning to it because it was made by a man to a woman?

di Iorio has not come to his own defense on this matter from anything I've read, although it is under investigation so perhaps that's why. Maybe though, it never occurred to him that it could be taken badly and the shock of having been called out on it has silenced him, the way being accused of something often does to innocent people.

canadianna