Pot ... meet kettle

Justin Trudeau is 'deeply disappointed' with the Montreal Canadiens for their choice of pick Logan Mailloux in the first round of Friday's NHL draft. Mailloux as you might be aware, has been under fire for having distributed photos of a sexual encounter with a young woman without her consent.

Not to justify Mailloux's extremely poor judgement. He was wrong. 

But is Justin Trudeau really the man to be passing judgement? Justin Trudeau - who was a full grown adult the many times he wore blackface and danced around? Justin Trudeau - who was a full grown adult when he groped a female reporter without her consent?

We as a nation voted that a full grown adult could say he was *sorry* for those egregious acts and still be our Prime Minister - but a seventeen year old who made a lapse in judgement should not be allowed to move past it to become a hockey player?

 Please. Give me a break.

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

Liberal Confusion re: Nomination Process

According to the Toronto Star and other publications, Justin Trudeau says people seeking a Liberal nomination will be subject to questioning regarding conscience issues, and if they aren't in line with party thinking, they will be excluded from running in 2015:

Trudeau says that while the Liberal party has always tried to appeal across a broad range of the political spectrum when it comes to economics, he does not believe it’s too much to ask MPs to embrace the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is, in fact, part of the screening process for new candidates.

“We check on a number of issues: how do you feel about the Charter of Rights and freedoms, how do you feel about same-sex marriage, how do you feel about pro-choice, where are you on that?” Trudeau said.

“And we make sure that the people who are stepping forward are consistent with the Liberal Party as it is now, as it stands under my leadership and under the feedback we’re getting from Canadians across the country.”

This morning I had a twitter conversation with Gerard Butts, a close policy advisor of Trudeau's, who seemed to be unaware of this fact. He stated on Twitter that it is not what a person believes that matters, it's how they will vote on the issue in Parliament.

Although Butts has been active on Twitter since I posed the question to him (twice) about whether potential nominees could declare themselves pro-choice and still be allowed to run for nomination or serve as an MP in the Liberal Party, *crickets*.

Butts' original Tweet tagged the National  Post:

The @nationalpost has also been told, repeatedly, that the policy applies to votes in Parliament, not personal belief, but has ignored that.

So it seems clear in his opinion, that under this new Liberal edict, that a person may follow their conscience (in their private lives) so long as they are aware they must vote along party lines if it ever comes to a vote. When asked directly if that was the case, he simply ignored the question. I guess he isn't as sure as he seemed to be.

Perhaps Gerard Butts believed the question had been asked and answered, but when his position is at odds with that of the Liberal leader, the Liberal position is about as clear as mud.

Regardless, I believe abortion is a conscience, not a rights issue and that people should not have to check their brains at the door of the House of Commons. Some people do that anyway.

Canadianna