Twisted

Gerald Butts tweets:  Great news in BC yesterday. Congrats to everyone in governments past & present who worked for years on it. 

We can make big things happen in , especially when we put partisanship aside, and don’t let big energy projects become a political

So you can already see how it's going to go. Yesterday PMJT spoke at a Liberal fundraiser and prophesied that the upcoming election would be the nastiest Canada has ever seen. Of course, the Liberals won't be nasty. It will be those nasty Conservatives who are nasty. Remember how nasty they are? That's who will be nasty because of course they're racist and sexist and Donald Trump so nasty. But Liberals would never stoop to being nasty like they are. Never. Never in one breath would Liberals say they are taking the high road, and in the next, hope you don't notice they're on the low one. Never.

Butt's tweet applauding past governments shows a true and genuine desire to put principle and people above politics -- or else it foreshadows the smug, condescending tone they're going to take when the opposition parties do what they are paid to do- challenge, criticize, expose and OPPOSE.

We should be used to it by now -- the sweet as treacle smiles and platitudes, simultaneous with the barbs and insults. This sleight of tongue has been raised to an art-form and perfected by this latest incarnation of Liberals and sadly, the Conservative planners always fall into the trap. The groundwork is set, and all CPC has to do is avoid making snide comments and angry tweets -- you can oppose and challenge without being combative, but in our Twitterworld, everyone wants to get the dig in that will be re-tweeted and held up for posterity as *owning the libs* and in doing so, they might score points for said libs because they're being nasty.

Trudeau's record should stand on its own as a reason never to vote for him again, but despite provincial wins and federal failures, the electorate is volatile and I don't see Trudeau's mistakes sticking, particularly if Butts and crew play this game of slamming with a smile. They know the CPC well enough to know they'll *fight* back-- and then they can stand calmly, point and say *see?*

CPC strategists should be fine-tuning their message. Delivery is going to count.

canadianna

When the truth doesn't matter

It is reasonable to view the world from the *what would I do* perspective. We tend to project our own morality and sensibilities onto others. It's why people are so quick to say: *why would she lie about ...* *why would anyone choose ...* *an innocent person wouldn't...* *only a guilty man would...*

Why would Christine Blasey Ford lie? As I said previously, to be the heroine of a cause that means a lot to her, to her demographic, to her political allies, to her gender and her generation. She is in a win-win situation. She is either believed, and she is a victim to the people who matter to her and she thwarts the confirmation of a man who might change their world. Or, she is disbelieved, and she is a victim to the people who matter to her, the people who loathe the sort of people who might question her motives, her memory, her timing. She might come out of this a little bruised by the awkward attention, but because in these instances we can never know, she won't carry this as a blemish to the people who share her worldview -- and that's all that's important to most of us really.

She might well be telling the truth and I don't pretend to know. I just think it's silly for people to suggest that women never lie, or that the only possible reason for a lie would be attention-seeking or mental illness. People lie for all sorts of reasons, and I suspect that to many on the left, (and perhaps many on the right) abortion rights are right up there as a top priority, politically. People do strange things when they are advancing or protecting their cause.

As for Kavanagh, he has every reason to lie. He's followed the life plan for that sort of person he is -- got an education, worked hard, lived decently, and in one fell swoop all of that can be destroyed by something awful he did when he was seventeen? Who wouldn't be inclined to lie about something that no one can ever prove? Or, maybe he doesn't even remember. Not because he was blackout drunk, but because as the perpetrator of an assault, which, to a seventeen-year old in 1982 likely seemed innocuous and unimportant, it's something he would never have to, or bother to, think about again. Real sexual predators plan and recall details, but young men who are aggressive and clumsy are unlikely to feel the significance of their actions to the woman they've assaulted.

It's been suggested Kavanagh lashed out on the stand because he was angry having been caught or called out, but his demeanour, as unseemly as it might have been, is not indicative of guilt. If you've ever been unjustly accused of something terrible, something you know in your heart you didn't do, you'll know how indignant he must feel if his conscience is clear. Is it crazy that he would cry, or yell or would throw out the Clinton name and suggest a conspiracy? Because it would feel like that to someone raw from a vile and false accusation.

Some are saying that his reaction is so contrary to the comportment of a Justice, that he should be excluded from the bench as a result. Much as the testimony was not becoming of a supreme court justice, Kavanagh was on the stand as a man, not a judge. His emotive display doesn't suggest someone who would be unhinged when rendering a decision on a case before him. This was a person going through an intensely troubling ordeal. Guilty or not, the stress of being accused and then dragged through this after all these years must be tremendous. Who wouldn't come off a little intense and histrionic in those circumstances?

Anyone who could look at either of these two people, the things they've said and how they've carried themselves and draw a conclusion to a certainty, is a mind-reader. To my mind, there is just no way to know -- but whether it's true or not, I don't believe an unproven, uncorroborated incident from a person's youth should be the deciding factor in his fate, thirty-five years on. I can understand the injustice someone might feel if the person who hurt them is elevated to a position of honour and authority, but that's irrelevant here (although there are certainly times it shouldn't be). Ask Juanita Broaddrick.

In the end, I believe Kavanagh's only option is to withdraw. His family doesn't deserve to be put through this, and there is no salvaging his reputation now. No matter what the FBI finds, there will never be anything definitive and there will always be a cloud over him. Every judgement will be suspect, every decision over-scrutinized -- he is tainted. It makes no sense for him to continue in this climate, under these circumstances. There are times, even if you believe the other side is wrong, the gracious and decent thing to do is concede and step away. This is one of those times in life, the truth doesn't matter.

And then, what Donald Trump should do, is find the most rabidly pro-life, male judge in existence, and dare the Democrats to do this again.

canadianna   

Seventeen

When I was eighteen, Canada passed the Young Offenders Act. Soon after, a Scarborough boy, about fifteen years old, murdered his parents and younger sister, then took some school friends into his home to see the bodies. Under the new act, the most he would serve is three years and his record would be eternally sealed.

I didn't and I don't agree with that. There isn't some magical switch that flips on when you're eighteen and suddenly you know right from wrong. We are who we are and that boy at fifteen was a cold blooded murderer, no less culpable than someone three years older or someone twice his age.

What I do understand is the intent behind the law. If I was to be judged by choices I made, things I thought, people I hurt at seventeen due to selfishness or ignorance, I would be harshly condemned I'm sure -- as would many people. A seventeen year old will not have the capacity to reason the consequences of his actions (for himself or for whomever else might be involved) as fully as an adult will -- that's why we don't lower the voting age, or allow them to legally smoke or drink or gamble -- we realize that the teenage minds are not fully formed, and the teenage years are volatile even for those in the best of families and that lack of experience, eagerness to grow up, peer pressure, family drama, normal angst  -- all might lead to regretful actions resulting from poor judgement.

I won't comment directly on the veracity of the Kavanagh situation -- we can never know the truth.  It's all just conjecture. But if it's true, he was seventeen in 1982. The behaviour described by his accuser is unconscionable in this day and age. Back then, not so much. I could bring forward several young men who've become wonderful, fabulous older men, who would likely cringe at some of the things they did at seventeen -- and at least as many women. You might say that the incident as described is not singular in its effects -- it included actions upon another -- and I would agree, but I would also say that at seventeen, in the 80s, most young men were pretty sure that most young women were as sexually ready as they were -- the previous generation had opened the door and many from my age group just walked through, often without checking first. Was it right? No. It was as wrong as it is today -- but one can understand why someone at seventeen in 1982, might not have grasped that yet, and might still evolve into a normal, decent human being.

The odd thing is that if Brett Kavanagh had been reported and charged with a crime for what allegedly happened at that party in 1982, and had he been convicted, he was a minor and any criminal record would likely have been sealed or expunged and this would not have been an issue for him some thirty-five years later - which is why laws like the YOA exist -- to protect the adult from the mistakes of the youth.

Also, to those who would say the allegations (and any new ones regarding Kavanagh) must be true because who would put themselves through this for a lie -- I'm just going to say that those on the rabid left would do just about anything to block a judge they fear might overturn Roe v Wade.

Regardless, true or not, much as we can judge the boy and say, if it happened, he was wrong and should have been called out/punished -- condemning a person for sins committed a lifetime ago is not something any of us should be applauding, unless of course, you've lived a blemish-free life.

canadianna
 

Perception

If Maxime Bernier's new party is going to make inroads in the Canadian political scene, he's got to lose his social media director.

Whoever is running Bernier's twitter feed is mean. Period. Every single tweet is rude and hostile, filled with venom for Andrew Scheer, non-Bernier Conservatives, anyone who doesn't agree with him, and of course, the media.

Trudeau won the last election on *Sunny Ways* and while his actions during this term have been less than sunny, his own personal messaging remains constantly positive and upbeat. If he strays in person or seems on edge, it'll be put down the *stress of the job* - not a nasty personality. Trudeau leaves the venom spewing to Gerald Butts, his right hand man, but for the most part, he and the rest of the Liberal team stay above the fray.

Anger might amp up your base, but it will repel soft voters. We're living in a volatile world with a ton of negative news and ideas streaming across the border. The last thing people want is to invite such a steady display of invective into their daily lives even if it's just on social media. And while Bernier's raging is limited to twitter at the moment, and likely the work of a zealous intern, it is quickly becoming his persona. Real or false, it is a perception that will last.

The split within the conservative ranks is a blessing for Trudeau, at a time when our country needs a strong decisive voice from the right. Much as I think Bernier might have been the best candidate a year and a half ago, that ship has sailed and whether or not Bernier's animus is a personal grievance or genuine belief that his vision is best for the country -- it's all irrelevant because from beginning to end, his message is lost in his messaging.

canadianna
 

The gift of perfection

There can be no remedy if one refuses to acknowledge a problem, but the Trudeau government seems unable to accept responsibility for even the most obvious of ethics issues.

The following link is to a CBC piece about the latest conflict of interest violation:

And that, said Turnbull, opens the door for the ministers to insist they didn't really do anything wrong, notwithstanding the conflict commissioner's conclusions — as both Trudeau and Leblanc did this week.

The perception of impropriety should be enough to prevent a Prime Minister from taking the gift an expensive vacation from a *family friend* who also receives government monies ... or a Minister of the Crown from granting a lucrative contract to a *distant relation* -- but here we have Trudeau and a member of his team accepting the findings of the ethics commissioner, saying they won't do it again, but throwing out excuses as to how what they did really doesn't meet the criteria of a violation.

 Maybe it's his upbringing and the yes-men who surround him, but Trudeau seems incapable of accepting responsibility even when he's been called out. When the groping incident resurfaced, first he denied any *negative interactions* and when it became apparent he could not escape that something happened, he went on to say that he was *certain (he) did nothing inappropriate* and finally after the woman spoke out, he granted that something happened, but the woman got it all wrong.  It's a pattern, and a damning one.

Trudeau makes a big production of saying sorry on behalf of Canada for wrongs of long ago, but because he cannot see or admit to his own personal errors, he is unable to muster a sincere or even weak apology on behalf of himself when he's been caught in a misdeed. He has the self-awareness of a five year old – conscious of attention, and playing for an audience, but lacking the depth to understand the consequences of his actions, and their effect on others. Making excuses, downplaying his own past transgressions, shifting blame -- these are glaring character flaws, disturbing in someone who wields so much influence and power.

This is not someone who can learn from mistakes, because to his mind, he's never made one.

canadianna

Who makes the *rule of law*?

In all of the talk about the Ontario government using the Notwithstanding Clause, you hear things like, the "bill violated “unwritten constitutional principles” of democracy and rule of law" or as Andrea Horwath said, “Doug Ford is literally suspending the Charter of Rights for Ontario’s people" and other such nonsense.

"Unwritten constitutional principles"? Really? They had all the words in both official languages at their disposal but they thought they'd leave some out and we could all just surmise what they meant by not putting them in? The Constitution is a written document, and too often, judges have *read in* words that are not on that document.

Are there "unwritten constitutional principles*? It would seem to me that when judges impute meanings or infer things from the largely unambiguous language, what they are doing is pruning it, or growing it to fit their own vision of justice. They are not interpreting anything -- they are inventing. Stretching. Creating. Imagining. Because they can. Because who is going to stop them.... except maybe a lawmaker, finally using the means afforded to him within the constitution to pass the legislation.

If you read the ruling, you know its specious. The law does not impede the charter rights of any citizen. It doesn't suppress freedom of expression and it doesn't prevent adequate representation -- but even if you think it does -- Ford will be judged in four years' time by us and the law will be challengeable again in five. Big deal.

Whatever you think of the law reducing Toronto City Council -- whatever you think of the judge's ruling striking it down -- the Notwithstanding Clause is a mechanism of the Constitution and its use is not an abuse of power.

How can a tool in the lawmaker's arsenal be *violating (...) democracy and rule of law*?

Has Canada forgotten who is supposed to make laws?

canadianna

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Having watched the full half hour of *Taking on the Tyrant*, Chrystia Freeland's comments and conversation are fairly innocuous in and of themselves.

That said, the piece begins with ominous text and images of dictators and despots ... men like Donald Trump.

Say what you will about Trump -- go ahead. You're no one. Whether you have 1,000 followers on Twitter or a blog of your own, your voice about Trump doesn't matter. You aren't the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, appearing (with NAFTA talks ongoing) on stage after a video montage with that foreboding text interspersed with images and clips of the American President.

Chrystia Freeland has again, put her wokeness above her constituents. Her disrespect for Donald Trump has translated into disrespect for Canadians -- because it's on behalf of Canadians she is negotiating a trade deal. It's no secret that she's not well liked by the Americans and is there any wonder why? Her blatant slams against Trump show contempt for all of those who are working on this deal -- because they are there representing him, and the people of the United States -- at least a few of whom, voted for him.

The smugness of the Trudeau regime as they share their enlightenment with the world, is trying the patience of our most important trading partner, to our detriment. There is nothing to be gained by continually taunting Trump. Where is the dignity in the Trudeau government? Where is the diplomacy? Where is the maturity??

Trump is a manifestation of the frustration of the working class. He is their emissary -- their voice. Why are these so-called intellectuals not listening?

Be clever. Keep talking down to him. Keep flicking him like a gnat, taunting him. He'll squish you-- because he can. Does it make you feel good to know that you *told him*? This is not Hitler and this is not Nazi Germany -- for all the bullshit comparisons, no journalists are being arrested, no concentration camps built, no laws enacted to stifle the voice of the average American. He's a blowhard and he's playing you. And you think you're so brave. You're bravely talking away any semblance of a chance of a decent deal, since you already squandered the good faith in place prior to the G7.

You can show respect for someone without sucking up to them. Grown ups do it all the time. That's what diplomacy is. You'd think someone who won an award for it would know. People do it with their bosses and co-workers -- and it isn't about playing nice or pretending to like someone -- it's just not talking trash - being mature enough to keep your opinions to yourself if they are not helpful to the situation. It's about manners.

Whatever you think of Donald Trump, you are our representative when dealing with the US. If you show disdain and contempt for him, you are showing that same disdain and contempt for us - because the United States is our bread and butter...their trade feeds us. Don't shit where we have to eat.

canadianna

What keeps you up at night?

In a province just reeling from a major blow to its economy, Justin Trudeau was asked by a reporter, "what keeps you up at night?"

His response:

“There’s a simplification and a dumbing-down of politics and a polarization and a fearful populism that really does worry me.”

Seriously.

I'm sure Albertans share that concern while they're scrambling to find other employment and pay their bills.

There is no one in public office I could ever imagine responding to such a question, at a time of crisis, in such an obtuse manner. This is a man who has never been kept up all night worrying about anything. He has no concept of paying a mortgage or a hydro bill, or putting gas in the car, or buying groceries --- or not being able to. He has no idea what it might mean to a family to lose a week's pay, let alone a position you believed would last years. Everything -- everything for these families has shattered -- nothing is on hold while they try to patch up their livelihoods-- and Trudeau muses about polarization and fearful populism.

Mr. Trudeau -- what do you think causes polarization and fearful populism?

Could it be the ignorance of the elite ruling class to the plights of the people they govern?

I won't even comment on his desire for Canada to fall into entropy.

This man would be a joke if he didn't have our economy, our resources and our social fabric in his hands for the ruination.

What an asshole. Canada really dumbed-down when we elected you.

canadianna

Union leaders have *clout* in NAFTA

So unions ARE playing a role in NAFTA negotiations.

From the article:

After unions played a role in ousting the Harper government in 2015, Dias said the Liberal government appears to understand the influence of the labour movement in politics.

"I think they understand that labour is not just a nuisance; that we actually have a voice, we represent millions of people and we're going to play a big role in the politics of the country," he said. "They have a choice. They can exclude us and then we will exclude them, or they can include us."

So, no need for elections anymore, people. Organized labour will tell us the way it's gonna go.

Wow. Just wow.

canadianna 

Does anyone know . . .

Why Unifor President Jerry Dias is at the NAFTA talks. Why does he seem to be acting as part of the negotiating team, responding to questions from the press as though he's a spokesperson for our government.

I'm guessing his accommodations and whatnot are being expensed to the government.

No one has explained why he's there, but it seems wrong to me. He is the head of a union representing auto, communications, energy and paper workers sectors -- not an elected official and he has no status with the government that I'm aware of... and if they gave him one while he also represents the union... that doesn't make sense to me. Given that this union lobbies the government on behalf of its various sectors, isn't there some sort of conflict? Okay, sure -- he has the welfare of workers as part of his mandate as president of his union -- but how does that translate into becoming part of our trade delegation? Is it because the Trudeau Liberals lack any skilled, experienced negotiators?

Who is running things in Ottawa, and why does this just *happen* without any sort of explanation -- or, from what I've seen across the internet, without any questions from the (Unifor represented?) media contingent?

Maybe I'm just suspicious, but it seems to me that rather than having someone who was elected by union workers, who have their own interests at heart --- the people who we, as a country elected -- our MPs, Ministers etc should be handling these negotiations.. and failing finding anyone capable on their own bench, the Liberals had the offer of Conservative help as early as last Fall. It wouldn't have been too late to accept the offer of help -- would have been smart politically too -- any deal would have multi-party hands all over it, so if it was bad -- it would be a all-party failure.

If anyone knows the explanation for his presence in Washington, please comment.

Thanks,

canadianna

Win - Win

He's a lucky guy, our Prime Minister -- how else do you explain two utter failures that can be spun like gold.

NAFTA negotiations have been a disaster. We've been shut out since the G7 when Trudeau decided to swagger the second Trump got on the plane. Trump snagged back the concessions he'd offered and followed up with tariffs and promises of more -- all because Justin Trudeau stood up to the bully when he wasn't being bullied. A subsequent speech by Chrystia Freeland, slamming Trump, her late arrival the most recent negotiations, Trudeau being too busy to take a call from Trump prior to this round of negotiations starting .... all of these things display contempt for Trump, for the United States, for the negotiations, and for Canadians. It's almost like Justin Trudeau has been seeking failure on this file -- but regardless of the outcome, he'll take no blame because - Trump.

After today's revelation by the Toronto Star about an off-the-record statement Trump made about Canada and negotiations, you can be assured that if he has to give up the dairy farm or if he fails our auto sector, it won't matter. He couldn't have done better -- still -- because Trump.

And with Trans Mountain, he can play both sides. In 2014, he promised that if elected, the pipeline would never be built. He bought it, so he can say that at least he tried. The court scuttled it, so it failed, but it isn't really his fault. Any challenges will last long beyond this term in office, so he'll have kept his promise to the anti-TM side, but still be trying for the pro-TM team. Wow. Horseshoes. 

So Canadian oil is sold at a discount to the Americans who sell it on for market value, but somehow this is a win for someone. Where do the First Nations and environmentalists think their money is coming from if Alberta is unable to develop its oil sector and play on a level playing field with every other oil producing nation on earth. How is Alberta going to feed you all with both hands tied behind its back?

On NAFTA. Trudeau says no deal is better than a bad deal and while that's true, it didn't have to be this way. His disdain for Trump trumped the needs of Canadian people -- Trudeau's ego is the reason we're here. That, and the fact that he has no clue what it means to work for a living, to worry about job security and paying bills. He hasn't a clue who we are. He can't identify with us for a second, how can he possibly represent us?

What a joke. But the joke's on us. Possibly for four more years.

canadianna 

The right response on NAFTA

Shortly after the news broke today that the US and Mexico had reached a trade deal, Bernier tweeted:

Now, @cafreeland and @JustinTrudeau, stop fooling around and playing politics. Put supply management on the table, end the retaliatory measures, accept Trump’s offer to aim at reducing all tariffs and barriers, and NEGOTIATE SERIOUSLY. More grandstanding will bring no result.

Compare that to Andrew Scheer's response:

 Thanks to Justin Trudeau, Canada is on the outside looking in while Canadian jobs hang in the balance. His economic failures have ruined Canada’s bargaining position and jeopardized thousands of jobs.

Both responses are valid, but everyone knows that if Trudeau touches supply management, then Bernier's major raison d'etre disappears... and yet Bernier is so committed to his idea of what is right for the country, he's willing to see it done by someone else -- in the OTHER party -- because he believes so much that it's the right thing to do. That's a major policy plank for Bernier. One less reason to vote for his new party if Trudeau is the man that sees it through. I don't see this as an idle challenge or taunt. It seems like a genuine plea for sanity on the trade front.

On the other hand, Scheer's criticism of Trudeau is valid, but given that they couldn't even get to supply management at the convention, what exactly would he be doing differently? If he's still committed to it, then what is he suggesting Trudeau do? It's all well and good to snipe on Twitter, but if you have nothing to offer but sniping, how is that constructive? Trudeau has been abysmal on trade. Scheer's sneers don't make that clearer, but they betray a lack of vision. It's okay to put your idea out there even when it's not election time. If they're good ideas and the other guy uses them, all the better for the country, right?

I'm still not #BernierNation, but Bernier's commitment to what benefits Canada, as opposed to what benefits him, suggests a purity of reason that goes beyond the selfish lust for power that he's been accused of. I'm still not happy with how he went about this. I'm still dubious about the outcome, but there is a sincerity to his words that makes me want to cheer him on, even if I'm not yet ready to come around.

canadianna

Lose / Lose

In one way, it saved a lot of trouble, Bernier quitting the CPC. It might have been more unpleasant had they booted him out.

The sad thing is, I think a lot of us are torn -- while I find myself on the side of Bernier in terms of policy, his methods disturb me and I know that because of his prolific Twitter rants, he will appeal to all the wingnuts who latch onto anything that might mean their bigotry is being validated, regardless of the intent.

News that he's planning to create a new party is not really a shock after this week, but I'm sure many of us who support his ideas, will struggle to support him and his new party. This is not a positive exit strategy. How do we assume he'll manage to take leadership in a positive direction when he's ended his affiliation on a such a disastrously negative note.

I believe his concern for the direction of the country and the party is genuine. People are looking for strong, definite leadership and I think most conservatives see the extreme-left climate/gender/post-national ideology that has been wearing traditional Liberal colours, and are looking for a real alternative. Andrew Scheer is not that, not really. His middle-of-the-road, pragmatic approach might get him elected, but without real conservative policies, who cares? I'd rather hate Justin Trudeau for implementing policies I disagree with.

Scheer's response was no more graceful than Bernier's exit -

“(Bernier) probably made this choice to help Justin Trudeau a long time ago,” @AndrewScheer tells reporters in Halifax.  - @davidakin

Whine all you want when you close the door, not in front of the cameras.

So, if you're conservative, I guess we'll be waiting a while for our team to form government again.

canadianna

Don't paint me with your broad strokes

My take? He knew someone was coming to his Liberal rally who was bound to disrupt it. He was ready. The RCMP and all those security-types know the activities of groups with questionable motivations. Trudeau was told that someone would probably heckle, and true to form, he had a script and he stuck to it.

Below is the transcript posted at CBC of the exchange between Justin Trudeau and a woman who has now been identified as member of a nationalist group that advocates against immigration.

As you read it, bear in mind two things: First, Trudeau has made no claim to have known who she was when he responded, and second, this was a Liberal event. He says so part way through.

 

My comments are in italics.

DIANE BLAIN: When will you give back the $146 million to Quebec? I'd like your response. I'm a senior, and I'd like a response.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Madam, thank you for being here this evening, thank you very much for your support. I'm very happy to have you here. You ask what we can deliver for seniors. Madam, we delivered an increase in the guaranteed income supplement of $1,000 per month, by $1,000 per year, for seniors on their own, the most vulnerable.

He responds, calmly -- addresses an issue pertinent to seniors. Okay.

MALE HECKLER (repeatedly): We are not in Mohawk territory.

BLAIN: That's not what I asked you. We need the $146 million for Quebecers.

TRUDEAU: We invested billions of dollars for the Canada Child Benefit, which makes an enormous difference in the lives of families around the province and the country.

She says nothing controversial. He responds again, perfectly rational politician's response.

BLAIN: We're asking you for the $146 million for Quebecers that you gave to illegal immigrants.

TRUDEAU: Madam, one of the things that is important, madam, in politics is to listen. My friends, it is listening that counts. We are in dialogue.

MALE HECKLER (repeatedly): We are not in Mohawk territory.

BLAIN: But you are not answering me.

TRUDEAU: Sir, you are in the course of saying things that are anti-Indigenous, it isn't very nice, it isn't very polite.

BLAIN: Answer me.

TRUDEAU: We are here to share, to dialogue, I am looking forward to listening to you.

BLAIN: Answer me, Mr. Trudeau.

TRUDEAU: On the condition that you listen to me now, madam. You have something to say, madam? Go ahead.

BLAIN: Answer me, I want to know when you will give us back the $146 million that we paid for your illegal immigrants.

TRUDEAU: OK, madam.

He has no answer.

BLAIN: It's us who paid for that.

TRUDEAU: This intolerance regarding immigrants does not have a place in Canada. This intolerance of diversity, you do not have a place here.

BAM! this is where Trudeau skews what the woman said and pretends to infer racism. Nothing in what she asked implies she's anti-immigration. Without knowing ahead of time her predisposition towards immigrants, Trudeau has imputed meaning to her words. At this moment, she is simply a citizen, asking a legitimate question about taxation and spending - albeit about illegal immigration, but that in and of itself does not suggest the questioner is racist.

Liberals are framing this as though anyone who*sides* with this woman is aligned with the Storm Alliance. The fact that she was calling out negatively at a Liberal rally shows she was not a friendly, but at this point, as far as we know, Trudeau had no reason to believe she was anything other than a person questioning his policies -- but she had said nothing racist, nothing nationalistic -- nothing controversial. And yet Trudeau took that question to call her intolerant of both immigrants and diversity -- all she'd asked about was how this money was being spent and when Quebec would get it back.

Either he deliberately twisted her words thinking no one else could or would hear, or he knew who she was, and couldn't be sure she would say something racist, so he prematurely censured her for something he hoped she'd say.

(Cheering)

BLAIN: Hey. Trudeau. Trudeau.

TRUDEAU: Madam, Canada was built by waves of immigration that were welcomed by the First Nations, who showed us how to build a strong society, and the people who come here, generation after generation to build stronger communities, this is what makes us stronger as a country and, madam, your intolerance does not have a place here.

Again, she hasn't said a word about race, or immigrants, only illegal immigrants and even then, only to question the cost. He uses this opportunity to make up shit about the founding of our country, and pretend that she has said something that would require him to say this.

MAN OFF CAMERA: Yes, she's making threats. Get her out of here.

She's right by the microphone the whole time. We can hear her voice whenever she speaks. She made no threat. She said nothing beyond Trudeau's name. She has no purse, no backpack – nothing in her hands. She’s bare armed – nothing threatening about her at all.

MAN IN WHITE SHIRT, BLACK VEST: Are you making threats?

 TRUDEAU: We are Liberals here, we know that diversity is a source of strength, never a source of weakness and madam, your fear, your fear of others, your intolerance does not have a place among us tonight. Thank you very much, my friends. Thank you for being here, thanks for working hard and uniting people because we see that there will be intolerance in the coming months. There will be attacks in the coming months.

This is the first I realized it was a Liberal rally, and that the people around her were all going to be antagonistic obviously. But he stokes it. He says she has *fear, fear of others* and uses this as an opportunity to tell his fans that Canadians (ordinary Canadians, because at this moment, that's all this woman is) will be *intolerant* and *attacking* as he suggests this woman is.

BLAIN: I have another question.

TRUDEAU: But you must know that strength is to unite and not to scream, not to spread fear, not to spread intolerance, madam.

The woman is calling out-- she is making herself heard from her place in the crowd. Her voice is never harsh or shrill. She is not screaming, and she has not said one negative word about immigrants. She only mentioned *illegal immigrants* and she never said anything hostile -- no call to send them back-- no suggestion that we don't want them here -- not one negative word about people -- every question is just about the cost.

BLAIN (repeatedly): Are you tolerant of Québécois de souche [white French Quebecers]? ***UPDATE -  see Gabby in QC, in the comments section re that translation***

So finally, after being called intolerant three times, after having been accused of spreading fear and making threats, after having been told that people like her would be attacking Liberals in coming months --- THEN she finally asked if he was tolerant of HER. Poor choice of words, incendiary in Quebec I suppose, but after provocation, she finally asks -- do you respect my kind of people? If I had been there, asking the same questions, I might have said - do you tolerate those of us who are Canadian-born, or second generation, or simply non-immigrants. That phrase, Québécois de souche - might have been a clue to her agenda, but it came far enough into the exchange that it was definitely NOT the precipitant of his accusations of intolerance.

I put the rest of the exchange below (I cut it off when she is taken for questioning - you can go to the link if you want to read that part), and for those who continue read the last of it between Blain and Trudeau, you will see she begins to use the terminology of the alt-right. I left it in so there would be no suggestion that I was leaving it out purposely to cloud the truth about her eventual attitude.

I have no time for the alt-right and its racism or nationalism, but Liberals are using this woman's affiliations to shut down the conversation on the rest of us. Apparently anyone who agrees with her is *siding* with her and her ilk and therefore, tacitly supporting her cause. Bullshit. These questions are legitimate and they've been asked by many Canadians since the surge in numbers at the illegal crossings. These questions MUST be asked, and when Mr. Trudeau finally figures out what it means to be a leader and make real policy decisions instead of spouting platitudes, maybe he'll find a way to answer them.

Until then, Justin Trudeau and your band of merry sycophants -- do not attempt to paint us racist or intolerant with your vicious and divisive tongues.

canadianna


****

Continuation of exchange between Blain & Trudeau:

MALE HECKLER (repeatedly): We are not in Mohawk territory.

TRUDEAU: Yes madam, I am tolerant of all perspectives, it is you, madam, who is intolerant, and you don't have a place in this beautiful gathering of Liberals. Thank you, friends.

(Cheering. Trudeau descends from stage and begins shaking hands with people in the crowd.)

BLAIN: Have you spread intolerance towards Québécois de souche?

PERSON IN CROWD: [Swearing] Shut up, damn it.

BLAIN: Go ahead and give your hand to this Trudeau.

WOMAN IN CROWD: No, but it's enough, really.

(Crosstalk)

WOMAN IN CROWD: She's going in there.

(Blain approaches Trudeau.)

BLAIN: Mr. Trudeau are you tolerant of Québécois de souche?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is a Québécois de souche?

Québécois de souche refers to descendants of the original French colonists who settled in New France in the 17th and 18th centuries. It excludes Quebecers of non-French heritage, such as descendants of British colonists, recent immigrants and Indigenous peoples.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRUDEAU (repeated three times): Madam, your racism has no place here.

BLAIN: Answer me. You have no place in Quebec. Do you understand? You have no place in Quebec.

TRUDEAU: Excuse me, madam. I'm a proud Quebecer, madam, I'm a proud Quebecer.

(Shaking hands)

TRUDEAU: Thank you, it's lovely to see you.

(Trudeau continues shaking hands, cameraman leaves crowd and joins Blain who is being questioned.)

END – continued on CBC website

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