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

Warren Kinsella a closet conservative

It's true!

How else do you explain that the study he writes about that determined that whiny, insecure, narrow-minded, thin-skinned little kids grow up to be whiny, insecure, narrow-minded, thin-skinned, politically conservative adults. Kinsella MUST be a conservative -- he fits that description to a 'T'.

Warren manages to act all smug and self-righteous just like a true liberal . . . he even gets all giggly and tingly when he thinks he's done a *gotcha* just like liberals do. He's all bitter about his team's losses, picking at the scabs, looking for blame all over the place and all negative about any idea that doesn't emanate from his side in a way that would make any liberal proud. He mocks and ridicules those who are not in line with his world view, like any card carrying Liberal would.

Nope. It appears that study he cites must be skewed. Warren Kinsella is a liberal.

The Gospel According to Warren

Warren Kinsella is now channelling Jesus. Funny, that.

Kinsella says :

But the Occupiers are the first truly populist, progressive movement to seize peoples’ imaginations in a long, long time. In this way — and I know this will anger some conservatives, but too bad — the Occupiers are a bit Christ-like.

*Christ-like*? Huh?

What is it? The ignorance? The arrogance? The haughty demeanour? The self-righteousness? The lack of direction and purpose? What is it exactly that Warren sees as *Christ-like*? Warren explains:

As noted most memorably in Matthew 25:31, when Judgment Day arrives, the ones who will be admitted into the Kingdom are the ones who have done the most for “the least” among us — the hungry, the sick, the poor.

They also serve, who only stand and chant? I don't buy it. What exactly have the occupiers done for the *least* among us? How are they serving their fellow man? By trying to affect change? What change? We live in Canada. Poverty, Toronto-style is not what you'd find in the 3rd world or in biblical times. The occupiers have no raison d'être . . . they are not trying to help others . . . they are not trying to shine a light on the plight of the underclasses . . . they are standing chanting for themselves, each saying *poor, pitiful me*.

Christ-like, my ass.

Warren goes on to say:

If you strive to know Him, like some of us do, there can’t be much doubt that the rabbi named Jesus Christ was no capitalist. Nor is there any mystery WWJD with the Occupiers, this past weekend.

He’d be right down there with them, chanting against the bankers and the politicians who do the bankers’ bidding.

I don't believe Jesus would stand with the bankers, but neither do I think he'd be standing along side the occupiers. You see, the bankers and the occupiers are the same kind people, one set rich, the other not so much - but both are selfish. Neither bankers nor occupiers see anyone but themselves as deserving. Both bankers and occupiers believe the world owes them a living and that the work of others should enrich their lives. They see each other as parasites and while both are right on that score, the poor parasites aren't somehow *better people* simply because they aren't wealthy.

Kinsella says:

God, said Christ, chooses the poor because they are “rich in faith.” They are the ones who deserve support.

Despite what the bible says, the poor are not *rich in faith* by default, neither are they good or deserving just because they are poor. Poverty, financial poverty is an earthly state. It doesn't elevate your soul, it doesn't make you saintly. The poor are in need of support by virtue of their circumstances. They are deserving of pity or charity because they are human . . . but this inane belief that all poor people are good and rich people are evil is silliness.

And to suggest that the occupiers hold some sort of high ground because they are *poor* is completely without merit. They are well-fed, unsheltered by choice, and fully clothed. Many of them are well educated in a system heavily subsidized by taxpayers, including those dreadful corporations. If they were out there saying *I'll work . . . find me a job* maybe I could respect their cause . . . Instead, I see people saying *they're rich and I'm not . . . it isn't fair* which is not a cause -- it's a tantrum.

Ephesians 4:28 says:

Let him who steals steal no longer; but rather let him labour, performing with his own hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has need.

Read *steal* as *take* in that verse.

Maybe the occupiers should be looking for better ways to serve the poor. The rich will find their own rewards in heaven . . . Instead of shouting *look how bad I have it* -- maybe the occupiers could look outside themselves and find a way to produce and share and serve. I think that's what Jesus would do.

canadianna

I tried, but I can't help it . . .

Everyone says to ignore Warren Kinsella, but it's like trying to ignore a mosquito. I both appreciate and despise THE SUN for giving him a voice.

Doesn't Kinsella know that there's a difference between a newspaper owner issuing a vendetta against a sitting PM and promising to destroy him electorally, and columnists in a newspaper expressing opinion on the poor governance of the sitting premier?

Who knows what made people keep voting for Chretien ... maybe it was The Star which still seemed vaguely relevant back then, when they kept insisting there was no alternative to the Liberals and that the Liberals had a natural right to govern. Hmmm . . . The Star endorsed the Liberals, they won. They endorsed the NDP and look what happened. ... just kidding. Anyway, get weirdly gleeful all you want that some smart person says editorials don't matter, but one has to hope that in the end, the huge tax burden being faced by voters thanks to Dalton McGuinty-- will matter -- even to those who don't bother reading newspapers.

I think it's probable that while Conrad Black's anger at Chretien's pettiness didn't translate into election defeat, it's hardly because of voter backlash against the National Post . . .instead it likely had more to do with the mocking of the fundamentalist Christian leader of the Canadian Alliance by a cynical spin doctor. The ridicule created a sense that the leader of this new and unproven party might be stupid. Truth never mattered. It was all about spin and the clever way those spin masters demean their targets. Funny how Warren is forgetting his role in the Alliance defeat now that it's inconvenient to his column thesis.

Anyway, I really wrote this piece to say: The idea of Warren Kinsella getting all *tingly* over anything -- is really creepy and made me cringe.

Yuck Warren. Just yuck.

canadianna

The Margaret Atwood Community Library

Or how about *The Warren Kinsella Library* ?

Now, there's an idea . . . the buildings are built already, the computers in place, they're fully staffed . . . our existing libraries simply need concerned citizens of considerable means to stump up and help with the operating costs.

Warren's latest column in the SUN about populism got me thinking. He's quick to point out how many concerned community members who voiced their opposition to library closures at City Hall last week. Funnily enough, I heard what libraries meant to them, their families, their communities -- yet I heard no ideas on how to keep them viable while costs go up for everything from hydro for the computers and air conditioning, to the gas that transports the books from Scarborough to Etobicoke, North York to East York or Downtown . . . not to mention the cost of city paid union library workers in an economy where everyone is having to pinch pennies. The mean-spirited, but populist Mayor was interested enough in regular folk's input to hold the meeting and listen (did David Miller ever do that?) but if he can't find a way to fulfill the hopes of these community members he will be vilified as dismissive of the concerns of regular people (what a poor excuse for a populist).

No one says that we don't need libraries, but books are fast becoming redundant and libraries are actually filling the dual role of Internet cafe and community centre -- both of which are necessary and laudable in a city with the diverse population of Toronto. People need a safe place to congregate where they can learn, read, converse etc. They need a place where they can access the larger world online if they haven't a computer or Internet at home. I don't think even the Fords are denying this . . . but when libraries have become more than just a book-lender and when there are more buildings and more union scale, publicly paid employees than are reasonable during times of austerity --- doesn't it make sense that the community at large begin to think of new ways to provide the same services?

Donations to support your local library, spearheaded and maybe started-off by some altruistic, activist, local celebrities who have a keen interest in books might be an idea.

Atwood is worried almost as worried about privatization of the library system as she is about closures. I guess it's too easy to whine rather than be part of the solution.

You don't have to be elected to make a positive difference in the community. Margaret? Warren? Any better ideas?

canadianna

Does Warren Kinsella even read what he's written?

In Sunday's column, he writes about the *Not a Leader* ad about Dion that played during the Superbowl. He says:

Nowhere in the ad does Harper’s campaign team declare they were hoping to persuade one million Liberal voters to stay home. But that in fact was their objective and they achieved it.

Extensive focus group and polling research had told the Tories that while many Grits despised Harper, they also had serious misgivings about Dion’s “image” as a leader and his ability to communicate.

If they couldn’t persuade those million Liberal voters to come over to the blue team, the Conservatives concluded, they would persuade them to stay home on election day.

Note that he says *Liberal voters*were the target of the ads, and they were the people swayed by those ads. He continues in the same column, with his focus on Liberal/Liberal-leaning voters:

Their research had shown many card-carrying Liberals, or Liberal-leaning voters, had serious misgivings about the fact Michael Ignatieff had spent almost 30 years of his life abroad.

That was Sunday. In his follow-up column, he gives a brief re-cap of what he'd said:

In that column, I suggested some of those left and centre-left Canadians who stayed at home had been "vote suppressed."

So now, it wasn't Liberal voters being suppressed, instead it was all lefties.

Then, on his website, a commenter posted a question about the legitimacy of attack ads. Here is the exchange:

south america says: July 10, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Warren,
I’m a little confused. Are you saying the criticisms directed at Dion (“not a leader”) and Ignatieff (“left Canada for 30 years and only returned to try and be PM”) are illegitimate?

Reply

Warren says:

Nope. I’m saying they were aimed at motivating non-Libs to stay home – not motivating Cons to vote Con.
My point is that no political party should be doing anything to discourage participation in democracy, in an era when fewer folks are voting.

So on Sunday he was concerned because the Conservatives thwarted democracy by targeting Liberal voters and getting them to stay home. Then on Tuesday he was defending his concern because Conservatives targeted left-leaning voters and manipulated them into staying home. But now, on his website, he's worried that the Conservatives managed to target non-Liberals, who were also apparently not Conservatives --- and persude them to stay home.

In 2006, Dion managed to turn off his own people. Even Warren says it. The fact that even Liberals couldn't bring themselves to vote for him is hardly due to nefarious Conservative tactics. And in 2011, rather than persuading Liberals, left-leaners or anyone else to stay home, SOMEONE managed to persuade a whole bunch of left and centre-left people to vote NDP. Jack Layton performed well. His rise along with Ignatieff's epic failure, created the perfect storm for an NDP surge. Much as Conservatives might like to take credit for the crumbling Liberal fortunes, I'm afraid this one is on the Liberals themselves.

Don't worry Warren, no one who wanted to vote Liberal attained their apathy by virtue of Conservative ads or disappearing polling stations --- their attitude came directly from source.

And yeah, I know y'all say don't indulge Warren, but he's like a mosquito in the dark that keeps buzzing and I'm restless until I swat it. Besides, it's hard to let such falseness and contradiction stand without comment.

canadianna

Kinsella: Liberal voters even stupider than you thought

Imagine a million Liberal voters standing out in this heat, waiting to vote. Poor guys. Turns out it wasn't the Conservative ads that made them stay home from the polls--- Kinsella fired off another column -- it was nasty conservative tricksters placing late-night harassing phone calls from across the border to tell those Liberal voters that their polling stations had changed. I'm guessing they must still be standing at those wrong polling stations if those phone calls affected their ability to cast their ballot.

Warren, your first column suggested you lost because of nasty ads. Now you're saying you lost because of widespread, Conservative sanctioned, criminal activity. Pick one. Stick with it. Or --- face facts: Anyone who didn't bother going to the polls, didn't feel that passionate about ANY party.

I'm not saying voter suppression doesn't happen, but voter apathy is more prevalent and I'm guessing it's pretty prevalent amongst former Liberals who watched dozens of Chretien scandals, a lot of internal party bickering, endured Martin's ensuing scandals and then shook their heads at Dion's utter ineptitude but finally faced with Ignatieff pushing himself into the leadership role, they bailed.

You lost them by the numbers, election after election. Who to blame? Well, maybe the out of touch Liberal strategists. Warren?

You lost. Get over it. Move on.

canadianna

Liberal voters too stupid to think: Warren Kinsella

Kinsella is picking scabs again and we've been warned: when the Liberals lose again in 2015 -- don't blame them -- it'll be the fault of the anti-democratic, mind controlling, subliminal suggesting of Stephen Harper and his pesky Conservative ad campaign. Trust Warren. He knows. He remembers.

Back in 2006, when Conservative ads confirmed what Canadians already knew, that Stephane Dion was NOT a leader --- did you know those Conservative ads suppressed the compelling urge of almost a million Liberal voters to go to the polls? Damn those Conservatives. How dare they point out the obvious and use it as part of their advertising message?

The Liberals of course would never stoop to the level of negative ads. But then again, maybe they didn't have to. Everyone knew that Stephen Harper had a secret agenda, and that a fundamental Christian leader like Stockwell Day must be an idiot, but not because of any ad campaign. While the Conservatives paid real money to put across their ideas to the voters, the Liberals had the media. Kinsella was being interviewed on CTV's morning show when he famously said:

'Mr. Day has said . . . that dinosaurs walked the Earth with humans.' As he produced a Barney the dinosaur plush toy, Kinsella went on . . . 'I just want to say to Mr. Day that the Flintstones were not a documentary -- and the only dinosaur that walked with human beings recently was this one.'

And in 2005 when prominent Liberals were still scrambling to keep Paul Martin on top of the Liberal heap, they started the *Stephen Harper secret agenda* game. All they had to do was say those words and the media (which Kinsella has recently suggested is heavily conservative) picked up the Liberal accusations and sneers and ran with them.

Yes Warren, those two clever strategies should have you in the Spinner's Hall of Fame, but you know what? You can't live on past glory. Well, maybe YOU can because the SUN keeps giving you a voice, but face facts Warren, if the Liberals lose again in 2015, it'll be because people like you have nothing fresh to talk about. Where's your vision? Where are your ideas? So long as your mind is preoccupied, blaming everyone else for your own miserable failures, you'll never be able to kick off the dust and move on.

If Liberal voters choose not to come to the polls, it isn't because the Conservatives have suppressed their voting urge, it's because you Liberals have failed to motivate them.

canadianna

Why is Jack a HOAG?

Jack, he's the mack? So says Warren Kinsella, who has all the answers--- yet again. He knows why all you average guys and gals are in a Layton-lovefest. Turns out, Layton's a cool guy -- in Warren-speak a *HOAG* (helluvaguy) --the kind you'd swig beers with at a tailgate -- because of course, that's what we *average* Canadians are all about.

Funny, I don't see it. Jack is personable enough, but if you ask me, he's the kind of guy who'd have been a geek in high school, not someone you'd want to hang out with if you were cool. Not that geek is a bad thing in my mind. I wasn't cool and I did hang out with the geeks -- but let's not pretend he's a major hockey nut or that you'd find him right down there getting into the UFC stuff that's going on now. Jack Layton is anything but the average Joe. What he is, is an elite who passes. And the only reason he passes is because he is so well versed in the game.

Kinsella attacks Harper again as the angry man. Did any of you see that in this campaign? Seriously -- partisanship aside. Harper seemed innocuous to me. Bland, calm and as Kinsella said, uninspiring -- but hardly "an angry guy who doesn’t like the country, let alone the people who live in it." .... where'd that come from besides Kinsella's obvious bias?

I remember the Harper they called angry. Weren't you angry at the Sponsorship scandal and the Liberal sense of entitlement? Wouldn't you be more angry if the media then focused on your anger than the obvious waste, mismanagement and possible corruption within the sitting government. And then to be consistently accused of the *hidden agenda* fiction .... Defending against lies and innuendo makes most people come off as angry. As for *disliking the country (and) the people who live in it* --Harper has endured so many vicious character assaults from the media he must love his country and want to serve its people if he's able to suck it up and take it the way he has, because unlike Jack, Harper wasn't born to this.

The truth is, that Layton is a huckster-extraordinaire . . . the carnival barker . . . the lifelong politician who knows how to shill and Harper is that *regular guy* -- the guy who gets frustrated with the stupidity of people who will ask the same question three times in order to get the answer they prefer. Aren't you that kind of guy? Aren't you the kind of guy who shakes your head at the dramedy of politics? Wouldn't you find it hard to play that popularity contest game?

Anyway, what gets me is these puffed up Liberals who see us as a nation of donut eaters and beer swillers who'd use the same reasoning to chose our government, as we would to choose our drinking buddies. Way to under estimate your fellow citizens, Warren. Who was it that dislikes the people of this country?

Warren? He's gettin' borin'.

canadianna

Is it over yet?

Here's what I think.

Some Liberal strategist who secretly likes Bob Rae and wants him to be the next Liberal leader/Prime Minister, is working hard on the campaign of Michael Ignatieff.

Everyone knows Bobby and Mike are long-time frenemies. Who do you suppose is gonna pick up the pieces after the Liberal's epic failure? I think I've heard Bob Rae's name once during this campaign. Hmmmmm . . .

Sadly, and though I hate to bring it up, during past campaigns, we've watched the Conservatives fumble in the last week and half before election day -- instead of recalling that, and savouring the possibilities, we've watched Liberals anticipating their own fall. And then, when you watch SUN-TV and hear Warren Kinsella talking as though he's doing a post-mortem on the Liberal campaign, you have to think there's a plan in the works -- a plan for the next election maybe?

The natural governing party of Canada as part of a humble and weak coalition in which a separatist party holds sway? I think not. Liberals are too arrogant. They're throwing the game. They must be.

canadianna

You won't recognize Canada . . .

I think we've heard this song before.

Click the title link and read, as Warren Kinsella pulls out the same worn and tired Liberal red herrings as in 2006. What a shock. I thought hope, not fear, won elections. Who knew?

When the Liberals grasped at straws in 2006, suggesting that a Conservative win would make the sky crash, I wrote this (links to the post -- Activist Judges? Never).

Funny how the Liberals silly bag of tricks never holds anything new. Whether it's their promises, like Universal Child Care or their tactics, like scaring Canada into hating Harper (links to the post -- Defending Stephen Harper) or worse, trying to vilify a whole segment of Canadians for their core values (links to the post -- Expressing my views and advancing my cause) Liberals never seem to get bored with the idea that Canadians are too lazy to think.

Despite Kinsella's regurgitating old canards, Stephen Harper isn't stupid enough to dredge up dead social issues like same-sex marriage or abortion despite his personal beliefs on those issues. I think he and Conservatives believe they're done deals and that Canadians have other priorities. As for the death penalty, if that was in his nefarious plans, why build more jails when you're just gonna kill 'em all? And many rational, centrist Canadians agree with Harper on the long gun registry -- so as scary as going back to the days when farmers and hunters were running amok with unregistered guns, a lot of Canadians are okay if we revisit that.

The only ones scared right now are the Liberals.

Warren, you're starting to sound like a dinosaur.

Canadianna

President of the OPG: Don't believe anything you read

Harper has been warned.

Warren Kinsella writes today about the ongoing feud between the press and Stephen Harper, wherein Harper has limited access and put restrictions on questioning. Kinsella notes that it isn't just The Toronto Star sniping, but guys like Don Martin of the right-leaning National Post who are fed up with Harper's 'disdain' for the press. He quotes Richard Brennan, new president of the Ottawa Press Gallery, as saying:

"There's not a lot we can do, except push back, and that's what he is going to find," said Brennan. "We are pushing back."

Kinsella gives all rounds up to this point to Harper, saying that "the Prime Minister has beaten the national media at every turn. They have been forced to play the game by his rules." But goes on to say:

Sometime soon, the Prime Minister is going to find the news media "pushing back" at a time when he is most vulnerable. Namely, during the election campaign.

Already, it is arguable that this push-back campaign is producing dividends: However much Harper moves to the centre, offering up big-spending policies for latte-sipping urbanites and ruthlessly muzzling the red-necked crazies in his backbench--he gets no credit for it. He and his party remain ahead of the Liberals, marginally, but they are also far from their lusted-after majority. So they lick their wounds, and wonder why.

So, rather than reporting the news fairly and accurately, the president of the Ottawa Press Gallery seems to be advocating that the media selectively report, thereby attempting to shape the opinons of the nation, rather than do what they are supposed to do, inform the nation and allow us to form our own opinions.

This concept is coming from the guy the OPG chose to represent them -- Instead of just sucking it up and giving us the news, he'd rather the press gallery 'push back,' and it would seem as Kinsella notes, they'll use 'omission' as a tactic.

How is it that the head guy believes that OPG's petty grievances are more important than their responsibility to Canadians to tell things as they are? Do they think that they are somehow 'representing' us up there in that rarefied world of Ottawa bars and backrooms -- especially when they decide they're going to play kingmaker if the PMO won't play ball their way?

Is there any wonder why Harper doesn't trust them?

canadianna