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

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