RSS Feed

Author Archives: Frank A. Pelaschuk

TRUDEAU, DRUGS & HUMAN RIGHTS

I would rather be the man who bought the Brooklyn Bridge than the man who sold it.– Will Rogers

Frank A. Pelaschuk

With the disappearance and death, likely murder, of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, last seen entering a Saudi embassy in Istanbul October 2, 2018, it would seem the world is finally ready to face Saudi Arabia’s human rights abuses. It is, however, one thing to face the outrages and another to act. Standing in the sidelines blustering and tut-tutting disapproval is totally inadequate. Western democracies must take a stand: either they believe in human rights, including the right to speak out, or they admit that while supporting such rights in principle when possible, they will not do so at any cost, especially when that cost is economic self-interest. In other words, why not just admit what we all know and apparently embrace: human rights is a honey if it doesn’t cost money.

So where does that place Justin Trudeau the touchy-feely, the self-declared (if equivocal) feminist, the world leader who readily and easily cries on cue (especially when there’s a camera to take note), who offers the less than forceful condemnation of the rogue Saudi state? For myself, there is no surprise. I expect less of him because, apart from his hypocritical strutting rodomontade on electoral reform and promises of making human rights a priority, he consistently delivers less. So, it’s hardly surprising when weighing three thousand Canadian jobs and $15 billion invested in the Light-Armoured Vehicle (LAV) trade against suppression of rights, imprisonment, torture and murder of people we don’t know and who whose votes don’t count that human rights takes a back seat. It did under Harper who brokered the deal and continues under Trudeau who utters the banalities to which he is prone, empty words and no action with the added side benefit for him of earning the praise of Neo-liberals for his “pragmatism”. I can think of a more accurate word.

On Friday, October 19, 2018, the Saudis, after weeks of denial and silence, had finally admitted that the journalist had died at their hands with this fantastical offering with changes in the days that followed: Khashoggi, in the embassy for the purpose of picking up documents allowing him to remarry with proof of divorce, got into a fight, the reasons undisclosed, and somehow died. The admission came about within days of a Washington Post story of US intelligence intercepting a Saudi report outlining a plan to kidnap a prominent journalist and the release of videos of “suspected” Saudi “assassins” entering and leaving Turkey within hours of Khashoggi entering the embassy. The admission made, the absence of a body and the image of a respected journalist engaging in fisticuffs stretches all credulity. Even so the Saudis had detained 15 individuals and fired two ministers sealing the admission that the Saudi embassy had indeed, as the world suspected, become an execution chamber perhaps on orders of the youthful prince, Mohammed bin Salman, widely praised as a moderate reformer when he took the reins of power over a year ago and quickly proving himself anything but.

While foreign minister Chrystia Freeland had been mildly critical of Saudi Arabia’s record regarding the treatment of women in the recent past, evoking an over-the-top response by the Saudis, Trudeau’s recent assertions of confronting Saudi Arabia “over many years” for its human rights abuses is patently absurd evoking memories of the Harper regime that shamelessly and routinely resorted to historical rewriting. If Trudeau was outraged, if he has “confronted” the human rights abusing state, he kept it to himself and in the liberal family and he certainly offered little in the way of concrete action that he had done so. In fact, we have evidence of Trudeau in full hypocritical mode and I’m not talking about his ethics which are extremely fluid, but of his behaviour regarding the LAV deal.

Before he became prime minister, Trudeau’s liberals were critical of the Harper regime deal but, once in office, it was he who finalized it responding to critics it had become a done deal under Harper and that his hands were tied. Absolutely untrue. It was Trudeau’s signing off on the deal that allowed for the movement of the Canadian made LAVs to the destination country often through a circuitous route so as to enable him to claim that he did not break Canada’s own guidelines regarding international trade with human rights abusers. While that, too, is utter hogwash, such behaviour is a clear indicator of how willing Trudeau and gang are to practice deception. Trudeau then went on to claim that he had to complete the deal because breaking it would ruin Canada’s reputation as a trusted broker. Again, utter hogwash. The Dutch had no qualms about breaking a contract with the Saudis over human rights abuses and Canada’s Jean Chretien, without even the pretence of anything as noble, had no difficulty breaking a military helicopter contract brokered by Brian Mulroney simply because it had been brokered by Brian Mulroney. Canada seems to have survived the petty and costly debacle and the Netherlands appears to have weathered the storm with its reputation not only intact but possibly enhanced. Of course, there are always penalties when such deals go wrong but the question remains: should progressive democracies trade with human rights abusers? Ignoring our own laws regarding such with flimsy alibis is inexcusable. After signing off on the deal, Trudeau said he would in the future not commit to similar agreements with human rights abusers. With nothing in the horizon and nothing to lose, that was an easy promise.

The LAV deal, which I, and those more knowledgeable, have opposed from the Harper era, cements forever my impression of Trudeau as a fair-weather, self-interested, human rights poseur. He is an actor, he is a liar and a phony, he is untrustworthy.

As of this writing, the entire Canada-Saudi Arabia relationship is under scrutiny according to Chrystia Freeland. That’s nice but it means absolutely nothing. On CBC’s Power and Politics Oct. 22, 18, with the Trudeau regime facing increasingly harsh criticism and demands that the LAV deal be canceled, liberal MP Andrew Leslie stated that the government would not be rushed into making a hasty judgement, that they were in the process of “gathering the facts”! Really? The facts have been known for years. Saudi Arabia persecutes, prosecutes, imprisons, executes and just abuses its citizens. There is nothing more to know now that the Saudis themselves have finally admitted that Jamal Khashoggi was dead and that the Saudi embassy in Istanbul was, in fact, a death chamber for Jamal Khashoggi. With its many variant stories regarding the journalist’s death, nothing is plausible with the Saudi explanations but this: Khashoggi was murdered in a Saudi embassy simply because he was a critic of the prince and the state.

Where is Canada on this?

Well, nowhere.

Why is he so hesitant? Canada has joined the US in passing the Magnitsky Act which, while initially meant to target Russia, allows for sanctions against any human rights abusing nation profiting from corrupt practices. What is there to investigate? Trudeau knows exactly what the world knows. Saudi Arabia is a rogue state.

But, according to Leslie, Trudeau and the liberals need more.

Trudeau’s lasting legacy will not be that of human rights crusader but rather as crusading drug lord. He is the smarmy Snake Oil salesman, a pro-business slut of fluid ethics believing in nothing but the main chance. He has casually turned his back on those voters who believed him on electoral reform for which no one was calling but which he had loudly and grandiosely declared would make 2015 the last first-past-the-post election. He has also lobbied fiercely and intensely to see the passage of his drug bill for which the nation is ill-prepared. This was one promise he would, could, and did keep even though there are, as yet, no reliable means of testing for driving under the influence of marijuana.

That is inexcusable and unconscionable.

Yes, Trudeau is the world’s newest and favourite Drug Czar. Opportunists and users are ecstatic. He could have found a better way to make a greater difference. He ignored critics and signalled trade was more important than human rights. He had the opportunity to possibly save lives but in signing the LAV deal placed lives in jeopardy. Doing the right thing costs at times but human rights around the world would have been all the better for it. Doing the wrong thing also costs. Evidently Trudeau weighed the consequences to him and opted for the cheap victory of the cheap entry into the history books.

People will likely die because of his failure to cancel the LAV deal. They will certainly die because of the Trudeau vanity drug project for which Canada is ill-prepared.

Maybe I’m just too old. It’s bad enough having a one-time two-bit drug dealer as premier of Ontario. I’m just not ready for a prime minister who can now add the title of Drug Czar to his résumé rather than that of Human Rights crusader.

***

But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing.Thomas Paine.

***

They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. —  Benjamin Franklin

Advertisements

NAFTA II: TRUDEAU AND THE CONTINUED ABANDONMENT OF SOVEREIGNTY

The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them. – Karl Marx 

Frank A. Pelaschuk

The hallmark of liars is the belief they are smarter than the mark. They often are; the galling part is their certainty of our stupidity.

For Justin Trudeau, the “new” NAFTA is a win. For local Canadian retailers, already under stress, there is even greater stress as consumers will be able to buy more American goods online before duties kick in. As for farmers, they too seem to have been abandoned forced into accepting a life they do not and did not seek, not just government subsidization, but also a loss of independence and, for most, if not all, a way of life they would not exchange at any price with the further indignation of knowing that for those who would end supply management, their livelihood and their lives are considered a small sacrifice at the behest of the free market, which most likely support and have now fallen victim to. The free market now threatens them with American milk surpluses dumped into Canada and taxpayers compensating farmers. The winners will be the big guns and, in the end, almost certainly have Canadian farmers and consumers as losers.

Trudeau had said more than once, “No deal is better than a bad deal”. He was always glib with the homilies but, when it comes to the crunch, he is more successful in what he says than what he does. It takes practice, I guess, and character of fluid ethics. 

Politically, Trudeau has from the start been deceitful, dishonest and hypocritical; he campaigned with grand promises and loud claims while never offering notice that there were strings attached to some and others he had no intention of honouring because he did not even believe in the things he wanted us to believe he believed though he was convincing in that area, shedding tears on cue and oozing, simply oozing, sincerity. He promised more and better and had little difficulty in walking away from both when they failed to suit his purposes as with the mandate letters to his caucus outlining what he expected from them and their ministries. Foremost among the mandates was his expectation of avoidance of real and perceived conflicts of interests which, almost immediately, Jody Wilson-Raybould, his minister of justice, ignored and he excused off-handedly. No big deal. Except it was. For the next year, he and his ministers attended secret meetings at private fundraising gatherings with the well-heeled movers and shakers who always seem to have the conservatives and liberals in their pockets in matters that really count for them. 

And then, of course, who can forget or even forgive that massive betrayal of his loud, boastful declaration that 2015 was the “last ever” first-past-the-post election. Oh, he put on a good show of self-congratulatory puffery, setting up a committee to look into reform and make recommendations but was immediately outed for stacking the deck which he quickly corrected without apparent shame for attempting to pull a fast one. But it wasn’t long before he set about undermining the newly reorganized committee saying the public was losing interest in Electoral Reform. Naturally, that was a lie. Why should he kill the golden horse on which he rode to majority victory? He would and did not. But he did want a show, a pretend spectacle of offering opportunity for change until proceeding to kill his own creation when he realized the committee he sought to rig would not make the recommendation he sought, the ranked ballot system that would all but guarantee, as has happened since confederation, that the liberals and conservatives would continue to govern for as long as Canada existed. Instead, the committee recommended a form of proportional representation. Trudeau’s liberals (with conservatives cheering him all the way) was having none of that. Why? Because, with PR, every vote counts. In other words, PR forces a fair election with a fair outcome. 

Even with the best will in the world, I cannot help but believe Trudeau lied, absolutely lied to the public when he made that declaration while withholding from voters his preferred and only choice. In other words, with his preference off the table, he had no intention of following through with electoral reform.

Three years later, Trudeau continues to lie with the conclusion of the “new” NAFTA negotiation. He was snookered, trumped by that lunatic to the south and he has the gall to call it a win. What is astounding is that so many seem to be of that view. Any deal, even a bad deal, seems preferable to no deal is the stand he now takes. It is the health of Big Business, evidently, that is of more concern to the Liberals, than the health and well-being of Canada and its citizens. The conservatives cannot be ignored in all this; had they had their way, the bad deal would have been signed months earlier and, without doubt, with a potential for greater harm to Canada and Canadians. 

NAFTA II (USMCA) reinforces the perception that we have already surrendered sovereignty when corporations, under NAFTA could take legal action against a nation it perceives as protectionist and harmful to their bottom line. Under this agreement, there is a clause in Chapter 32, Article 32.10A inserted by the Americas which basically takes another swipe at sovereignty. None of the three signatories will be allowed to engage in independent trade negotiations with China without first notifying the other two and allowing them to review the agreement for month before the deal is signed. If the other parties don’t like the deal, they can withdraw from NAFTA II within six months. If that is not surrender of sovereignty, what is? Defenders of the deal say other signatories had the same option to withdraw under NAFTA. That is true but not quite under conditions like this. For the past two or three years, Canada and China have been exploring trade talks. With USMCA, Canada and Mexico will be dragged into an American, Trump-instigated trade war with China. China cannot help but look unfavourably on this clause and wonder whether Canada, as a signatory to the deal, can really be trusted in future talks, if they ever take place, when under the subjugation of the American boot on its neck. It’s a surrender of sovereignty and nothing but. Pharmaceutical companies, especially American, will do very well When you hear conservative politicians largely praise the deal notwithstanding the required partisan political shots at the liberals, you know what you’ve probably always known: When it comes to the interests and welfare of ordinary Canadians, Conservatives and Liberals will always number the health of Big Business their first priority. And Canadians will feel the affects of that priority for real when they feel the blow of prescription costs going up.

Yeah, it’s a great deal. Unless you’re an ordinary, hard working Canadian farmer, a local retailer and its employee.  

***

But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. – Thomas Paine.

***

They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.  Benjamin Franklin

THE NDP AND JAGMEET SINGH: THE PARTY THAT FAILED ME

A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself. — Livy

Since a politician never believes what he says, he is always astonished when other do. – Charles de Gaulle

Frank A. Pelaschuk

I have been a lifelong supporter of the NDP. Take my word for it, that’s a lot of years as a voter, sometime paid member, occasional volunteer worker, and donor. There have been times that I have wavered, unhappy with the direction of the party as when Ed Broadbent refused to step up with the majority of Canadians in opposition to free trade during the 1988 election. Even so, the NDP gained the most seats in its history up to that moment and the Conservatives, who favoured free trade, won notwithstanding the declared voter antipathy to “free” trade. I liked Broadbent as did many Canadians but as an individual rather than a leader. I believed him, and still do, decent, well-meaning but too middle of the road, definitely no Tommy Douglas.

But Broadbent seemed part of a trend as exemplified by British Columbia’s Mike Harcourt who had become provincial leader of the NDP in 1986 and Premier in 1991. It was Harcourt’s appearance on, I believe, CBC’s Crosscountry Checkup, that convinced me the NDP was heading in a direction that may have begun with Ontario’s Bob Rae in the early 70s that I found difficult to reconcile. When asked by the host if he was a “democratic socialist”, Harcourt offered the telling response, “I’m a democrat.” When the host repeat the question, he offered the same response. I found it shocking that a leader of a party based on democratic socialist principles, my party, would, publicly and on air, refuse to acknowledge the party’s socialist roots. Enraged, I immediately wrote him a letter and mailed it to NDP headquarters. A few weeks later, I received a phone call. It was Harcourt wanting to address my concerns. We spoke for close to thirty minutes and my remembrance of the conversation is that it was pleasant but unsatisfactory. I was surprised and pleased that he had taken time from his schedule to respond but I was dismayed that my party leader (I was a member then) would disavow his “socialist” roots. I don’t mean to suggest I believe Broadbent is of the same stripe, nor was he then; if asked the same question, he would have answered. But, unless called to, I suspect he and the party preferred not to draw attention the the “socialist” aspect. I realize now, that, as with Ujjal Dosangh and Bob Rae, the “roots”, if existent, were certainly not deep.

The Harcourt appearance on CBC not only exposed my naïveté, it also woke me up somewhat. The ground had shifted. It wasn’t belief, principles, ideas or ideals that really mattered to some; it was all about the main chance: What’s in it for me.

The idea of the NDP as the “conscience” of the nation had gone by the wayside; the party and its inner circle were, it seemed and still seems to me, less interested in seeing implemented the goals so long hungered for and fought for by grassroots members than snatching victory by compromise and capitulation as Mulcair sought to do in the last election when the NDP, incredulous at its good fortune, truly began to believe victory was within its grasp; for the jaded stalwarts there was hope and excitement, yes, but also wariness, they’ve been down this road before and were used at most to occasionally holding the balance of power in minority governments which allowed opportunity for a real way of leveraging a path towards accomplishing some of their important goals; it was better than nothing. But if satisfying, perhaps not satisfying enough.

It was a long, gradual road of decline, I guess: too many losses, weak leaders, weak platforms. And then Jack. Jack. Jack.

Oh, what might have been! What if…what if…

But Layton, decent, vigorous, dogged… and middle of the road… was gone and there was Mulcair and there was the NDP doing so well, thanks to Layton’s legacy, and all but certain fall of the Harper conservatives. And then, and then…god no! A bolt of lightening, the clap of thunder and THE HANDSOME PRINCE.

Even so, there was a real shot of winning. Better programs, better ideas, better…well, okay, the NDP had no HANDSOME PRINCE but a solid performer in the House and a good grasp of his politics in Mulcair…god it smelled so good, you could almost taste it, feel it…victory! So tantalizing, so alluring, so insidious and corruptive. Mulcair knew it was his for the taking that brass ring, it was just there, just so, so close. He and his handlers wanted it to happen, wanted to ensure it would happen so they came up with a plan: Just promise Canadians what they claim is one of the most important items they want from government. Easy! So he and party did, not only veering right and ceding to the liberals what was generally considered NDP territory, he resoundingly snatched defeat from the jaws of an all but certain victory by promising balanced budgets during a slumping economy. Trudeau, sitting on god’s lap, shrewdly and ecstatically, seized the opportunity to declare he would run deficits to help Canadians recover from the depredations of the Harper regime. For me, the Mulcair declaration was stunning; for the NDP, that capitulation would prove mind-numbingly catastrophic.

Still, even then, I saw hopes of an NDP recovery because, while willing to give Trudeau a chance, I really did not believe he would go through with the electoral reform and many other of his grandiose promises uttered in the manner of a smug brat crossing his arms and puffing out his chest declaring: Look at me! Aren’t I the clever boy?

It wouldn’t take long, I believed, for disillusioned soft liberals and new democrats who bought the split vote nonsense to realize the errors of their ways and return to their usual state of torpor. When he proved himself willing to flaunt conflict of interests regulations time and time again I figured that was it, Trudeau would be toast. How much of the venal, opportunistic, cynical, and cloying phony would Canadians endure?

A lot, evidently.

The NDP fall has been swift and graceless. Mulcair was unceremoniously dumped as leader and replaced by Trudeau-lite Jagmeet Singh. I don’t like the real phony and had no issue with the facsimile except for the fact he was a facsimile. Is this what the NDP had fallen to, pinning hopes on the schmoozing Trudeau bandwagon of youth, looks and apparent charisma oozing, simply oozing charm of cloying sincerity proving himself a feminist, human rights, man-of-the-people of every colour, stripe, need, want, and self-identifying label crusader? Since I don’t buy the Trudeau brand of phony, feel-good hypocrisy why should I Singh’s? But, okay, give the man a chance, he deserves that at least.

Was the NDP membership seeking to offer in a turban-wearing Sikh proof of it’s progressiveness? Good, go with that. But what I also want is a leader who is effective, honest, and non-equivocal and loaded with ideas more than I want the charm à la Trudeau. Well, I haven’t heard much from Singh regarding ideas, programs, his stand on poverty, healthcare, pharmacare, education, homelessness, seniors, veterans. Hell, he is not even an elected member of parliament. If he hadn’t made headlines for reasons that cause me to really doubt the NDP choice to lead the party let alone the country, the NDP and Singh would be all but invisible.

Of particular concern to me are two issues. The first of these was a result of his appearance for an interview on CBC’s Power & Politics by Terry Milewski acting as guest host. When asked, four times, “Is it acceptable for Talwinder Singh Parmar to be held up as a martyr and have posters of him displayed in a positive manner?” (CBC, Power & Politics, Dec. 6, 2017) Singh refused to answer the question except in the vaguest of terms. The astonishing thing that came from this, apart from his non answer, was the blowback from the politically correct for Milewski with suggestions he was a racist. To the PCs, it was immaterial that Singh could not and would not respond to the question, Milewski was a racist. Then the Globe and Mail (March 13, 2018) reported that Singh had attended a San Francisco rally honouring Sikh separatist Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale who, depending on which side of the line one stands, is or is not, a terrorist. Singh did not answer questions from the Globe and Mail regarding why he attended. Vague answers to direct questions, poor judgement in whom he supports: these are not hallmarks of a leader let alone a merely adequate leader.

When I saw that interview with Milewski, I fired off an email to Singh making plain my unhappiness with his failure to respond to a fair question.

No response from Singh or the NDP.

The other episode which deeply troubles me is Jagmeet Singh’s mishandling, and that’s what it is, of the allegations of harassment of staffers laid against NDP MP Erin Weir by a third party, fellow MP Christine Moore. What the actual accusations are remain unclear but Weir was immediately suspended from caucus and a third-party investigation by University of Ottawa law professor Michelle Flaherty. Weir apparently welcomed the investigations but denied the allegations claiming them “trumped up” because of his stand in 2016 regarding carbon pricing. Until Weir spoke, there were signs he would be welcomed back to the fold but that changed. Weir was no longer suspended but expelled. Said Singh following those comments, and this may provide a hint of the real reason for his expulsion:“Yesterday, he challenged the findings of the investigation and attacked a person who came forward with the complaint. He also revealed details that could identify the complainant. So for that reason, I cannot be confident in his ability to be rehabilitated (Global News, May 3, 2018).”

Weir was booted from caucus found to have failed to pick up on “social cues”. He accepts that may have happened. While the investigation found evidence of one count of harassment and three of sexual harassment based on hearsay and, from some accounts, misunderstandings, none seem to suggest sexual harassment the way I see it: sexual overtures, groping, touching, suggestive gestures and the like; Weir is a big man and evidently intimidating in appearance. He admits to being socially awkward and did apologize to those he may have discomfited. He agreed to attend remedial treatment with the understanding he would be allowed to return to caucus. He did and from reports, his trainer cleared him saying Weir “gets it”. If there is evidence of inappropriate behaviour, not just “heated” arguments over NDP policy, they must be made public. What is indecent is the public lynching of a man for unspecified crimes open to broad interpretations by anonymous accusers working through a third party. Weir deserves better and Singh and the NDP should have done better beginning with a formal complaint.

Since his expulsion, Weir has sought to be reinstated in the NDP caucus only to be informed by Jagmeet Singh on Sept. 6, 2018 that that would not happen. Not only was there no fair hearing or procedure applied, evidently there is no redemption as far as Singh and the NDP is concerned.

So what is really going on? What was hinted at in Singh’s comments above, seems to be fully developed by Sheila Malcolmson, NDP Women’s Equality Critic, in an appearance on CBC’s Power & Politics on the same day Weir’s expulsion was made final. On the program, she says that Weir, in originally speaking out against the expulsion May 1st, shortly after the allegations became public, had said “some outrageous things about our caucus leaders and the complainants”. In doing so he had sealed his own fate. In other words, you don’t criticize the leadership of the party (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jagmeet-singh-ndp-erin-weir-1.4812955). And that’s what likely did Weir in.

Over the span of this sordid affair, I have written to Singh and the NDP voicing my concern over the lack of due process accorded Erin Weir. There wasn’t even a formal complaint put forth! I have received no response. That seems to be the standard with the NDP these days.

Christine Moore, the third party who had brought all this about, was herself faced with a sexual harassment allegation by ex-soldier Glen Kirkland who met Moore when testifying at hearing in which she was a member. She was suspended, cleared, though admitting to a sexual encounter. Different outcome. The records are sealed. The finding was the encounter was consensual. That’s good for Moore. But what of Weir who was cleared as “getting it” and, as far as is known, only crime seems to have been of being a big man standing too close to people who may have felt uncomfortable. That’s no justification for the public character assassination and lynching that took place.

I make no claim to knowing the whole story, but I know this: I am very unhappy with the way Jagmeet Singh handled this. If there is more to it, make it public. If not, for decency’s sake, bring an end to Weir’s misery. What I don’t understand is this: After all that Singh, Moore, the NDP leadership has put him through, why would Weir wish to rejoin the NDP? To me, the leadership seem to live by a double standard that is hypocritical and unworthy of a party that I have long supported.

Singh has not only succumbed to the allure of political correctness; he and the party have followed a grossly unfair process in handling sexual harassment claims. Weir may be socially awkward. He may have made mistakes. He admitted to them. He may even be guilty of terrible things. But we don’t know. There is a veil of secrecy that serves neither the NDP, the accusers and certainly not Weir. My knowledge of him is that he has been a decent, hardworking member of the party since he was thirteen years of age. His appearances on TV suggest a young, intelligent, sincere, and earnest individual. The fact that a letter signed by 68 NDP members demanding he be reinstated surely must indicate something of his character and the NDP process they believe flawed.

If that letter receives the same response as mine have over the last nine months, the signatories can expect zero response. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

As long as Singh, Sheila Malcolmson and all the others behind the public lynching of Erin Weir remain, I am through with the NDP.

The party has lost its way. In fact, I feel that no party or politician speaks to me or for me; the conservatives are just mean and the liberals, well, they are just like everyone else I guess, out for the main chance. I am saddened that my party is losing money and that next election at least seven MPs will not run including, David Christopherson, Helené Laverdière, Roméo Saganash, Linday Duncan, and Irene Mathyssen. Is it all on Singh? I think not. Party strategists must be held accountable. One has to wonder about a leader who removes party stalwart David Christopherson for voting against Trudeau’s initiative requiring those applying for funding for Canada Summer Jobs program to disavow their opposition to abortion on religious grounds. Christopherson, a pro-choice proponent, clearly believes one should not be punished on matters of conscience. Phony, feel-good politically correct push-button issues may be for Trudeau and Trudeau-lite but what about integrity, respecting those who actually understand what it means to stand on principle?

The next time a politician or a party asks for your input or ideas, see what happens when you take them up on it. It’s not ideas or input they want. What they want is your gullibility, your vote and your dollars.

Well, those days of giving are over for me. I am tired of being conned, lied to, and treated as a sucker by all parties. I am not surprised that liberals and conservatives treat voters that way; I am that the NDP has joined them.

I am not leaving the party; the party has abandoned me. I am not fearful of the word “socialism” as in “democratic socialism”. Cowards and snobs turn their backs on their roots. And I am not shamed by the thought of a party with a conscience, that believes in decency. Under Singh and today’s NDP leadership, even fairness has taken a beating. That’s just not right.

***

But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. – Thomas Paine.

***

They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. — Benjamin Franklin

DOUG FORD & DONALD TRUMP: TRUTH TAKES A BEATING

True genius resides in the capacity for evaluation of uncertain, hazardous, and conflicting information. – Winston Churchill

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. – Thomas Cooper

Frank A. Pelaschuk

What is truth?
We cannot ask our leaders because too many are strangers to truth. We hear America’s president Donald Trump and Ontario’s Doug Ford and their gang members talk constantly of “fake” news both refusing to answer questions they don’t like or from reporters they consider unsympathetic or, as does Trump, as “enemies of the American people”, i.e., Trump himself. Some, as had Ford, steal pages from others, making a show of media scrums with staff members in attendance solely for the purpose of loudly drowning out questions posed by members of the press and/or to show support for the new premier at taxpayer expense.
Theirs is the method of tyrants, bullies and liars who fear scrutiny and reject the notion of an open society and the public’s right to know for they are aware that with an open society comes the onus of responsibility and care in how one acts and what one says. For such as these, this kind of responsibility is restrictive and intolerable because it naturally lends to scrutiny and scepticism often in the form of pointed questions demanding honest responses. From most of our leaders, we seldom get that and, from some, Trump and Ford, almost never. A truly free society must, perforce, include and support a truly free press, a press free to ask questions without risk of intimidation, threat and reprisal notions that are anathema to the despotically inclined. Even so, even for Trump and Ford, shutting down the media is not an option while ignoring it too obvious: What is there to fear tenuous supporters may ask. More acceptable, even to those very supporters to whom Ford panders and whose tax dollars he says he wants to save and likely with a prayer of thanks to Stephen Harper, is the creation of his own taxpayer funded propaganda machine on the government website. That way he not only responds to soft questions from “fake” party hack “journalists” (conservative staffers) with his own version of the “facts”, he can also offer the constant iteration of how the mainstream media have it “in” for him and his supporters. You see, one constant in the mostly conservative war against the press is this: For Trump, Ford and all their kind, they are always victims of a vast conspiracy; anyone challenging or questioning them is out to “get” them and “those” folks out to get them are usually members of the “liberal establishment elites”.
For Ford and Trump and all their kind, there is no truth, no fact, but the truth and fact of what propels their agenda, their goals, their party and personal ambitions. Nothing more forcefully demonstrates this than the comments made by two members of Donald Trump’s inner circle. In January 2017, Counselor to the President, Kellyanne Conway, during an interview on Meet the Press, infamously defended Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s vastly inflated estimate of the crowd size during Trump’s inauguration saying Spicer “gave alternative facts…”! Not to be outdone, Rudolph Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer, appearing on the same show 20 months later, claimed that “Truth isn’t truth” a reaffirmation of the hidebound denialism of those who refuse to be open to anything but their own version of a gong show reality. For them, truth is a crap shoot, it is immaterial, a hindrance and unacceptable when it conflicts with their mythology. Even with the best will in the world, they cannot be offered the benefit of the doubt of having misspoke. There is no doubt. They may be vile but they are not necessarily stupid people; there is no misspeaking: they deliberately lie seeking to drag us into their Alice-in-Wonderland worldview, a world that many of their supporters apparently willingly inhabit of blind, unquestioning adherence to a belief or philosophy and/or, more likely, “a gut feeling”, that all things that do not conform to what they want to believe, to hear and to have confirmed, are suspect, wrong and not to be trusted. For me, it is difficult to declare for whom I hold the most contempt…those tin-pot despots eager to exploit and manipulate or those who gladly soak it in with minds in neutral and eyes glazed. For petty autocrats, such supporters are a bonanza for any claims of “fake news” are fodder to them who often seem prone to conspiracy theories (the American government was behind 9/11; Obama is not an American; the earth is flat and our governments don’t want us to know). These folk, who likely haven’t read a complete newspaper article in years let alone a newspaper, often appear to receive, and pass on, their information from Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter sources written by unknown, unreliable and dishonest attention seeking noisemakers with solid assurances that “this is real”.
In a way, sadly, it is, even if a really stupid way to inform oneself; theirs is a world lived online wherein only that with which they find agreeable is acceptable. Politicians of the ilk of Ford love this for these are the kind of people they hope to reach; it’s about winning and what better way to do so than playing on ignorance and manipulating the fears and baser instincts as did Kellie Leitch and Chris Alexander during the last election campaign and as Maxime Bernier, one-time leadership candidate for the Conservative party and loser to Andrew Scheer does today. While not all Conservatives are mean, the gang under Stephen Harper, many of whom still hold office under Scheer, are a nasty lot, Bernier particularly so because, beneath his impeccably manicured facade, there resides a foul cretin loudly and proudly broadcasting the depths to which he will sink in the form of bigotry that so many Conservative supporters find so appealing.
For Conservative supporters, however, not even the pretence of ambition can be offered as an excuse for vile attitudes; all they have is self-pity and the need to blame: nothing is their fault. For them, and always with encouragement from those willing to use them, there is the inchoate feelings of uneasiness, suspicion and anger: the world is a fearful, dangerous place and they are hapless victims, pawns of others: Big Government, Big Business, Big Unions; the list is endless; they are being dragged and held down by immutable forces they cannot and never had the ability to fight against. They are scared and told they are right to be frightened. They feel themselves losing and feel they are losers and are told they are losing and are losers. They long for something, anything, that will give their lives a sense of purpose and of fulfillment; they want change but feel helpless and floundering in their daily struggle because all they know is they want change, more and better but change from what and to what they are mostly unable to articulate. Ask any supporter of Trump or Doug Ford and their ilk what it is they want change from. Chances are, they cannot. They want easy fixes in the way of easy answers and grand promises. They want assurances they are, indeed, victims, that they deserve better, and that there is a fix.
And if you were to ask them why they believe the mainstream media is “fake”, they again will likely fail the test because the probability is they feed off bloggers with an agenda (mischief, political, who really knows?), from Facebook, Instagram and Twitter as noted above or from those Snake-Oil political salesmen slithering into their lives with the cure-all elixir for all the fears and ills of their lives; perhaps Ford’s “a-buck-a-beer” is the answer; they may need it when the costs of his cuts begin to add up.
Curiously, even as they proclaim distrust of politicians, they still insist on lapping up the same vague promises and poisonous nonsense by those very same people who have lied to them time and again.
But why? Certainly it is not because they seek honest men and women. If so, most in office having proven themselves liars would have been gone long ago. They certainly don’t want truthful people because, again, most of our elected folk would be long gone. Politicians are fond of saying, “Voters know best”. That’s what they like to say for public consumption. They also know better. Voters often make no effort to examine or understand party platforms. Doug Ford offered no detailed platform as he campaigned; even so, he won with a majority. Ontario voters simply did not care; they wanted change and opted for someone who offered nothing rather than the NDP party that did. They did not need to reflect on that they heard, read or saw because they wanted nothing to reflect on. These were not intelligent voters. And that, too, elated conservatives.
It could be that voters are simply too lazy, too willing to let others do their thinking for them, to let others tell them what they want and what they need. Maybe they love playing the role of mothered baby: yes, you are a victim, yes, the world is out to get you, yes, you need me to care for you, to love you, to save you money. Voters must accept responsibility but that requires effort to understand the political issues that affect their lives and be able to differentiate between want and need. Everyone wants to be well off but we all need good health. We must set our priorities and among them is to determine fact from fancy; it is not enough to embrace only that with which we agree but embrace instead that which works towards our interests and which includes the interests and welfare of others. We are, for better or worse, members of one community; tribalism as practiced by too many of our politicians leads to insularity and exclusion; it damages and fractures and encourages anger, blame and suspicion. How can we trust any politician who appeals to the worst in us and who states he knows all the answers while refusing to acknowledge let alone even listen to the voices of others? We cannot. There is nothing wrong with ambition or having goals; there is with using any method, fair or foul, to achieve those aims. Demonizing the media as a fraternity of “lickspittle elites” by which is meant, and in which is included, not only journalists but also educators, jurists, scientists, artists, business folk and, yes, even politicians who happen to disagree with them, is diversionary, divisive and destructive. How can knowledge be the enemy of anyone let alone a nation?
Truth has nothing to do with the revision of history or the denial of another’s humanity. Too many Conservatives do not seem to understand that. Nor is truth achieved by undoing the works of another simply because that work was done by that other. Trump, Ford and ilk of their kind are anti-truth simply because truth will not serve their purpose. They are despoilers and haters and serve no one but themselves and their friends. They are anti-democratic rigging the game as Harper sought to do with his so-called Fair Elections Act and as Ford seeks to do with his gerrymandering interference of the Toronto municipal election just months away.
What is truth? Rudolph Giuliani has it wrong; there is no My Truth or Your Truth. There is only Truth. What purpose does it serve in your daily life? Do you care? You should. Information from any source, particularly political, should not be swallowed holus-bolus. It must be studied carefully, evaluated with even greater care and then mulled over some more. Truth is not always easy, it may offend you because it is not what you want to hear. But if, in reasoning, you embrace it as true even as every fibre in your being may scream in opposition, it just may be. Our politicians will never be the answer; knowledge is.

***

But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. – Thomas Paine

They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. — Benjamin Franklin

FORD, SCHEER AND CONSERVATIVES: NUT BARS OR FRUIT CAKES?

There is a limit to the success of conservative populism and the exploitation of “little guy” or “silent majority” rhetoric, and it is very often reached because of the emaciated, corrupted personalities of the demagogues themselves. – Christopher Hitchens

Populism is folkish, patriotism is not. One can be a patriot and a cosmopolitan. But a populist is inevitably a nationalist of sorts. Patriotism, too, is less racist than is populism. A patriot will not exclude a person of another nationality from the community where they have lived side by side and whom he has known for many years, but a populist will always remain suspicious of someone who does not seem to belong to his tribe. – John Lukas

Frank A. Pelaschuk

Doug Ford and his shrill sidekick, Lisa Macleod, in fact, the whole gang of Ontario MPP neanderthals and their federal and provincial counterparts, seem to be following the path loved by certain types of politicos of the day: parochial, dishonest, mean-spirited, ignorant, craven, self-serving, hypocritical, abusive, lying, media-hating, science-denying, thought-aversive, punitive, vindictive, petty, dogmatic, autocratic, and fossilized.
Ideas, if they have any, are so immured in locked minds that not a hint of light is discernible as if a requirement that not a ray be allowed to penetrate — ever. They swept into office and immediately set to work dismantling every liberal piece of legislation put in place by the Kathleen Wynne government; it doesn’t matter if the ideas were good, bad or indifferent, they took office in the way of thugs swinging metal bars and bats bent on the destruction of anything they don’t like, don’t understand and don’t support. Doug and his gang don’t like much, understand even less and support only that which plays to the worst instincts held by their supporters: that they are victims of Big Government and Liberal elites; that asylum-seekers are not only to be feared but receive preferential treatment over “legitimate” border crossers and Canadian-born citizens; that those on low income deserve even less and should get off their butts. They whine, really whine, about the decline of our infrastructures: failing roads and overpasses; the state of our education; and they whine, really whine about the shortage of doctors, hospital closures, the interminable wait times in emergency rooms while whining, screaming, that taxes are too, too, TOO, high. The Progressive (now talk about misnomers!) Conservatives have made an art out of playing on stupidity and fear encouraging the concept of victimhood and finger-pointing: it’s not them, it’s them. So they target opponents as liberals and socialistic elites but, if pressed as to what they mean by either, will often prove themselves ignorant on both or offer the usual bromides: soft on crime, tax-and-spend, pro-refugee, anti-life baby-killers. Everyone apparently needs his or her bogeyman. For Ford supporters, indeed for conservatives across the country it appears, the bogeyman is often new or reworked ideas progressives call progressive and conservatives find suspect, frightening, and foreign: too much emphasis on feminism and gender equality; too much tolerance of niqab-, turban-wearing newcomers; climate change isn’t proven; those on welfare are bums. And what about that Middle Eastern family next door who recently moved into the neighbourhood. Are they legal? Are they economic refugees? Are they asylum seekers? How do we know they’re not terrorists? Why don’t they dress like Canadians? Why are we allowing so many into our country? Grab the cell phone and record their movements. It’s that damn Trudeau’s fault; he just threw open the doors to anyone especially those Muslims.
Racism has always played a role in Canada, a fact we consistently ignore and too often deny, but the increasing tide of hostility towards newcomers appears to be the legacy of Stephen Harper’s last campaign (remember Kellie Leitch and Chris Alexander and the Snitch Line) and with the rise of populists as reflected by Trump and Trump-lite Ford fanning the flames of suspicion and intolerance with unproven claims of crisis at the border to Liberal assurances that that is not the case. Fomenting fear is an unproductive distraction; it does nothing to solve the problem of refugee claimants if there is a problem. The Trudeau liberals certainly could have done a better job regarding refugees but making life more difficult for those already having a hard go of it is not a solution and is unworthy of a nation that often boasts of being one of the most welcoming and tolerant on earth. Recent polls suggest that is no longer true if it ever was. Behaviour by politicians exploiting and exacerbating reasonable concerns regarding asylum seekers along with recent videos of fearful, bigoted Canadians harassing identifiable minorities should be enough to safely put that myth of smug moral superiority to rest once-and-for-all.
As is often the way of small, mean people with an even smaller vision, provincial conservatives, Scott Moe, Brian Pallister and Doug Ford, as do their federal counterparts, almost always believe it necessary to point fingers and blame others whether merited or not for any failures in society especially if those blamed are liberals just booted from office. So, for them, as with Trump, the media, perceived by conservatives as a cabal of liberal elites, becomes the target because one thing liars and sewer rats detest is light of any kind: facts are often a hindrance to their worldview therefore unwanted and unnecessary to the cause. For them, as with all of a despotic nature, an informed, educated populace is a dangerous populace; best keep the ignorant ignorant; so, to that end, stoke the flames of fear, warn citizens against the invasion of asylum seekers and economic refugees and the extreme likelihood of terrorists slipping into the country; tell them at every opportunity they’ve been lied to by a press made up of elites passing on FAKE NEWS not wanting you to know that the government is corrupt, is out to take away your rights, and is stealing all your hard earned money to help those foreigners get into the country, get more than you, and take your jobs: in short, you are the victim of a vast conspiracy of bleeding heart liberal-socialists. Of course, the ignorant lap it up for it confirms what they have always known but never been able to articulate: thank God for Trump and Fox News in the US and for Scheer and Ford and Rempel and Macleod and The Rebel Media at home who aren’t afraid to tell it like it is or, at least, tell us what we want to hear regardless of how crazy. And crazy it is.
Conservative supporters are much like the smokers of my day who refused to except the thousand science studies proving cigarettes cause cancer preferring instead to embrace, gasping for breath all the while, the single tobacco-sponsored study refuting all such claims: cigarettes are safe. Today, it’s Climate Change; it’s not happening, even if it is, it’s not man-made and any government intervention is nothing more than a TAX GRAB. It’s twisted, but that’s how ideologues win support: facts are unimportant; just give folks what they want to hear: You’re not the problem; you’re a victim.
For Ford, as with his federal counterpart, Stephen Harper, now longer in office and making mischief elsewhere, it is not enough to twist, ignore and/or make up facts, it is not enough to demonize journalists and the press, it is far better to muzzle it and what better way to suppress the media than to use taxpayer dollars to create your own propaganda organ and call it “Ontario News Now”. Now you can not only get true fake news with fake “journalists”, you can get it 24/7. And guess whose paying for it, Sucker. The very person whose money Ford says he wants to save.
Yeah, he wants to save your money. So he cancels Kathleen Wynne’s carbon program and allocates $30 million to fight the federal government on the imposition of a tax on provinces that do not come up with a carbon price program of their own. Ontario and the other provinces will likely lose the case but they don’t care because their real concern is demonstrating to their supporters that they are fighting on their behalf with a federal government of elites out to screw them. Conservative supporters will lap it up, run to the Ontario government website and click on Ontario News Now for the “real” truth and walk away deeply content in having once again confirmed what they already know: conservatives are the only ones capable of telling the truth and the truth is they are victims of an insidious liberal government conspiracy. But you will never hear that from the liberal media.
Kathleen Wynne, the wicked witch may be gone but everything she and her government have put in place has not only been bad, it has been DISASTROUS. Now that’s bad.
So, if Wynne’s carbon plan, as well as Trudeau’s, was disastrous, terrible, bordering on CALAMITOUS, what else has she put in place that could be as bad, maybe even worse?
Perhaps the basic income pilot project that was to be tested over three years. Now that’s pretty bad because, well, not to be too churlish about it or to make too fine a point, it’s a program that’s reaching into my wallet, taking my hard earned dollars, to help a bunch of poor, low income people whom I don’t know and could care less about. Why? I’m not responsible for their miserable lives. And the Ontario conservatives agree with me. Hell, they even broke their campaign promise to see the program to the end and are cutting a planned three per cent increase to social assistance by half. Why? Because, Lisa Macleod says, it’s a “disincentive” to work.
The program started near the end of last year. Yet less than a year into the three year test period, certainly not enough time to make an informed decision as to its effectiveness, but enough time to attack the poor and desperate simply because conservatives have a propensity to meanness and for categorizing the poor as shiftless or not trying hard enough, it’s been cut. The program involved 4000 low income people in various Ontario communities; it was one of the largest test projects of its kind eliciting world wide interest. It didn’t and doesn’t matter to Ford and gang. Singles received up to $16, 989 a year while couples received $24,027. If they had a job, the government would clawback 50% of every dollar earned. Did the project work? Lisa Macleod claimed it was failing recipients from becoming “independent contributors to the economy”. How could she make that determination when the project was axed before it became fully functional? One thing is certain: Ford and gang where not interested in knowing if the program worked. It was gone as far as they are concerned. What was at play here was just pure partisan political malice directed against a liberal Wynne government program with only the very poor taking the bullet.
This was not just the act of an unkind group of people; it was the act of nasty people.
I have in my long life met many conservatives with whom I have had disagreements but who were and are kind and generous and open to ideas and truth. Sadly, in my opinion, they are too few. Too many are like Trump and his followers and like Maxime Bernier, Kellie Leitch, Michelle Rempel, Pierre Poilievre, Stephen Harper, Doug Ford, Lisa Macleod and their supporters. They are too shrill, too angry, too invested in their own interests and peeves to be concerned in yours or mine. Harper was a petty individual with a despot’s heart. Ford and thugs are the same.
In a few weeks time, municipal elections are to take place. Last week, just hours before cutoff time for candidates to put their name forward, Ford, unilaterally, in a truly anti-democratic and vindictive move, went after Toronto and the incumbent mayor declaring he would cut the number of council members to half its size. There was no consultation.
It was a petty act by a petty man wrapped in a big body with a pea brain.
The world is harsh enough for far too many with little to no resources. No one, least of all these, need the added burden of cruel, spiteful, selfish, tight-fisted political mercenaries targeting them. What Ford and gang are doing is not fiscally responsible, not being tough on waste, and certainly doing nothing to solve very serious problems. It’s just a cruel slapdash way of governance that allows the petty and mean to crow about acting and then clapping their hands dismissively as they ignore the pain and bewilderment of the poor and disadvantaged disposed as easily as one does trash.
Truth is not a plaything. Truth may be played with, it may be used and abused and deployed for unholy and selfish ends by the unscrupulous and vile. Truth is a light towards justice. If we want both, it is up to us to be vigilant and protective of both. We must not blindly accept anyone’s truth as gospel nor should we be foolishly closed to any truth or idea because it is not ours. An open mind is called for. When presented a story, a fact, it is best to study what we hear, see and feel before we embrace it wholly. Denying what we don’t like doesn’t make something any less true than embracing what we like makes it more true.
I am no more a fan of Trudeau than I was of Harper or Scheer. He is dishonest and untrustworthy and I believe his feminism a prop and his public displays of empathy fulsome and too full of self-regard…is the public taking notice? Nor was I a fan of Wynne’s governance though I did like her personally. The Ontario liberals were incompetent and too many of their actions suggested not all members were as honest as I would have liked. But I never thought of Wynne as mean or vindictive or full of herself.
I cannot say the same of Ford, Macleod, and the rest in his gang. They are not people I trust. When he ran for office, Ford offered no platform, gave no information. He would cut taxes but not tell us how or what would be sacrificed. In office, he has dismantled programs and legislation for no other reason than Wynne’s liberals were behind them. He has even cut the Wynne school sex education program reverting to one from twenty years ago and which educators say is outdated. Going back and erasing the work of the previous government is not a plan nor governance when nothing is offered to replace what has been destroyed. Ford’s is the thinking of those behind the government Phoenix payroll debacle. Get rid of the old; we’ll worry about the new later. We can see where he may be heading. If you are poor, alone, in need of assistance, God help you. Ford and his kind will not.

***

But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. – Thomas Paine.

They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. — Benjamin Franklin

LOVE ME, LOVE ME, LOVE ME, I’M A LIBERAL: Trudeau Gropes With Hypocrisy

Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing wonder and awe — the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. — Immanuel Kant

Sure, once I was young and impulsive; I wore every conceivable pin,
Even went to Socialist meetings, learned all the old Union hymns.
Ah, but I’ve grown older and wiser, and that’s why I’m turning you in.
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal. — Phil Ochs

Frank A. Pelaschuk

He ran full of boastful swagger and showy humility declaring his would be a different and better government, not only cleaner and with set of self-imposed ethical mandates but also truly representative with a gender-balanced cabinet with women playing significant roles. He was a feminist, you see, and wasn’t shy of reminding us — endlessly. As well, without any great public demand for it, with smug self-congratulatory defiant fanfare, he declared 2015 would be the last ever first-past-the-post Canadian election. Sounded good and the public voted; the pure of heart defeated the forces of darkness. Goodby Stephen Harper, hello Justin Trudeau.
The rodomontade promises were excessive, magnified hope and the big-rock-candy-mountain future; in his own words, “sunny ways, sunny ways” were here again, Trudeaumania revived, more potent than ever: peace and love reigned over the world. Well, Canada at the least, Trudeau’s no Trump. But fairy tales are for kids; even so, too many adults wanted to believe, buying in and still do; “give him a chance, give him a chance” say those to the doubters and critics. For some, however, the shock of recognition and disappointment quickly hit, hitting hard, the hopeful wavering, faltering, struck numb: They’re all the same after all, aren’t they.
Trudeau was no naïf nor his crew inexperienced. He knew exactly what he was doing. Most didn’t care but a few did and do. The scales began to fall from the eyes and hands began to wave away the cobwebs. The portrait of the handsome saviour prince and crew slowly emerges, a little clearer and more realistic, of consummate schemers, wheelers and dealers oozing, simply oozing charm, smarm, buzz words tripping off the tongues and attitudes and promises deployed as skilfully as any con baiting traps for lonely, befuddled, gullible prey; when challenged concerns are blissfully brushed aside…”it’s legal”, “we didn’t know the full picture”, deceptions, broken promises, the failures of ethics and stricken expressions of betrayed believers ignored.
Within months if not weeks, there was news, “sticky fingers”, and Trudeau instructing cabinet ministers to repay expense claims to which they were not entitled and defending those routinely breaking conflict of interest guidelines again and again, the justice minister once ludicrously justifying a fundraiser paid for by lawyers with the claim she had attended the event as a member of the Liberal party and not as the Justice Minister! Oh, it may be risible were it not so predictable and offensive; Trudeau, the handsome prince, was to be the exemplar but, as often happens in fairy tales, the prince is not always what he seems, the toad part of him increasingly exposed with each question tossed his way and denial hurled back.
There are always those who believe they are entitled to a free pass and those who always get it. Trudeau is apparently one such. Unfortunately, far too many are willing to play along.
Why?
Time and time again he and his gang broke his own loudly ballyhooed ethical mandates. Apparently no one noticed or cared: a flash of smile, furrowed brows, fingers tapping over the heart, and eyes oozing, simply ooze sincerity is all it takes for Trudeau and others like him, those guileful manipulators who know how to work the mob of innocents and/or fools. And Trudeau does. Still, with Trudeau, the “mistakes” occur far too often; one would think that even the half awoke would ask themselves, “Should we trust a man that careless and, if so, how much?”
Well, not much.
If he was to be the shining beacon, he demonstrated that not all pretty packages are that pretty though far too many still refuse to see beyond surface. While I was never convinced by him, I was, if sceptical, still willing to give him a chance. Many of us were. However, his easy dismissal of real concerns regarding conflicts of interest by the newly appointed justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, his own attitude regarding secret fundraising events and his undermining of electoral reform were more than sufficient evidence his promise of “sunny ways” had been a hoax. I find it incomprehensible so many refuse to see him as the charlatan and phony he is. What do they see that I don’t?
When he was forced to rejig the committee looking into recommendations for electoral reform after being called out for stacking it with liberals, we saw clear signs of the machinator at work. Then, several weeks into its mandate, with the committee revealing early signs of a likely endorsement for proportional representation, Trudeau began to pointedly muse that the public was no longer interested in electoral reform. It wasn’t true, of course. What was true was that he was setting the stage without having yet informing the public of his preferred option: the ranked ballot system. Eventually, Trudeau’s preference became public. When it became clear that the committee would deny him what he sought, a voting system that would ensure that only two parties would govern until Canada ceased to be, the public began to stir suddenly aware that what they had long wanted and sought, fair elections, was chimera, a pipe dream. Not all options were on the table and PR was definitely not a possibility for consideration by the liberals. In Parliament, following the reform committee’s recommendation, minister of democratic institutions Maryam Monsef publicly berated the committee in Parliament for “not doing” its job, i.e., giving Trudeau what he wanted. The furor was instant, loud and public, Canadians furious by the shoddy treatment handed the committee. Seeking to repair the damage, the liberals set up a phone-in poll to look into electoral reform. That, too, as with Trudeau’s first attempt to stack the committee, had been designed to lead to a specific desired outcome. So obvious and outlandish was the move orchestrated by the PMO, public rage and the minister’s incompetence led to her removal. It was left to Karina Gould, Monsef’s replacement, to drive the stake through the heart of electoral reform.
While this had been from day one Trudeau’s baby, he had neither the stomach nor the decency to do the dirty deed himself. As a result, this self-declared feminist had left it to two neophyte female MPs to not only discredit the work of the committee but the project itself. Monsef and Gould would be associated with the failure of the reform he had set in motion and then worked to undermine. What a man!
Later, battered from the fallout of free gifts, secret fundraisers, conflicts of interest, and electoral reform, he set about to refurbish his image with town hall meetings across the country. He swaggered before the crowd loudly and defiantly boasting of not regretting walking away from electoral reform (and those countless others whose hopes he had destroyed). Shame? Not a whit. His brainless supporters lapped it up. None of them saw that smiling, smiling toad prince facing them with thumb to nose and fingers waving: SUCKERS!
So, does Trudeau believe in anything? Probably only in the things that serve him and his interests. He easy bromides appear to comfort those seeking comfort. This is a man who cares. Until he doesn’t. He believes human rights is a priority unless it conflicts with Canadian business interests as he demonstrated by signing off on Harper’s Light-Armoured Vehicle deal with human rights abuser Saudi Arabia; he believes conflicts-of-interest are major issues except when he or members of his party routinely engage in the practice. The Aga Khan Foundation still receives millions from Canada while Trudeau receives a lukewarm warning from the ethics commissioner for breaking the rules and a minor fine for accepting a pair of expensive sunglasses. Trudeau receives a pass and there’s not even a hint of shame.
But what about his feminism? We know he’s a feminist; he screams it out at every opportunity. Yet, when offered opportunities on several occasions by reporters to denounce Trump’s misogynistic comments which were made public as Trump ran for the presidency, Trudeau remained tellingly mute except to declare, “Canada does not comment on American politics” and “Everyone knows I’m a feminist”. But do we? Does saying something make it so? And why, in god’s name, does he conflate standing up against misogyny as interference in American politics? Some have suggested that his stance was “prudent”. What they meant is this: For god sakes, don’t jeopardize NAFTA by annoying Trump. That’s the stand of cowards and for folks with fluid ethics: do the right thing only when there is no possibility of it biting you. That about sums up Trudeau. Unfortunately, kissing ass isn’t always a winner with Trump; he could still dump on you. Ask Trudeau.
I have always been wary of those who noisily insist we accept their public persona of themselves as the real deal. Perhaps that is why I have never bought into Trudeau’s “feminism”; it was too showy and utterly unconvincing. It’s much like Trump’s insistence he is a smart man; where’s the evidence?
Even so, I was mildly surprised by recent reports of a nearly 20 year old groping allegation which led to a community newspaper editorial at the time. Not only does the Creston Valley Advance piece cast doubt to the strength and sincerity of Trudeau’s claim to feminism, it also suggests the feminism may be dependent on the status of the parties involved. In the opening lines of the editorial, Trudeau had apologized, if that’s what it was, with the following, “I’m sorry. If I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I never would have been so forward.” According to the young reporter at the time, who was also on assignment for the National Post, she had been groped by the future world’s most famous self-declared feminist. Mind you, in those days, all she likely knew then was he was just the son of a more famous Trudeau. It was the PMO that responded to the allegations. Trudeau could not recall any “negative interactions” at the time words, as some have pointed out, with a lawyerly ring to them. Days later, on July 1, he spoke for himself. He could not recall any “negative interactions”. Sounded familiar. Feeble, certainly, and no outright denial. On July 5, perhaps aware that his response was inadequate, following a meeting with Doug Ford, Ontario’s new premier and Trumpian-lite cretin clone of the North, he responded more fully. Said he, “I do not feel I did anything untoward. Often a man experiences an interaction as being benign or not inappropriate and a woman, particularly in a professional context can view it differently (CBC National, July 5, 2018). Weaselly legalese. Inadequate. And no firm denial.
Clearly Trudeau holds himself to a standard less than he demands of others as when, upon taking leadership of the party, he swiftly and brutally booted two members from the caucus. Not only had he offered them no opportunity to a fair hearing, he had named them and kept from the public the allegations made against them. Trudeau would later claim that his zero-tolerance policy would even apply to him. Really? Judge for yourself. He gives to himself an exemption denied Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti, the two Liberal MPs against whom the allegations were made. Look again at the opening statement of the Creston Valley Advance editorial: by his own words, if the reports are accurate, he thought a reporter of a small community paper was fair game as opposed to one from a national paper. That statement years ago may be forgiven as an ill-conceived apology by a young man but when coupled with his July 5th statement, one cannot help but wonder if his is indeed a deep-rooted belief regarding women and status. “Often a man experiences an interaction as being benign or not inappropriate and a woman, particularly in a professional context can view it differently.” Why “particularly in a professional context”? Perhaps menials as well as the less educated and sophisticated, as with small town reporters, are viewed as not only incapable of awareness of sexual harassment when inflicted on them but also as fair game: all hands on board!
The reporter of years ago has made clear that Trudeau did apologize as reported. She has also made clear that, for her, the matter is closed, a part of her past she has no interest in revisiting.
But voters do have a right to know of this episode and to question and challenge Trudeau’s credibility regarding his feminism and apparent double-standard regarding zero-tolerance when it comes to harassment.
He has set himself up to holding a standard that he has demanded of others. When they have failed or have been seen as failing, he has punished them. Yet he apparently is immune; for him, the bar is lower if non-existent. He is fond of legalese and weasel words and they, as much as his failures in ethics and keeping promises and his oozing, simply oozing sincerity, tell us all I need to know about the man. I see no charm, no saviour prince, no man of deep-rooted integrity. I see a phony. I see a toad.
Folk with fluid ethics and easy virtue almost always resort to legalese: “what I did was legal”. Is it really too much to demand that they also be honest and ethical?
Evidently so.

***

But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. – Thomas Paine

***

They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. — Benjamin Franklin

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: THE ADORABLE ALL ROUND PC PANDERING GOOD GUY MASCOT

Will you, won’t you, will you, won’t you, will you, won’t you join the dance. — Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventure in Wonderland
The obligation to endure gives us the right to know. – Jean Rostand

Frank A. Pelaschuk

Even now, over two years after the last dance, we Canadians remain a narcotized bunch still enamoured with the Handsome Prince who charmed his way to our hearts with brash, loud, grandiose promises. We fell hard, dazzled by the Wizard, and we made it obvious throwing ourselves at his feet and swooning in paroxysms of ecstasy at mere mention of his name. Promise me anything, I’m all yours. And he did promise anything stroking the buzzwords: taxes, taxing the rich, legalization of marijuana, gender equality, child benefits, electoral reform, the middle class, openness, honesty, transparency. Never mind that he spent little time on poverty, homelessness, the single parent holding several jobs, health care, the elderly, and education. In that respect, he is no different from any other cheap politico performing before an audience of vacuous goo-goo-eyed monkeys who allow him to break rules and walk away from promises unscathed without either apology or regret indicating the extent of the self-induced coma afflicting those still supporting him.
BUT WHAT HE DELIVERED WAS NOT ALL THAT HE PROMISED
Oh, he followed through in some but his promises of openness, transparency and honesty quickly fell by the wayside revealing the true nature of his character as savvy, pragmatic, calculating, hypocritical, unethical smoothie able to bolster his image with shrewdly choreographed photo-ops and overacted displays of empathy that should alert anyone half awake wooing with dazzling smiles, accommodating selfie hungry fans and demonstrating in a trice the ability to establish the deepest of concerns and utmost affection simply by furrowing his brow and pursing his lips thoughtfully. If the occasion is particularly important, a commemorative event or a death of a dignitary or some other sombre happening, he is particularly adept at publicly displaying the depth of his emotional warmth and will, on cue and at any opportunity, empathetically tap his breast with his fingers and wring the exact number of tears required to match the magnitude of the event always making certain the cameras have caught him discreetly dabbing the corner of his eye. We like it and we buy it for we are a superficial, ignorant, and indifferent group attentive primarily on the silly in our lives as if they were profound: an opportunity to get a selfie with him or breathe the same air or exclaiming over his courage in facing the public at town hall meetings to respond to unvetted questions from the public. It is at such events that the Prince is at his best proudly showcasing his ability to work the crowd of mostly friendly faces while he explains in response to a question from an audience member who clearly believes that some things are really important, how he came to unapologetically undermine and then turn his back on electoral reform a major element of his campaign platform, particularly proportional representation as recommended by the committee formed to look into such reform: 1) the public has lost interest; 2) proportional representation would lead to fragmentation; 3) PR could lead to the election of terrorist; 4) PR “would be harmful to Canada”; 5) the ranked ballot system (Trudeau’s preferred voting system) would not necessarily benefit his party [He’s right. Historically, Canadians have only elected Liberals and Conservatives as federal governments; barring some seismic shift in voter attitudes, the Ranked Ballot would most likely continue if not cement the trend of shutting out the NDP and Greens]; 6) nothing convinces him that PR is a better system though it is the preferred system of Germany and 80 other democracies (and this guy was a teacher; a closed mind is worse than a closed book); 7) and, if re-elected and revisited, electoral reform would not include PR as an option. On this issue, his responses are disingenuous and diversionary; at no time during his campaign, did the Prince indicate that PR was not on the table or that he had reservations regarding PR. Yet, in his conversation with Chris Hall on CBC’s The House, (Feb. 3, 2018, http://www.cbc.ca/listen/shows/the-house/segment/15518052) he makes clear what he had not while campaigning on electoral reform: PR was not and never had been in the running while the ranked or preferential ballot system was. This was Trudeau’s preference which only became clear when Trudeau set out to undermine the committee when it became clear the ranked ballot was not in the running. And it quickly became clear that reform was dead when the committee made its recommendation for some form of PR and the minister of democratic institutions, Maryam Monsef, slammed the committee for not doing it’s job. Shortly after, her replacement Karina Gould drove the stake through the heart of the idea of reform. Trudeau, the rodomontade who had boldly declared 2015 the last first-past-the-post election, couldn’t even kill off an idea no one had sought but he knew many wanted. He also knew when he made that promise he would kill it if he did not get what he wanted. But he said nothing of that so people went through the process with high hopes and belief that all options were on the table; they trusted Trudeau and believed him to be fair, a man of his word. He was neither. When the committee denied him the option of the ranked ballot electoral reform was a dead as Marley’s ghost.
Still, while the town hall meetings did highlight the Prince’s skill before a crowd, it also revealed an unpleasant darker side. When a few publicly challenged Trudeau at the town hall meetings regarding this and other issues he and his supporters may have found irksome, the questioners were loudly shouted down by the Prince’s supporters while he played the pacifier thus confirming and entrenching his image of tolerant conciliator unfairly targeted by troublemakers. Unfortunately, there were episodes in which persistent questioners (hecklers to the Prince’s fans) were forcibly removed with Trudeau orchestrating it in such a way in one instance to emphasize his egalitarianism simply by asking the audience if a persistent heckler should be allowed to ask a questions. Unsurprisingly, the loyal if bloodthirsty fans shouted a resounding, “No” with the end result of having the heckler forcibly removed. It was the fallen gladiator and the Emperor looking to the mob for guidance with the thumb up or down, live or die? That move by Trudeau, whether the heckler deserved it or not, was the act of a bully performing before a witless and friendly mob more in thrall with defending the Wizard than with the valid concerns raised by the questioners and, yes, even hecklers. How much courage does it take to respond to difficult questions when the audience is largely made of adoring fans absolutely pissing their pants to do the Wizard’s bidding and when most of his questioners, unlike the Prince, is likely unaccustomed and even terrified of speaking before an crowd that might be unhappy with the question posed? His cavalier treatment of those who sincerely wanted nothing more than an honest response to questions regarding his support of pipelines and abandonment of electoral reform, possible reasons they may have voted for him, should offend everyone. It was clever, but the act of a bully nonetheless.
WHAT IS THERE TO ADMIRE IN TRUDEAU?
He is an opportunist, about image, pandering to the easy and the popular only as long as they do not conflict with his own agenda; when they do, he discards them without a backward glance and certainly no public apology. He has betrayed almost everything that he would have had us believe mattered when he campaigned for the most important job in Canada. He turned his back on human rights to lock a lucrative arms deal with one of the worlds worst abusers contravening UN sanctions and Canada’s own guidelines regarding arms trade with human rights abusers. And when critics spoke up against the sale of Canadian-made Light Armoured Vehicles to Saudi Arabia, a very lucrative deal, he lied about why he did so. The LAV deal was a done deal under Harper, he said. Not so. It was his government that signed off on the deal. He then said breaking a contract would harm Canada’s reputation. Really? On something as important as human rights? Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien had no difficulty breaking a contract for Cormorant helicopters simply because it was brokered by Brian Mulroney in 1993; that cost Canadians $478 million in penalties but seems not to have negatively impacted Canada’s reputation as a country with which to deal. With Trudeau, human rights takes a back seat when it comes to trade. That’s why he is willing to do a helicopter trade deal with the murderous Philippines president, Rodrigo Duterte, who has engaged in an extrajudicial war on drugs with the slaughter of 12,000 suspects many of whom were completely innocent but dead for simply being in the wrong place or friends and family members of suspects. But supporters of the Prince are only concerned with obtaining a selfie with him and he, as we all know, will never shy away from a camera.
Thus far, nothing sticks to Trudeau. Within months of winning his mandate, it became evident how seriously he observed his own directives to his cabinet ministers with mandate letters. He wrote: As Minister, you must ensure that you are aware of and fully compliant with the Conflict of Interest Act and Treasury Board policies and guidelines.  You will be provided with a copy of Open and Accountable Government to assist you as you undertake your responsibilities.  I ask that you carefully read it and ensure that your staff does so as well. I draw your attention in particular to the Ethical Guidelines set out in Annex A of that document, which apply to you and your staff. As noted in the Guidelines, you must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality, and both the performance of your official duties and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny. This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.  Please also review the areas of Open and Accountable Government that we have expanded or strengthened, including the guidance on non-partisan use of departmental communications resources and the new code of conduct for exempt staff.
But evidently that was a lark, for public consumption only and not to be taken seriously. He didn’t. Nor did Jody Wilson-Raybould, newly appointed justice minister, who, within months of the election, attended a fundraising event sponsored by a law firm in a clear violation of conflict of interest; Trudeau stoutly defended her while the minister made this ludicrous disclaimer: She had attended the event as a party member not as a cabinet minister! You see, they believe everyone either doesn’t care or is a simpleton.
Since then, of course, we have been witness to many such conflicts of interest with many ministers and the Prince himself attending many lucrative, highly secretive fundraising events sponsored and attended by those standing to benefit by the decisions of those government worthies. What makes it most offensive is that Prince Trudeau and members of the PMO lied for weeks about many of the events he attended claiming he often made unplanned stops at fundraisers without knowing who would be in attendance (very unlikely for security reasons), that he never talked with attendees about business matters before the government (later changing his story that some sought to raise business but were directed to go through the proper channels). At one of these meetings attended by Chinese millionaires and billionaires, two attendees would donate $50K towards a statue of the Prince’s father, $200K towards the Pierre Eliot Trudeau Foundation and $750K towards scholarships for the University of Montreal law faculty. As I noted in previous posts, a month later, one of those attendees lobbying the government had won approval to open and operate Wealth One Bank of Canada. Eventually, after months of questioning by the opposition, Trudeau agreed to end the cash-for-access fundraisers making it easier for members of the public to attend and to open them for the media. Shortly after that announcement, when the media sought to attend an event, they were barred. So much for openness and transparency.
Trudeau is an honest man, yes he is, but he was found in breach of conflict guidelines by Mary Dawson, Ethics Commissioner at the time, for accepting a free ride over the Christmas season to the private island of the Aga Khan whose foundation has received $330 million from Canada since 1981 with a promise by Trudeau for another $55 million over the next five years. His explanation? The Aga Khan was a family friend. Of his father, perhaps, but not so much the Prince according to Dawson. Small stuff, Trudeau’s fans may sniff, but not so small a breach when he dismisses the episode with a shrug saying he has apologized and complied with all the rules. That is the fallback explanation of weasels, resorting to legalese whether rightly or not of following the letter of the law, the bare minimum at that, while ignoring the ethical. This is the man who demands of his ministers what he does not of himself. When his ministers made unwarranted expense claims, he made them reimburse the public purse; one had to do so three times. Yet, when Conservatives questioned him about repaying some of the cost of that vacation ride, a government plane on stand-by, staff, friends, and security who also took the ride, he stuck to script repeating, almost word for word the legalese that provided no answers. Apparently, the script was handed over to Government House leader, Bardish Chagger, for she responded to the same questions with identical words in Trudeau’s absence adding, in response to protests from the opposition: “I respond the same way because the opposition keeps asking the same questions.” Amusing.
SO ELECTORAL REFORM, ETHICS, HUMAN RIGHTS WENT BY THE WAYSIDE
As promised, Trudeau did open most of the Veterans offices closed by the Conservatives under Harper. But what of his promise to reinstate the lifelong disability pension plan for vets? No luck there. For a clear summary of the Harper cuts, go to the Tyee website https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/19/Conservative-Attacks-Canadian-Veterans/. It was Harper who got rid of the plan replacing it with a one-time lump sum payment. After two years, there has been movement by the liberals towards reinstatement of some parts of the life-long disability pension plan to start in 2019 but clearly it is not enough and offers even less than when it was razed by Harper in 2006. Veterans, confounded and feeling betrayed, have gone to court. When vet Brock Blaszczk, who had lost a leg while serving in Afghanistan, asked at a town hall why the Prince was fighting the vets on this, Trudeau responded, “they are asking more than we can afford”! This of men and women who have willingly put everything, including their lives and limbs, on the line for this country.
Vets ask too much! This from a man who turned his back on the veterans as easily as he did electoral reform.
So, how does he stack up as a feminist?
On the plus side, he can, rightly, point with pride to his gender balanced cabinet with women heading several key departments. That is the good.
What is not so good is the extent of the silliness to which he will resort in his effort to pander to any group or cause that seems likely to engender wide support. In other words, he is a politically correct gadfly jerk. At a recent town hall meeting, he interrupted a female questioner’s long-winded preamble to a question by suggesting her usage of the word “mankind” be replaced by “peoplekind” as more appropriate eliciting applause from the crowd and the questioner. While this was clearly meant as a joke, a dumb one at that, it is indicative of his character and of those to whom he panders; they will gladly twist themselves into unmanageable knots to forgive him everything and prove themselves in step with the “new” orthodoxy of gender neutral bubble-headed PC imbecility. It was a stupid joke and does not merit the attention and ridicule it garnered except for the fact that Trudeau’s lifelong friend and top advisor in the PMO, Gerald Butts, exacerbated matters by labelling those critical of his boss’s oozing, simply oozing feel-good efforts as Nazis. This kind of disrespect for critics of Trudeau is different from that of the Harper gang in what way? That is an odd response from a government seeking to pass itself as enlightened with its relentless campaign to have us embrace the image reminiscent of the sixties and seventies “flower power” movement with its “all you need is love” sappiness.
So is Trudeau a feminist? I question that. Saying so doesn’t make it so. When offered opportunity by members of the press on two occasions at least to demonstrate the strength of his commitment to feminism, Trudeau kept mum during the American presidential campaign rather than calling out misogynist Donald Trump boasting about groping women. What he said instead was this: “Everyone knows I’m a feminist.” For some, the failure by Trudeau to condemn Trump’s admission of sexual harassment merited commendation rather than censure his silence demonstrating remarkable leadership skills; Trudeau was not only tactful, he could not be lured into riling a bully with NAFTA negotiations on the horizon. Evidently, principles and integrity, as are campaign promises, are utilitarian, devices to be deployed with flash and noise only when helpful but otherwise quietly tossed aside for more congenial occasions.
He has made a great deal of his support of women, women’s rights, and the #MeToo movement; he brings his “feminist” side to the fore at every opportunity to demonstrate that he cares, really, really, really, cares. Yet, according to CTV News (Feb. 6, 2018), his government is quietly working to quash the class action lawsuit by female military personnel against the Canadian forces for sexual harassment, gender discrimination and racism leading some to charges of hypocrisy on the party of Trudeau and his government. Following the release of that report, Trudeau’s response was swift. The government action did not “align with his core beliefs”; Harjit Sajjan, the minister of defence would have the justice minister take another look at the issue. On Feb. 23, CTV News reported that the Liberal government was seeking to settle with the complainants out of court. Whatever the outcome, the Prince is one feminist of “iffy” steadfastness.
His is the political correctness of the opportunist. He will don any PC mask for any occasion. It can get him in trouble as with his trip to India this week with apparently a confused agenda — business or political — other than to offer ample opportunity for photo-ops and a moment to declare that there was a trade agreement worth $1 billion though others have put the real value at about $200 million. Apart from the exaggerated claims, the trip was a disaster, he and his family mocked for their traditional attire as with the following comments: “Is it just me or is this choreographed cuteness all just a bit much now? Also FYI we Indians don’t dress like this every day sir, not even in Bollywood.” —Omar Abdullah (@OmarAbdullah) Feb. 21, 2018 and “How did Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the world’s favorite liberal mascot — a feminist man, with movie-star good looks, a 50 percent female cabinet and a political lexicon that has replaced “mankind” with “peoplekind” (making millions swoon) — end up looking silly, diminished and desperate on his trip to India this week” (Barkha Dutt, WashingtonPost, Feb. 22, 2018). Well, the answer is clear: Trudeau is a panderer and self-promoting PC lodestar for those who need such and it appears many do.
Then, of course, it got worse. Trudeau’s wife, Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau as well as other MPs of Trudeau’s cabinet, was photographed with a man once a member of the Sikh Youth Federation banned as a terrorist group in Canada, the U.K., the U.S. and India. Jaspal Atwal spent 20 years in prison for attempting to assassinate a Punjab politician vacationing on Vancouver Island in 1985 and was charged but not convicted of the near fatal attack on Ujjal Dosangh, a one time liberal member of parliament in 1986. To compound the disaster, that same would-be assassin was invited by Liberal MP Randeep Sarai to attend a dinner in Delhi hosted by the Canadian High Commissioner. The invitation was later rescinded but, for some critics, this affair lent credence to the belief that Canada was sympathetic to the Sikh separatist movement.
This is not a first with the Prince. Trudeau’s relentless determination to seize every seemingly positive PC opportunity for a photo-op has got him in trouble in the past as when, Dec. 19, he posed with rescued hostages Joshua Boyle, his wife and three children held by the Taliban in Afghanistan and returned home October of last year. From Oct. 14 to Dec. 30, apparently Trudeau and security unaware, Boyle was under investigation for assault, sexual assault and forcible confinement. On New Years day, 2018, he appeared in court facing 15 charges.
This is not just about security lapses. It’s about lapses of ethics and judgement by a man more interested in being all things to all people and seizing every opportunity to enhance his image with a photo-op. Sometimes it doesn’t work and the position itself is an impossibility that can only lead to contradiction and conflict. When he was elected, Trudeau spoke of “deliverology”, a buzzword indicating movement from idea to implementation. It may be appealing but has proved meaningless under his governance. It was showy in the same way his promises of electoral reform and reinstating lifelong disability pensions for vets. His appeal is that of the superficial for the superficial, the monkeys who still applaud his every utterance and drool over his every move, those who expect little and demand even less from their leaders because it is not leadership or genuine nation-building accomplishments that move them.
What does is theatrics, the great show and empty calories of eye candy, the Prince Charming and the Beautiful Princess and their beautiful family and the fact that they make appearances in Vogue, Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair. A few trinkets tossed our way is often sufficient and if promises fall by the wayside, that’s fine as well: we have a quick forgettery, endless patience and seemingly bottomless faith that the two partners we have always danced with will treat us right until they don’t.
We may notice that attractive third party on the sidelines seeking to join the dance whispering promises equally mellifluous but will not accept his offer because we fear to appear friendly to him warned by the two partners we have danced with for over 150 years that he is dangerous with dangerous ideas. They should know, we tell ourselves.
No, we will not make room to include the third party, the liberals and conservatives will just do fine. And if they ignore us during the dance, that is fine, as well. We will have danced and been fed sweet words and if we feel slighted by either, we will gently tease them about that third party waiting patiently in the wings for his turn. But the liberals and conservatives needn’t worry. We don’t mean it even if the bruising is beginning to hurt.
Where does the Prince stand? Who knows? Who can trust him? It’s a question we should not have to ask of one seeking to convince us he loves us, he really loves us. Yet I suspect he is a man of such great courage that he would abandon his loves, principles and soul for his ambitions.
NOTE: While I had left the door open with my last post, I had hoped it would indeed be my last. Unfortunately, while what I say may not be particularly new or noteworthy, there is just something about those politicians that get to me. It was Harper that started this post and Trudeau who continues it. Sorry.

**

But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. – Thomas Paine.

***

They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin

%d bloggers like this: