Category Archives: Political Commentary

Political Commentary

PIERRE POILIEVRE: PIOUS PHONY PIPSQUEAK

Posted on September 5, 2024 by Frank A. Pelaschuk

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

Frank A. Pelaschuk

Newish look, same old, same old Pierre Poilievre: petulant, pious, phony pipsqueak 

He has lots of words to utter, but absolutely nothing, nothing to say. He’s Trump lite though some will dispute this only because they believe him much smarter than Trump though that, too, is open to debate. 

In truth, how smart is a man who uses the same bait as Trump and just as dishonestly, you know, blame the media, distort the facts when not outright lying, resorting to hyperbole when a simple statement will do and seeking to demean his opponents and enemies, which seems to be everyone not him and his supporters, with name calling. As for this last, I think name calling should be left at the door and that ideas, acts, policies, facts, truth, honesty and integrity are what matters in the world of politics. Now, the attentive reader may have noticed a failing with my opening line and take me to task as a hypocrite. They could have a point but I offer this in defence: since petulant pious phony pipsqueak Poilievre doesn’t discriminate when it comes to how he labels his enemies, I thought I’d return the favour though, to be honest, I’m not as comfortable or as creative in the sewer as he seems to be.

 He has called Liberal Steven Guilbeault, environmentalist activist and Minister of Environment and Climate Change “crazy, refers to Jagmeet Singh, NDP leader, as “sellout Singh” (it does have a ring, I admit), and has called Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “wacko” several times as well as blaming him directly for the crime rate and everything  else he claims that is broken in Canada.

Pious phony pipsqueak Poilievre has a relatively new look but, superficial dressing aside, what Canadians get is the same angry, histrionic big mouth of the Harper years. Now, that big mouth is used for many things, not only to insult, which he does to considerable effect, but to twist and distort and to repeat the same messages of negativity without once using those snarling lips and shrill vocal chords to explain exactly what it is that is broken, how Trudeau is directly responsible for that, and what his solutions are. To hear him, one can almost imagine him blaming Ottawa’s hostage taking by the so-called “Freedom” Convoy of 2022 as Trudeau’s idea rather than disgruntled spoiled semi-adults who opposed the inconvenience of Covid mandates. In fact, to phony Poilievre, those folks were simply “peaceful” protestors. But it was the mandates meant to protect others against Covid, particularly the most vulnerable, that those “peaceful” thugs resisted simply because they found the restrictions inconvenient or infringements of their rights, by which they clearly meant the right to be ignorant and selfish, heedless of the harm the may do to others. Pipsqueak Poilievre had no difficulty supporting them, more concerned with enhancing his own image than in protecting Canadian citizens or even Canada, when he couldn’t even bring himself to condemn those so-called “Freedom” fighters who waved white supremacist and Nazi banners. 

He is not only quick to insult others but also to question their motives, as he did recently when he suggested Jagmeet Singh, who has signed an informal agreement with Trudeau’s liberals not to force an early election, was merely bidding his time until his right to claim a pension was locked in. A bit rich from a career politician whose pension was locked in over a decade ago! 

Oh, pious phony pipsqueak Poilievre is a smart man alright. As pundit Brad Lavigne noted on CBC’s Power and Politics, Poilievre needs only wave his hand and order the sun to rise the next day and it will. Tump, megalomaniac that he is, has the same power though likely more extensive as master of the four seasons. 

I remember pious Poilievre from the Harper years and found him instantly unlikeable. Nothing has changed my opinion of him since. Women, as a whole, did not like him either. Evidently he noticed and attempted a makeover. It didn’t last. It could not last. The nature he was born with is most comfortable for him, reminding one of a relentless pit bull which doubtless made him a valuable asset for the conservatives because he is fearless and will go for the jugular. We see a lot of that of late. But is the killer instinct really what is needed? How about solutions? Clever and cheap slogans may work for some, but ideas, suggestions and solutions for all the things broken in Canada. which is everything evidently. 

It will surprise no one to say I do not like petulant pious phony pipsqueak Poilievre. He knows all the answers but will not share the questions. He knows all the problems but will not outline them so that we, too, can know. He knows all that is broken and how to fix them but will not tell us exactly what it is that is broken and what exactly are his solutions for fixing them. He knows exactly who is responsible for the high costs of living, of buying a home, of finding a job. It’s all Justin Trudeau, weak on crime, weak on immigration, weak on security, weak on… well, everything. But the pious phony Poilievre refuses to outline exactly how. He just knows and if that’s good enough for him it’s good enough for us. It is as if he cannot see that Covid and other global factors may have played a role. It’s not just Canada against the wall but most of the world. 

Look around. There is a madness sweeping the globe with ever increasing ferocity. The mood, inchoate and infectious, is restless, dangerous, a sweeping populism built on fear and intolerance directed without any logic against opposing views, against minorities, and immigrants, against the weakest and meanest among us, that so many, including Poilievre, seems to have little trouble stoking. We could see it in 2015, the Conservatives fanning the flames of racism with their attacks on immigrants, particularly those wearing hijabs and burkhas, prompting them to propose the Barbaric Cultural Practices Act snitch line attacking Muslims. That was in 2015 by a Canadian political party, the Conservative Party now led by pious Pierre Poilievre. The same Poilievre who, as Minister of State for Democratic Reform sought to disenfranchise certain voters with his so-called Fair Elections Act which also sought to limit the power of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada to investigate electoral fraud and irregularities.

For the man who knows exactly how to fix Canada without spelling out how or what is broken, Poilievre is not particularly forthcoming. He hoards his thoughts on these as if the voter he wishes to woo has not right to know them. That’s not a winning formula, certainly no reason for trust. He has loudly declared that he will make every vote in the House a vote of confidence. That is not about working for a solution or finding ways to work together. Certainly it is not about uniting Canada and Canadians.

Phony Poilievre’s raison d’etre has nothing to do with Canada but with winning power and clinging to it as long as possible. For Poilievre, I have little doubt that the highest moment of this pipsqueak’s life will be a victory over Justin Trudeau. Too, I believe the sting of losing to him might haunt and torment his days and nights for years. 

Our options for political leaders are not particularly rich in possibilities. But, sadly, I see no leader in pious phony Pierre Poilievre. I see a hungry politico seething with ambition, anger, envy and petulant mean-spiritedness looking to wear a crown far too heavy and significant for him. 

Today, he woos the ordinary working stiffs, donning T-shirts, flexing his muscles, letting us know he’s for the little guy. That’s new for him and as sincere and real as his short-lived makeover as the softer, thoughtful family man which, feeling the mob of angry voters behind him, has given him permission to shed the phony redo but not the phoniness as he taps into their anger and feeds it with misinformation, distortions, twisted facts and outright lies using every trick to rile the folks, not with actual solutions, but by appealing to the very worst in them. Pierre Poilievre has no solution. As a member of the Harper gang he is a carryover of the past where no dirty trick, no dirty lie, no dirty task was too low or too dirty to not wallow. The sewer is his milieu.  

He may win the prize he lusts for. I hope not. He wins he may well believe the sun and night are his, subject to his bidding. But it is not light or hope he offers, just finger pointing and rage and his own distortions that we are to embrace. He wins, it will not be long before we learn on what Poilievre and the Conservatives place their priorities. For him, it’s all about winning, not earning, the prize.

***

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

Leave a comment

Posted in Political Commentary and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

PIERRE POILIEVRE AND THE ART OF ANGER: THE THREAT WITHIN

Posted on May 4, 2024 by Frank A. Pelaschuk

Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises; for never intending to go beyond promises, it costs nothing. – Edmund Burke

The fawning, sneaking, and flattering hypocrite, that will do or be anything, for his own advantage. – Edward Stiffingfleet

A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy. – Benjamin Disraeli

Frank A. Pelaschuk

Notwithstanding his efforts to change his appearance and demeanour from shrill angry shoot-from-the-lips partisan politico to a political mild-mannered Clark Kentish homebody and one of the regular good ol’ boys, the man who seems poised to lead Canada’s next government, Conservative Pierre Poilievre remains the same old same old one-note, mean-spirited, pandering, vitriolic blowhard with nothing to offer but noise and slogans appealing to the fears and worst of Dick & Jane readers. One would like to believe that the next prime minister, should it be him, would be one of substance and character but his behaviour, from his first days as MP to the present, as leader of the Conservative party, makes it difficult to conceive. Watching him on television during Question Period, one gets the sense of him performing for his audience and colleagues while leaving little doubt that what you see is what he is, a man of fire and desire but fuelled by an animus deeply personal directed at one individual: Justin Trudeau. 

I feel I’ve seen the plot before. A rival, perhaps the younger brother or a childhood friend of poorer circumstances, seething with envy, resentful that the older brother or friend is much loved and doted upon seemingly handed everything while he, the smarter, more deserving, the harder working, barely noticed, receiving no love, no fortune, go girl, no future. It’s unfair. So, what to do? Perhaps remove the obstacle, take, by any means, what is justly his. Well, that’s the movie, a bad one at that.

Even so, unfairly treated or not, Poilievre has always drawn attention as smart, ambitious and eager to prove himself with his hustle and energy. As a young politician, he was even more impressive, he was going places though some, women in particular, found him a bit too brash, loud, angry. They didn’t like what they saw: angry, loud, abrasive, shrill, straight for the jugular no prisoners taken. That was no politician but a resentful teenager hamming it up in the House back bench with colleagues Paul Calandra, today Ontario’s minister of municipal affairs and housing, and Dean del Mastro, who was forced to resign and serve a month when convicted of election overspending in 2008. That appeals to a particular segment of society, those too often fed by resentment and envy knowing they deserve better and more but have been dealt a bad hand of bad luck with others stacking the deck favouring the less deserving. They hear him, know he understands their pain, knows Big Government and Big Business are out to screw them making it harder for them while easier on criminals with their soft on crime approach and open door policy welcoming illegals into the country to be fed and housed on their hard-earned dime only to also take their jobs and end up having more than those born here failing to notice that many, many, start off with the most menial of jobs, often two or three and part time. So when Covid struck and government mandates came into play taking away even more forcing them to isolate, wear masks, get the shots, that was the last straw, no one was going to tell them what to do or believe and they certainly didn’t believe Covid shots worked, in fact believed they did more harm, responsible for autism and other illnesses allowing billionaires like Bill Gates to get rich injecting them with serum blended with molecular robots reading and controlling their thoughts. No one was going to stop them from mixing with the public. As for the evidence of millions dying? Fake news by mainstream media. If the “sheep” wanted to wear masks, that was their problem. Trump knows. Poilievre knows, not only because he’s smarter than Trump, but because he came of modest means, born to a sixteen year old mother and adopted by two teachers. He actually likely understands many of the issues and hurt driving so many of the angry. 

It is no stretch for them to gravitate to Trump in the US of A or to Poilievre at home because both men are willing to exploit the grievances, real or imagined, of their constituents, Poilievre because he most likely shared much of their experiences, willing to let them know they are heard and believed, that none of the failings in their lives were their fault, willing to tell them they were not alone and loved. And didn’t Poilievre prove his love by visiting the so-called Freedom Convoy holding Ottawa hostage for three weeks, calling them “peaceful protestors” as he had photos of himself taken with the leaders evidently oblivious to the neo-Nazi and white supremacist symbols some wore and waved as they called for the overthrow of an elected government and harassed residents for wearing masks as they went to work? When he became leader of the party, months later, those wallowers in victimhood knew, simply knew, they had found their man and their voice.  

Two years after the convoy meeting, he spoke before an audience of police members, hinting at imposing Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Notwithstanding Clause, an odious escape clause allowing political leaders, premiers and, evidently, prime ministers, the ability to discard and replace portions of the Charter they don’t like with legislation that works for their agenda whether just, decent, called for or desired. But for his base, informed by social media platforms, conspiracists and Fox News, this was good news confirming what they already know and embrace: the game is rigged against them and someone hears them. As for mainstream media? Fake news by elites, the favoured word of the right. And didn’t he prove his love again, in April, when he met a group on the Nova Scotia-New Brunswick border protesting the carbon tax with signs offering unequivocal musings on love — “F___K Trudeau” — entering a camper to which was affected the Diagolon flag, a part of an extremist group which Poilievre may not have noticed. He paused long enough to call Trudeau a liar many times. 

Do these folks even listen to themselves? If asked, could they articulate exactly what it is about Canada that Poilievre screams is broken? Can Poilievre? Theirs is a rage that seems incoherent and against — well — everything. So, Poilievre’s message, such as it is, strikes a chord for many: harsher sentences for criminals. Eliminate bail for some accused and make it harder for others. Replace concurrent sentences for those found guilty of multiple injuries or deaths during a crime with consecutive sentences so that life actually does mean life without any possibility of parol. It’s less about justice than simple, understandable, good old fashioned retribution. Imagine what would have been Umar Zameer’s  fate if Poilievre and gang hand their way. Zameer was charged with the murder of Det.- Const. Jeffrey Northrup in 2021. The charge was considered dubious by many, including the judge who granted Zameer bail. Toronto’s Mayor John Tory, premier Doug Ford and sundry others raised their voices in opposition. Just acquitted, there was another chorus of outrage. Innocent or not, the fact that his race may have played a part, Zameer was guilty as far as the public was concerned, the charge against Zameer more than enough reason to put him behind bars. That is what Poilievre is playing to. 

The Notwithstanding Clause is fraught with danger for all citizens and will certainly be the tool most often reached for by those with a tendency for despotism as evidenced by the populist voices growing louder with each day, not just in Canada, but around the world. We have seen this by the actions of some of the premiers with Alberta’s Ralph Klien to prevent same sex marriage, Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall to void a court’s ruling removing funding for non-Catholic students attending Catholic schools, Ontario’s Doug Ford to reduce the size of Toronto’s council and then three years later to override the Ontario Superior Court decision voiding his move to expand pre-election third party spending from six months to one year while maintaining third party ads of $600, 000. It’s an undemocratic tool too easily deployed and often to the advantage of the governing party.  

The day following Poilievre’s audience with the police, April 30, conservative Rachael Thomas was ejected from the chamber during Question Period for suggesting Speaker of the House, Greg Fergus, was acting “in a disgraceful manner” for his handling of the House by which, I suspect, she meant his favouring of the liberals over the conservatives in attempting to tame a particularly raucous, but by now normalized aspect of Question Period. She and her colleagues claim she withdrew the comment when asked to do so but, if so, it had not been picked up by Speaker Fergus because MP microphones are usually shut off when the Speaker speaks. Then, moments later, it was Poilievre’s turn for expulsion for use of unparliamentary language when he called Trudeau “wacko” for which he refused to apologize offering instead to use in place “extremist” and “radical” neither of which Fergus accepted. When Poilievre left the chamber, conservative members followed him to then immediately go on social media to seize the opportunity to highlight their “unfair” treatment by a liberal House Speaker undoubtedly racking up more support and dollars for their cause. Nice stunt for the shameless! 

Not only does Poilievre and gang feed the conspiracy beliefs of their supporters who wallow in such — Big Government even screws politicians fighting for constituents! — they also join the crowd of victims proudly crowing over their antics, prouder still of Poilievre’s expulsion and even more proud of turning their backs on the House to monetize and exploit all in service of turning Question Period into a monkey house Gong Show of silly buggers. They can now claim further victimization by the liberal Speaker Fergus for his failure to control them; hence their calls that he resign was justified. 

Laurence J. Peter once quipped, “There’s no such thing as a cheap politician.” He’s right. But then, when it comes to character, 118 conservatives immediately spring to mind. 

Opening the door to Section 33 for Prime Ministers to invoke the measure would set a precedent and lead to invocation as a default maneuver for politician’s with an anti-democratic leaning. Judging from his words and actions, past and present, Poilievre would be that politician.

Several years after becoming MP, Poilievre was appointed to Harper’s cabinet becoming Minister of Democratic Reform (2013-2015) when he sought to bring changes under Bill C-30 the inaptly named Fair Elections Act and Bill C-50 the Citizens Voting Act  by which he clearly meant to rig the game favouring election outcomes for conservatives. With Bill C-30, the Chief Electoral Officer’s Role was to be greatly limited to encourage voting and informing citizens on the process of voting. Poilievre sought to remove the ability of the CEO to investigate electoral irregularities and fraudulent activity. This came about because of the Conservative Party’s involvement in voter suppression by the use of robocalls during the 2011 campaign in which voters in ridings favouring other parties were misdirected to non-existent polling stations on voting day. Too, several conservatives ridings had also engaged in the so-called “in-out” gambit in which money was transferred between ridings to circumvent campaign spending limits. But that wasn’t enough for the conservatives. Poilievre sought to have winners of of elections to determine who would manage polling stations in their ridings during the next election. This is extremely important because this allowed poll managers the discretion of qualifying and/or disqualifying voters should questions arise. As well, he sought to disallow vouching, i.e., the process of allowing another voter to vouch that someone without I.D. who wanted to vote was who he said he was. This, of course, mostly affected students of voting age away from home and transient citizens of no fixed address who, it may be argued, were perceived as sympathetic to the Liberal and NDP parties.

Bill C-50 was introduced by Poilievre to make it more difficult for expatriates living out of Canada for five years or more to vote by adding to the process of voting requiring additional documentation and paperwork. Evidently, the Harper government believed Canadians (presumably even military members) living outside of Canada were considered unlikely to vote conservative. 

Oh, he was young when he first became MP but no innocent, observing, learning and expanding on Stephen Harper’s playbook of politics. His go to mode was prorogation of Parliament. The first prorogation was to announce the Harper government’s success in achieving five priorities of his agenda (2007), the second, to avoid risk of losing a non-confidence vote (2008), the third to gain time to get a senate majority to avoid investigation of torture of detainees by Canadian soldiers during the war in Afghanistan (2009), and the final effort to avoid the expense scandal in the senate (2013).

Poilievre cannot be underestimated. He’s a quick learner and plays by his rules only and ruthlessly which apparently satisfies his colleagues and supporters. But what is really achieved by an official opposition led by a shrill maestro who leads a chorus of folk who reflexively reject the introduction of every piece of legislation by the governing party, who conducts a chorus of voices to jeer, heckle, sneer, shout, fleer and table pound without coming up with any offerings that are constructive or construed as solutions to fix all the ails that make Canada “broken” as they claim? They have made a mockery of Question period, creating a cacophony of sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing of value. Yet, their fortunes rise. Is this what we need? Pay for? Want? Deserve? To the last: probably yes. Federally we have only elected conservative and liberal parties to govern the country and, with each change over expect a different outcome. That’s a form of insanity as Einstein observed.

I do not support the liberals and suggest voting for conservatives under Poilievre reckless endangerment of the nation. It’s time voters paused to dwell upon what kind of Canada we want and what kind of people to do our business.

In 2023, while under protection of the House during question period, Poilievre asked Trudeau a question shocking because of it’s unmistakable reference to an unsupported roumour. Trudeau was asked by the opposition leader why he had left his teaching position abruptly mid-term. When asked to explain what he meant outside of the chambers by reporters, Poilievre did not answer the question preferring to equivocate and divert before walking away. Too, in February of this year, he declared he would not support the government’s online harm’s bill governing hate speech saying he would not accept “Justin Trudeau’s woke authoritarian agenda” nor take any lessons from one who had spent “half his life as a practicing racist.” This was a reference to revelations during the 2019 campaign of photos of Trudeau appearing in blackface in a 2001 year book. Evidently that had not been the only time. Stupid yes but enough to convince me Trudeau is racist but to convince me what kind of man Poilievre is. Character assassination by innuendo may appeal to the voyeurs and garbage collectors but hardly sign of leadership, decency or even maturity. What it does show is lack of imagination and the the depths to which Poilievre will wallow. Nothing is too low or too vile to not be embraced if it helps his cause.

That is the vision of life with Poilievre at the helm. 

I do not like Trudeau. I don’t support his party. But there is something about Poilievre that is more troubling and deeply disturbing. There is a smug mean-spirited certainty about almost everything he does and says as if he is incapable of tempering his rage or, if so, only for brief periods of time. 

I have little doubt that he relishes the role of the underdog who made it. In many ways, he is an open book and can be trusted to never quite tame the nature he was born with and that fits so naturally. His shedding of glasses and wearing jeans and offering heartfelt images of his family just doesn’t work because it cannot mask the anger, resentment and ambition that fuels him when in the House or before cameras. He is somebody to be reckoned with and one day he may become a better man than he is today. I don’t see signs of that happening in the near future. His appeal may endure, but not for long is my hope. In the world of politics, shrill, one note slogans and an endless supply of anger will eventually exhaust even those who wish to believe in him. Like Trudeau, Danielle Smith, Scott Moe, Doug Ford, and so many others, there’s plenty of noise, plenty of hot air but otherwise not much there there.

***

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

Leave a comment

Posted in Canadian Politics, Political Commentary and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

IS PIERRE POILIEVRE THE PHONIEST POLITICO IN CANADA?

Posted on April 18, 2023 by Frank A. Pelaschuk

People unfit for freedom – who cannot do much with it – are hungry for power. The desire for freedom is an attribute of a “have” type of self. It says: leave me alone and I shall grow, learn, and realize my capacities. The desire for power is basically an attribute of a “have not” type of self. — Eric Hoffer

Frank A. Pelaschuk

When it comes to oozing sincerity, none can beat Justin Trudeau. He knows how to milk every happy, sad, or tragic event particularly when he’s caught the camera’s eye. He is equally convincing, or was when running for his first term as prime minister, when it comes to making loudly boastful promises with chest puffed out knowing that these are often what the public wants or wants to hear: honest government, transparency, gender equality, jobs creation, feminism, electoral reform. But these, well, these are just promises and some, while approved, even desired by most, may not quite match or meet his own expectations: what’s the payoff for him. It’s alright to give but much better to receive. So, if the promises fail him in some way he is just as willing and eager to work at undermining and killing them as he did with electoral reform. Promises of openness and transparency, honesty, and integrity where left behind rather quickly and early during his first term as prime minister as he was found guilty of several conflicts of interests issues with friends and donors to the Trudeau Foundation and forgiving of members helping friends out with government contracts. For these breaches there was little blowback but lot of noise from opposition members. 

During his first campaign for the top spot as Prime Minister, he often and loudly brayed about his feminism only to later fail twice to condemn Donald Trump’s recordings of  “grabbing” women by the “pussy” when given the opportunity by reporters. Perhaps the issue hit too close to home when it came out that he had failed to disclose that he had been accused of groping a BC reporter when attending a music festival when he was twenty-seven or eight  or that he once attended an event in blackface. Of the first incident, Trudeau merely responded that people can interpret the same event in a different way. Yeah, right.

To my mind, these by themselves are egregious missteps. But then we have his seeking to interfere in the justice system and the rule of law regarding SNC-Lavalin when he sought to get his Justice Minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, to intervene on the Quebec company’s behalf  as it was about to face the courts on various corruption and fraud charges. When she refused, he set about to undermine her before expelling her from his caucus and then, with other fractures in their relationship, from the party.

But there is another politico, just as cheap, maybe smarter and, without doubt, meaner and uglier in tactics, though it’s difficult to imagine anyone more cold-blooded than Trudeau who, in January of 2014, unilaterally stunned his Party by expelling all Liberal members of the upper chamber; liberal senators were no more. That was cold and brutal. 

While Poilievre is certainly smarter than Donald Trump, while he seems quite willing to stoop as low, be as vicious and as untruthful as the former president and seems more than adept and in his best element when swimming in the sewer with the other sewer rats, it is difficult to envision him topping Trudeau’s mass expulsion of former colleagues.

Even so, I believe him more dangerous for Canada.

Recently, he has picked up that old bugbear favourite of conservatives, the CBC. In doing so, he turned to American billionaire Elon Musk, owner of Twitter, with a questionable, conspiracy oriented and erratic worldview to “accurately” label CBC as “government-funded media”(The National Post in the Ottawa Citizen, April 18, ’23). Poilievre knows better. True, CBC is partially publicly funded with dollars appropriated through a parliamentary vote of all parties. But by having it appear as “government-funded media” on Twitter, a subtle distinction but deadly in intent in political terms, Poilievre is able to make his point even though deliberately misleading, and to tweet, as reported by the National Post, “now people know that (CBC) is Trudeau propaganda, not news”. That is not breaking news. But it is misleading, it is malicious. The Canadian Broadcast Act ensures its editorial independence and has done so during the Harper years and since its inception. Poilievre knows this but facts and truth do not matter to those with an agenda which, in this case, is winning power by any means, including exploiting a perceived weakness, public money spent on programs some voters consider frivolous, mere entertainment. I don’t believe that’s the view of a majority but of a substantial number. 

But what is it about the CBC that Poilievre doesn’t like? Likely it’s the public funding. Too, it may also be the editorial independence that he does not like and fears. If he becomes leader of the country and public funds are going into the organization then he, as master of the purse string, should be allowed to control how it reports. That’s my take on what I believe he believes. For the Conservative leader and his gang, I strongly suspect the version of independent journalism they would welcome would be much like my barber’s, Fox “News” and its gallery of lying rogue commentators who were recently exposed as shameless election results deniers spreading information even they did not know or believe to be true. 

Loud, outspoken, hypocritical, few can best Poilievre; he will exploit anything and any weakness with the unerring instinct of a viper. Watching news clips in which he is speaking, it is clear that his team and he have made concerted effort to soften his image and manner. He has showing an alarming tendency to smile more broadly and more often looking like a man uncomfortable and in pain and, when the mask slips, as one with bared teeth ready to shred the nearest object. It seems to work for some too eager, I believe, to accept at face value what they see while all I see is a calculated mask impatient to shed the fake facade for the real thing. Those who embrace him, even as he urged them and fellow Canadians to adopt cryptocurrency and rails against the Liberals for making it impossible for young Canadians to own homes and the high cost of renting while he and other MPs invest in rental housing, seem unfazed by the first and is evidently untroubled by taking advantage of what he rails against. After all, he is a free enterpriser. 

But does he truly believe in democracy? Judge for yourself.

Consider his support of the so-called “Freedom” Convoy occupation of Ottawa. He and a few other Conservatives proudly posed with convoy members, a motley grouping of malcontents, whiners, swastika waving white supremacists, conspiracists who, when not honking their horns and intimidating locals wearing masks going to work, called for the overthrow of an elected Liberal government while whinging about loss of freedoms and wallowing in victimhood because of mandates regarding masking. Poilievre, ever the opportunist, saw a moment to bask in the sun and win votes having no scruples about appealing to the worst in others. I do not recall him condemning those seditionists but I do recall him saying they were a peaceful group. Locals did not think so. Nor did he condemn those who refused to follow the masking mandates that were put in place to help the public; instead, he and the Leslyn Lewis and others fed the line that freedoms were taken away. Tell that to those fleeing wars zones and totalitarian dictatorships.  But these are relatively harmless to his first real effort at weakening Canadian democracy. Under Harper, as Minister of Democratic Reform, he introduced the so-called Fair Elections Act that demonstrated indelibly how he really felt about democracy, freedom and fair elections. Not much.

As reported by PressProgress in Feb. 4th, 2014 (updated on Feb. 10th) Poilievre tabled the Act 70 weeks late in 2014 and, a mere 24 hours later, cut off debate. That there was no consultation of Elections Canada officials did not trouble him. Nor did his move to strip the investigative powers of the Commissioner of Elections Canada by moving the office to the Director of Public Prosecutions, thus limiting the powers of a non-partisan body to transferring them the office of government appointees. It’s called rigging the game.  Limits of annual donations were raised from $1200 to $1500. The beneficiaries of this legerdemain were, of course, Conservatives who, typically, do very well in campaign fund raising. As well, he moved to deny or make more difficult the voting process for First Nations members, young people and the poor, by no longer accepting polling notification cards as ID, eliminating vouching for others and banning advertisements encouraging people to vote as well as Elections Canada kits meant to teach students about the democratic process. Students away from home and the homeless would be most affected and disenfranchised. Not content with that, the Conservatives also sought to cut off debate on complex legislation, including omnibus bills in which legislation could be slipped in without anyone noticing. Of course, some did. But, there was more. Costs relating to donors from previous five years would be exempt from spending limits and poll station supervisors would be appointed by the candidate of the party that won the riding in the previous election. This is Pierre Poilievre. Fortunately, public outrage was swift and loud and the government was forced to make amendments and delete the more contentious elements.

Still abrasive, Poilievre nevertheless talks nicer these days, even toning down the shrill hysteria he is prone to. But do not mistake that as a voice for tolerance and justice. He talks it. Don’t buy it. When campaigning against Justin Trudeau in 2015, the Harper regime sought to introduce the Barbaric Cultural Practices Act snitch line targeting Muslims. That didn’t go over too well with the public. I don’t recall Poilievre speaking out against it. He is always the first to yap when he doesn’t like something but then? — peculiarly silent.  

When it comes to loudness, meanness, no one can beat Pierre Poilievre. This is where he loses to Trudeau. Trudeau is colder, more calculating and patient better able to play the long game. Poilievre not so much. He is mistaken in resorting to a makeover that will not work and cannot work because, while he may control it somewhat these days, he is still too quick to anger, to reacting and fighting back. He relishes the battle and over time the mask he wears will simply be tossed aside, all gloves off and he will attack, especially if he believes he has won the vote. 

In recent days, following incidents of violent, random, deadly attacks on individuals, he blames the rise of crime on NDP and Liberal mayors, on progressives and lax rules governing repeat offenders and bail. He offers no evidence, just spits it out and, for some, that seems sufficient. It may make for good headlines but it is cheap, much like the man and the Conservative Party offering it. Eventually folks will simply discover there is nothing there and tire of it. By then, it may be too late.

***

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

1 Comment

Posted in Canadian Politics, Political Commentary and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

POLITICIANS FEEDING THE MOB: THUGGERY, STUPIDITY & CONSERVATIVES

Posted on September 4, 2022 by Frank A. Pelaschuk

In time we hate that which we often fear. — William Shakespeare

It’s not the load that breaks; it’s the way you carry it. — Lena Horne

Frank A. Pelaschuk

Some would say this was an American import. There may be some truth to that; as a people we are not predisposed nor very imaginative when it comes to political disruption, law breaking, and mob behaviour so we turn south for lessons importing the vile, racist conspiracy theories of those with agendas of their own that we either miss or don’t care to understand though, it is also true, some need no lessons being naturally predisposed to mean-spirited victimhood with violent acts of stupidity and vulgarity that lends neither liking nor understanding for whatever cause they hope to promote.

They make almost daily appearances in the news, individually, as when knocking to the ground an elderly woman caught unaware, apparently Asian, while she waits for a bus and in mobs spitting furiously attacking politicians, journalists and those of particular hues, cultures, dress, religious beliefs, and relationships. Mostly, they prefer the mob perhaps too cowardly, feeding off the energy and rage of others finding courage in numbers and from the signs of visible fear and consternation of those they target aware that even in the presence of police, they are likely safe provided they don’t go too far and, if they do, their chances of escaping punishment is all but certain because the crowd is too large and the temperature too high for the authorities to risk further inflaming the mob.

But why all that anger, that talk of loss of freedom, that fear of government and authority? Do they really believe their own stories or even understand it? Are the words, the ideas, the thoughts based on any reality or are they merely manifestations of some inner need, a desire in this age of gadgetry when it’s possible for almost anyone to have their moment in the sun, to be recognized, to be assured that, yes, they too matter? Whatever it is, there is rage and its reality cannot be denied but is that fury justified and, if justified, are the objects of that fury the right targets? It is possible the majority of them do not understand that need, are too inarticulate and impatient to find answers else why do they look to others for help turning to the web, seeking others feeling as they do? They do find them on the web in the many thousands like themselves: lost, lonely, bewildered feeling somehow the world has outpaced them and angry that it is so. There, on the web, they have confirmed what they have suspected, they are not alone and soon, in their searching, they begin to hear other voices, ignoring the signs they may not be all they seem with agendas of their own, offering answers and quick fixes mixed with the comfort of promises and assurances that all will be well if drink what is offered. And what is offered? Just more confirmation of victimhood, voices of reason, common sense: the truth. And the truth is, they are not losers, only perceived so by others. If they have failed, it is others who are responsible, shading them from the sun, denying them opportunities to be seen and heard. They haven’t failed but have had their trust and naïveté abused. By whom? Well, the Socialist media with its lies and fake news and its dependance on Big Government supplying them the news regarding governance it deems fit for public consumption including ignoring real criminals and illegal guns while targeting law-abiding gun owners, pushing the feminist agenda of abortion, pandering to Indigenous people with truckloads of public money and apology after apology for crimes of long ago and in which they have no role, pandering to the Black Lives Matter Movement calling for defunding of policing, and creating special rights for every homosexual, transgender, he, she, they and it group possible while, behind it all pulling the strings, is Big Business bleeding dry the true victims.

It’s nonsense but, for those not wishing to look too closely, with enough elements of truth however minute, to fan the flames of intolerance. Maybe they have always been like this but I suspect not. For whatever reason, they feel swamped, overwhelmed and afraid of a life they no longer understand undergoing imperceptible changes no one notices but which transforms them forever into strangers desperate and fearful. When fear turns to anger, danger becomes real. Before we, or even they, realize it, they are “freedom fighters” warring against a common foe the rest of us are too blind, too stupid or simply too indifferent to recognize. We are docile sheep. In reality, it is these folks who have surrendered finding liberation in anger and relief in shedding all responsibility for all the things that went wrong in their lives. Have they ever asked themselves: Does this make sense? Is everyone really the enemy? Why have they targeted me?

Why should they? They don’t care to know. Not really. They just know they are getting s-c-r-e-w-e-d and will not take it anymore.

The stroke of political approval is often enough to encourage the haters, blamers and wallowers of victimhood to do the grunt work and be the public faces of the dirty work waving vulgar placards stating opinions on the Prime Minister and his governance or demanding his resignation or even that he be arrested for treason without explaining in what way when it is they refusing to recognize his government as legitimate. The pawn, stroked and emboldened will risk lives, their own and others, liberty and families, disrupting political events and stalking politicos and their staff condemning as mindless treacherous sheep anyone who supports government mandates, follow advice of medical experts, who obey Canadian laws and the rights of others to be safe while also accepting the legitimacy of their government while, themselves, the angry mob, flocking to websites in search of daily diets of half-baked ideas, outright lies, and conspiracy theories counting the ways in which they have been victimized by a cabal of Big Government, Big Business, Big Science (particularly Climate Change Alarmists), Socialists, abortionists, homosexuals and aliens walking among us helping Bill Gates and drug companies monitor us through bots-loaded Covid-19 vaccines (and why isn’t our government talking about that?).

And while it is true, the targets of hate and violent vitriol can be anyone — even minor disagreement among friends or refusal to be cowed can make one a target — women, particularly those of colour, in business and in the public eye, seem to merit special treatment trolled constantly online and in person by cowardly misogynistic imbeciles; they are threatened with rape, other forms of violence including threats of death at the workplace and at home, they and their families under siege by the ugliest of so-called proponents of “freedom”. Even so, no one of any gender, age, status or condition, fit or disabled, is spared.

Recently, in Alberta, Chrystia Freeland, Liberal MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister and other female members of her group were accosted while attempting to enter an elevator by a loud-mouthed thug and his female accomplice. Armed with Ms. Freeland’s itinerary, they knew where to find her and, once spotting her, began to harass her questioning her right to be in Alberta hurling vile, misogynistic epithets to which bullies often resort. The two stalkers, particularly the man, identified as Elliot McDavid, are large, overweight, and intimidating. Judging from the video highlighting their messages of ugliness and stupidity, both seemed particularly proud of their antics boasting like excited children about the success of their idiotic stunt working better than hoped, clearly demonstrating for the world two prime examples of Mother Nature’s most egregious blunders. They look little different from the troglodyte freedom fighters who occupied Ottawa for several weeks or from those that stormed the US Capital the year before leaving a few outnumbered security members dead.

These people do not act alone. Often in the background they are manipulated by others with their own vile goals. But not all lurk in shadows or on the web. These are politicos so steeped in the stench of ambition and cheapness that there is nothing they will not embrace, nothing that is so low or vile that they will not want you to swallow. Besides, most have made the job easy for them, having swallowed the poison on their own, or so they may think. Still, not folks to take chances or waste time with honesty and a life-time of integrity, these lowlives will stroke the tender sensibilities of those the woo engaging in the dog whistle political codes their supporters understand and appreciate because it is only then that they, the hoi polloi, are convinced the likes of America’s vile Donald Trump, or Canada’s Danielle Smith, Maxime Bernier, Randy Hillier, Leslyn Lewis, and Pierre Poilievre really do know them, get them, feel their pain. If these politicos understand the codes, the rabble know their intelligence has been noted as well as their wants: Make America (Canada) Great Again (let’s keep out the rapists and killers and job stealers crossing from Mexico or America and stop those homosexuals controlling our entertainment and media); restrictions on weapons (an excuse to target legal gun owners while leaving real criminals free to do their thing); the Harper era plan to introduce the Barbaric Cultural Practices snitch line (targeting you know who); illegal immigrants (job stealers); Muslims (who want to impose Shariah Law) and: Critical Race Theory (employed to offer reasons to not teach racial history, diversity, equity etc.). And then we have Leslyn Lewis, vying for the Conservative leadership who, in opposing Covid-19 mandates and vaccines, offers her vile contribution to dog whistle politics by raising the Nuremberg Code (an ethical set of principles passed following the war regarding scientific experimentation on humans). In evoking this, there is no mistaking what she intends by linking Covid-19 vaccines to Nazi experimentation of Jewish holocaust victims.

Coming from a female lawyer/politician of colour strikes me as particularly vile. She not only insults real victims of Nazi scientific experimentation, Jewish holocaust victims, she also cheapens political discourse in demonstrating a reckless disregard for any semblance of truth by conflating the two. In doing this, she has made herself irrelevant, demonstrating her unfitness to be MP let alone leader of a major political party.

Pierre Poilievre, another leadership contender, is, himself, no slouch at political grandstanding and cheap shots. During the Harper era of misrule and error, he made a name for himself when he and his buddy Dean del Mastro (the less said of him, the better), sought to bring disrepute to the House with their moronic actions including personal attacks against the Speaker of the House. Poilievre made a name for himself as Minister of Democratic Reform by seeking to discredit the chief electoral officer of Canada who opposed his Fair Elections Act which would open and close parts of the Elections Act restricting the rights of students away from home and citizens who are homeless from voting. Guess which political party would benefit? If you believe any other party than the Conservative party, you should not be reading this.

Most recently, in proudly being photographed shaking hands with members of the so-called “Freedom” Convoy, he and Lewis and other PC members have demonstrated support to seditionists wanting to overthrow an elected government, going so far as to support their whines of having lost “freedoms” with the Liberal imposition of Covid-19 mandates. A minor inconvenience becomes a loss of freedom? And yet they seem unconcerned about the rights and freedoms of others to be safe from harm by idiots masquerading as freedom fighters when, in truth, with their complete disregard for the well-being of others by refusing to mask, social distance and avoid crowds, could as easily have been members of the death squad infecting innocent citizens.

Poilievre? He’s been a dog whistler long before the term took hold.

And when asked to comment on the Freeland, something he and Lewis and other Conservatives have encouraged with their rhetoric, he made the thing about himself and his wife, saying she, too, has been harassed. That should never happen. Even so, there is much about him I find distasteful and, to my mind — cheap— though when speaking of politicians, that seems an oxymoron but here I am referring to character rather than his benefitting from the public purse.

Dog whistle politics can only lead to more of what happened to NDP leader Jagmeet Singh when confronted on the street and told to “look Canadian” by removing his turban, or protestors throwing pebbles at Trudeau and the thugs who took on Chrystia Freeland. It shouldn’t happen. No one should be subjected to the treatment endured by Freeland, Singh or Trudeau. Yet every day, in Canada, ordinary citizens are accosted daily online and in person, verbally and physically. It should not happen. That it does can be set at the feet of the likes of Leslyn Lewis, Pierre Poilievre, and far too many Conservatives to count. Anger is one thing, but, as John Steinbeck hinted at, when anger turns to fury and fury to action, things become dangerous. To my regret, I too, have not been as judicious as I might have been in writing to MPs. There is no excuse. I have been rude, and even used some euphemisms whose meanings are unmistakable. But I don’t harass, threaten or resort to outright vulgarity. That’s not necessarily a virtue when one is still rude. And I have been.

Now, some of the criticism made against Trudeau and his governance are correct. He is a sanctimonious hypocrite. He has been found to have abused conflict of interest guidelines at least three times and is the first to announce, often at the top of his lungs, moves to make changes that most are happy to support and yet, as with electoral reform, will undermine when be believes the gains will no longer be to his benefit offering excuses and lies for justification. And, as with electoral reform, this boastful feminist (he was more so the first few years as PM) he ensured that Maryam Monsef carried the chain for its failure and that her replacement, Karina Gould, strike the fatal blow to reform. He has accepted free gifts from benefactors, attended many secret fundraising events with Chinese billionaires in attendance who donate to a foundation in his father’s name. He has attempted to subvert the rule of law in the SNC-Lavalin matter, been less than forthcoming regarding sexual harassment allegations when he was 27 and his black face fiasco when even younger. His overweening and oozing sincerity is particularly cloying and even more offensive when one looks at all his broken promises.

I like neither Poilievre nor Trudeau. While both go about it differently, they have done far too much to cheapen and damage politics. But, as far as I know, Trudeau did not go out of his way to shake hands with white supremacist cowardly occupiers of the nation’s capital who do not believe in a democracy that I recognize.

Well, that’s it. I’ve ranted long enough and feel no better for it. I’m hoping this is my final post but make no promises. So, to the one or two who have read this mess over the years, thanks for your patience and endurance.

So long.

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

Leave a comment

Posted in Canadian Politics, Political Commentary and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

LIBERAL COMPLACENCY, CONSERVATIVE BOTTOMFEEDERS OR NDP DECENCY: TAKE YOUR PICK, I KNOW IT’S WRONG

Posted on May 12, 2022 by Frank A. Pelaschuk

Honesty may be the best policy, but it’s important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy. — George Carlin 

Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defence. — Steve Landesberg

Frank A. Pelaschuk

Whenever Pierre Poilievre, Candice Bergen, Cheryl Gallant, Leslyn Lewis, Andrew Scheer, Jason Kenney, Scott Moe, Doug Ford, or any gathering of Conservatives numbering more than one, appear in the same room, observers can be assured tedium, often the product of the shrill whine of white noise issuing from relentlessly flapping lips, is the main course.

The recent Conservative “unofficial” leadership debate of May 7, from which Patrick Brown wisely kept clear, perhaps an indicator of acute foresight and leadership credentials, gave a pretty clear picture of what I mean particularly of three of the contenders who are exemplars of windage, though it must be stated in all fairness that the perceived leader for the top position, outdid all the contenders in both windage and gas. That was Pierre Poilievre. The other two considered as possible contenders, Jean Charest and Leslyn Lewis didn’t stand a chance though Lewis gave a pretty good accounting of herself in the areas of pandering and fulminating noise slugging it out with Poilievre to see who could out-pander the other in trying to win the hearts, minds and votes of the same thugs, bullies, whiners and wallowers in victimhood who occupied Ottawa under the banner of freedom while denying such to the locals. 

Leslyn Lewis took Pierre Poilievre to task for not showing enough support for the so-called “Freedom Convoy” which, of course, Poilievre would have none of saying his was “the loudest voice” of support. When has his ever not been the loudest, most obstreperous voice? Jean Charest struggled for attention, finally achieving it when booed by an ignorant and noisy audience for saying Poilievre supported an illegal protest which was true but also understated because many of those thugs were seditionists calling for the overthrow of an elected government which, apparently appears to be the side Poilievre and Lewis have opted for, each trying to outdo the other in supporting folks who not only whine about non-existent losses of freedom, but also consider democracy fair game adding salt on the wounds of real victims of lost freedoms, some with losses that were absolute, as in Ukraine, victims of the Russian midget butcher, Putin. 

“Freedom Convoy”? Bullies, thugs, ignorant, gathered to convey some vague message of discontent and anger while others, in the background, pull their strings. Ask them exactly what it is that angers and what it is they have lost, they’ll give you the finger accompanied by a few expletives and spittle. 

Look at Poilievre, loud, arrogant and, unbelievably, proud that cheapness and ugliness is all that he has to offer, such is the dearth of ideas and shamelessness of his pursuit of winning conspiracists wallowing in their miserable fetishism of victims of a tyrannical government and a world arrayed against them.

Leslyn Lewis puzzles me somewhat. She’s pro-life. That’s fine. But, in competing with Poilievre for the race to the bottom of the sewer, she too seeks the hearts, minds and votes of folks who, not that long ago, if not still, would not have allowed her to use the same lavatory let alone dine in the same restaurant. What disturbs me is the both Lewis and Poilievre seem incapable of a vision that emboldens and ennobles. They apparently are content to seek the support of bottom feeders.

The official debate of May 11, while a quieter affair because of the format which led Poilievre to unwittingly silence himself somewhat because of his eagerness to speak on every issue. As a consequence, to six questions, contenders were allowed to challenge others up to five times by raising a paddle. Lewis and Poilievre quickly used up their challenges and were thus relatively silent while the others were allowed to offer their thoughts. While the fireworks may not have been there, I did get to learn more about the others. Again, for me, Poilievre came across as particularly odious, when, to a question regarding the so-called “Freedom Convoy”, he seized the opportunity to attack the moderator and media because they concentrated on “truckers who lost their jobs because of an unfair vaccine mandate imposed on them by the Prime Minister, who was targeting them without any scientific basis, than you were about holding accountable people who’ve actually done violence”. The tirade is untrue. The fiction of one who misrepresents, distorts and bends truth into something unrecognizable particularly to Ottawa residents, I am certain, who endured weeks of honking horns and torturous sleepless nights. 

Poilievre was and is by far the worst of the lot. We learned Roman Babar would open the north to mining. This is a highly sensitive region and is already threatened by climate change. Interestingly, while the debate was taking place, the feed at the bottom of the screen was of Nunavut hunters wanting to put a stop to a mine’s ice breakers because of the threat to Narwhales. Charest insisted he would cut taxes. Well, that’s not new. Every Conservative promises that and look what it gets us, infrastructures neglected and Healthcare and Education used as political footballs. Too, he expressed a desire to have more involvement of the private sector in public healthcare wherein taxpayers who will save money on taxes so that they can spend the saving plus even more on healthcare because, remember folks, private health thrives on PROFIT. Well, let’s face it, many politicos, when they leave office, often find work in the private sector, so why not help Big Business further feather the nest with government contracts before they leave or are forced out? That’s the sum of Charest’s vision. That’s some vision. Why not just put the money directly into Healthcare, hire more healthcare workers and cut out the middle men? Not for these folks. Oh, it’s fine to declare you wish to serve Canada, but really, come on, we all look after number one, right? 

Question Period in the House should be required viewing. None of the sides come out well but Conservatives have a penchant for demonstrating how truly ugly they are always on the lookout for the “gottcha” moment, asking questions with answers they already know allowing for no response, whether honest or not, that they will accept. It’s ritual, a game in which none of the players seriously play, an indecent, noisy gong show of insincerity and one-upmanship played on a seemingly endless loop. Loud, shrill and totally without decorum, the Conservatives seem particularly adept in creating the hysterical tone, in acting the wounded, outraged and wronged opposition members fighting mightily to do the job, not for which they were elected, but for seeking power and keeping it by fanning the flames of discontent and fear and untruths feeding the rabble what it wants to hear: they are victims of a inept, corrupt, unheeding governing party. Everyone’s agin ‘em. 

Sick, childish, disgusting. Only a masochist can watch and be inspired.  

Yet, here we are, expected to believe that they are fit to lead a country. Is this truly the best the Conservatives have to offer? Or the Liberals? Is this what we really seek? If so, then we are truly lost, deservedly so because we want it to happen finding it easier to embrace only that which conforms to what we want to believe. 

Conservatives, simply put, with Poilievre and his ilk, have sold themselves for the vilest of reasons and none of them have anything to do with serving Canada and Canadians. It began with Harper and Peter MacKay and the betrayal of the progressives in the party, such as they were, when they turned their backs on a handshake with David Orchard. It’s been downhill since. Look at the list and ask yourselves: Are these people good for Canada? Are the all we have? Do they really have vision, ideas, solutions? Jason Kenney, Stephen Harper, Scott Moe, Doug Ford, Derrick Sloan (booted from caucus), Michael Cooper, Melissa Lantsman, Candice Bergen, and every Conservative MP and MPP holding office today. They are preoccupied by the concept of Power: winning power by any means at any price for as long as possible. If that means stoking the fires of fear, conspiracy, intolerance, and superstition intermixed with a thick larding of revisionist history, so be it.

The Liberals are likely a bit more palatable. If just by a hair. They are probably nicer in handing out their poison but just as deadly. They suffer from a complacency and arrogance that is intolerable with a leader who is not only shallow but also dishonest, deceitful and weak with a propensity for a smug, loudly declarative style when making grandiose promises which he then undermines (as with electoral reform) or quietly walks away from or, when confronted, will lay at the feet of others. For a long while during his first term as Prime Minister, he was also fond of boasting of his feminism until exposure, time, and events laid bare the hollowness of that claim. Saying is not being. Revelations showed him to be less than he seemed and is. Wisely, these days you don’t hear him brag all that much about his feminism.

While it is true I have no fondness for the Liberals, it is the Conservative Party, in its present state, with its paucity of ideas and slate of representatives I find repellent for their meanness, anger, bigotry and parochialism. Just days ago, there was news of Ontario Conservative MPPs, eight thus far, receiving “expenses” from their own riding associations. Earning $165K+ salaries from the public purse, these honourable members were also willing to dip into donor contributions for these generous and quietly offered bonuses. Hopefully “honourable” members and the leadership of the riding associations made it appoint to inform all donors as to how their contributions were being used. I suspect not. It’s not illegal but can this really be ethical? According to Global News, here are the amounts donors directly, if unwittingly, gave to four MPPs on top of their salaries: Lisa Macleod, $56K+; Vincent Ke, $54K+; Kaleed Rasheed $23K and,; Greg Rickford, $14K+. And some people have the nerve to call them “cheap politicians”. With Conservatives, there is no such thing. Doug Ford refused to take questions regarding the matter and went into hiding for a day, perhaps enjoying his “buck-a-beer”. It’s likely donors to eight ridings might reconsider next time they get a begging call to “give”.

Still, while this practice may upset some Conservatives, particularly in the ridings of these members, I suspect this will not be enough to cause supporters to vote for an alternative party other than Liberals. It is almost a certainty that come next election, regardless of who leads the parties, the government of Canada will be Conservative or Liberal.

People often claim they want change but they don’t really mean it. If they did, they would look at the Green or, more realistically, at the NDP with its progressive agendas on health, housing, education and care for the aging and homeless populations while focusing on jobs and wages of those men and women, the real contributors to society, who actually keep the country humming. 

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh is not a perfect man. I never heard him claim to be. But I also know I have never heard him appeal to the worst in us nor heard of him exploiting any situation to enhance his own interests at the expense of others. Look at what we have now with the Liberals and Conservatives. I believe Jagmeet Singh honest, intelligent and more than capable. He is young enough to see and embrace opportunities that will work for Canada and its citizens and yet mature enough to learn from mistakes and own up to them. But even he has made mistakes. I am thinking of his treatment of Erin Weir. I did not like it. But, as I said, he is not a perfect man.

I believe in the hopes and dreams of the NDP. I support them when I can and am able. I believe in the Party’s integrity and ambitious goals and I continue to hope. But, I have seen enough to know that it is doubtful I will live to see the NDP allowed through the revolving Federal electoral door that allows only Conservatives and Liberals to govern, regardless of how coldly, mean-spiritedly or ineptly because the guardians at the door cannot, will not, embrace change. No one owes me that. I would love to see the NDP govern federally but accept I likely will not. But you do owe it to yourself to be smarter, to examine all the platforms of all parties and be open and willing to listen to all sides and to embrace change you believe in even if there may be a risk. Since when should fighting for a decent, just and noble vision be easy. Easy makes me wary. Taking the path of least resistance as we have federally since we became a nation has not allowed us to be the best we can. In fact, we have the flavour of Pablum, have become smug, and are viewed with amused tolerance as “nice people”. But, clearly not all are nice. While visiting the campaign office of Jen Deck in Peterborough, ON, NDP leader was greeted outside by group of thugs, loud, foul-mouthed and cowardly, hurling racist epithets and death threats. These are the types to which Poilievre and his type seek to woo. Bottom-feeding lowlifes. This has happened to Singh before. Again he proved himself calm, poised, adroit and clearly capable of keeping his nerve. That’s not just nerve under threat, but signs of a leader able to react coolly while under fire.

I have heard too often folks saying they want change yet, given the opportunity, do nothing to make the change possible. I have even heard them say, “My heart’s with the NDP but they can’t win” and then go on to ensure they don’t.

That sort of voting is astounding in its simplicity and stupidity. How is it possible for some to be so obtuse and willfully self-harming? Instead of trying something that’s been on standby, and ready, for decades, they are too timid to take the test; so, with a chagrined shrug, perhaps even saying, “What can I do?”, they opt for the easy choice, the “safer” choice, preferring what they have experienced time-and-again, the mean-spiritedness and opportunism exemplified by the Conservatives of today and the complacency and arrogance of a regime too corrupt and tired to really care about offering, let alone making, a real difference. 

Now, when I hear someone say to me, “I want to vote NDP but they can’t win,” I just mouth, “FU” and walk away.

Malcolm X said: If you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything. He was right.

Canada will lose again and again every time we opt for the same ol’ same ol’. We will convince ourselves we made the right choice but we never will because we could not bring ourselves to take that small step towards change. Voters need to shrug off that apathy, rid themselves of their doubts and fears and sense of victimhood and accept some responsibility for their own choices. Until we do, Canada will be the worst for it.

 And that’s on you.

***

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

Leave a comment

Posted in Canadian Politics, Political Commentary and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

TRUCK CONVOY: HIJACKED BY THUGS, EXTREMISTS, IDIOTS, AND CHEAP POLITICOS

Posted on January 30, 2022 by Frank A. Pelaschuk

Most people mostly use freedom of speech as freedom to bitch. – Mokokoma Mokhonoan

Frank A. Pelaschuk

Whatever the message intended by the so-called “Freedom Convoy” (80 – 90% vaccinated) on Jan. 29, it was lost not only because it happened to fall on the same day as the 5th anniversary of the the mosque attack in Quebec that claimed six lives and injured 19 others, but also because those with agendas, right wing extremists in the white supremacist, anti-government, anti-science movement and Maxime Bernier’s lunatic People’s Party, co-opted the protest in so many despicable and demeaning ways. Because of the few crazies, folks wanting to honour the memory of that tragic event were denied access to the site and opportunity to share their grief. Instead of Canadians witnessing a memorial in which people suffered the ultimate loss of freedom, we were treated to an astounding and disgraceful spectacle of folks loudly and proudly cavorting before cameras ecstatic that the world was able to witness them in all their glorious derangement. 

I agree that truck drivers and all Canadians have the right to protest, the right to be stupid and proud of it. But I don’t support their stated reasons for holding the massive and disruptive protest. Those there, moan of loss of freedom, loss of the right to make their own decisions; everywhere they look they see the big hand of government tearing away at their freedoms. They reject government mandates “telling” them what to do.

They haven’t a clue.

They are selective in what laws they are agreeable. I suspect every truck driver there has a valid license. That’s the law. I would guess they came from wherever in sobriety. That, too, is the law. No drinking and driving. There are countless examples of curbs to what we can do and they are, in fact, limits to our freedom. But we accept them. Yet, during this pandemic which has accounted for millions of deaths worldwide, those truckers and their ilk dispute the right of government to mandate, and businesses to enforce, requirements that employees be vaccinated, the wearing of masks, of social distancing, of not participating in large gatherings and reckless behaviour. In other words, they demand the rights to do whatever irresponsible and dangerous act they wish while denying the same of other members of society who wish only to be safe from the reckless actions of morons who believe themselves special and apart. They are, but not in ways they wish to imagine. 

Those anti-mandators do not like that governments and employers demand that they get the shots, mask, distance and isolate at the risk of losing their jobs. They have the right to refuse and many have done so, placing themselves and their families and their neighbours in danger. If they wish to endanger themselves, that is their right. But, if in doing so, they place others at risk, they are breaking the unwritten social contract necessary for the survival of all. In doing so, they have accepted the attendant risk of refusal: possible job loss, illness, even death. That is their choice just as we in society and employers have a choice and right to be protected from them. They have been warned. And they should pay with their livelihood if necessary. Just as they should if, in refusing to take measures to protect themselves, they end up in the hospital. Health care is publicly funded and, with this pandemic coupled with irresponsible political moves by governments, already at serious risk. Frontline workers are in short supply and those who are left behind are at extreme risk of burnout and falling ill themselves. So, if making stupid decisions lands you in the hospital with Covid because you didn’t like the guidelines and protective measures offered by medical experts and imposed by our government, then you pick up the cost for your own treatment since you have added unnecessarily to the cost and burden to the public purse and workers. Personally, if you end up ill because of your wish to be “free” to make your own decisions, I hope you never make it to the front of the line. You made that choice. But you will because those people you abuse and harass and threaten and, in one instance I am aware of, drove to suicide, will do everything in their power to help you recover because that is what they do. If you do get well, they will line the hallways and applaud their efforts and yours as you leave to resume your life. They care more for you and society than you do. They are the heroes in spite of your imbecility. That life you were willing to squander and that they gave back to you, is much, much more than you deserve. 

In the images on the news (yes, main stream news), there were a few s that stuck out. An anti-vaxxer, maybe 50, parading shirtless in 20 plus below zero; a female, 30 – 40, screaming how she could not wait for Donald Trump (whom she “loved, just loved”) to get re-elected. This, a Canadian protest held in the Canadian capital, with an overweight male without enough sense to come in from the cold and a real, live (breathing, in any case), if simple-minded barbie bimbo apparently confused about which country she was charming with her vacuity.

One of the comments often heard is the concern of injection of “foreign” substances into their bodies. That struck me as strange since we do it every day if not with over-the-counter drugs, with canned foods and frozen pizzas made from who-knows-what from who-knows-where. What do most of us know about what goes on in these factories? We go on trust, believe the food suppliers are legitimate, the products of good quality, the workers hygienic. What if some bored or angry worker spits in the mixture about to be canned, or handles the ingredients immediately after picking his nose or blowing a spray of snot into that ice cream you’re nibbling into. Would we know? Still we eat from the cans, swallow the pizzas, lick our lips to get the last bit of that creamy ice cream. Yet we don’t trust doctors and scientists to work in our behalf, which is also theirs, for they, too, have families and loved ones. No, we will not listen to science but will swallow without question Donald Trump’s recommendation to ingest ivermectin, a deworming drug for farm animals and Hydroxychloroquine which recommendation led to the deaths of a foolish elderly couple with misplaced trust. In the past, there were people who resisted treatment just as they do today. Nevertheless, thanks to science and government efforts, many diseases have been eradicated. Smallpox and polio vaccines have virtually eliminated them as threats and recent vaccines appear to hold promise of putting an end to malaria. Unfortunately, there will never be a vaccine able to erase the line of willing conscripts to misinformation, conspiracy theories and ignorance.  

“Loss of freedoms”? Those anti-mandate, anti-vaxxer folks mostly have no more awareness of what real loss means any more than I do. While all of us likely have experienced the pain of losing someone, most of us have not lost the freedom to roam, to vote, to get educated, to meet and marry the one we love. But there are parts of the world where women cannot work, cannot drive, cannot walk unveiled, cannot get educated, or even vote or speak out except by the say-so of men. In some places, if a woman is raped, she is the one to be faulted. In some parts of the world, homosexuals are imprisoned, even executed. Being a Christian in some parts of the world, as being a Muslim in Canada and the US, can get one killed. Those fortunate few who manage to escape those areas do not always wholly escape the racism, bigotry and violence that drove them here. One needs only look at the news to see how they suffer for wearing a hijab, look and dress differently, speak another language. If they are successful, they are accused of stealing our jobs or being favoured by governments or accused of bribery and corruption. But those six muslims and 19 wounded in Quebec five years ago, the family of four mowed down in London, Ontario last year, their families and friends and community, know all too well that Canada is not immune to the hatred and bigotry and violence played out in all parts of the globe for they and far, far too many pay a terrifying price including the absolute loss of freedom, their lives taken by Yahoos no doubt considered saints by white supremacist whining about wearing masks, social distancing and taking the vaccine shots. That is about their extent of knowledge regarding the loss of “freedom”.

Then you had those others, same type, picayune, parochial, stupid, draping hateful messages on the Terry Fox statue, mostly racist and vulgar, anti-Trudeau messages, the Canadian flag hung upside down having nothing to do with the putative purpose of the protest while others dance upon the grave of the Unknown Soldier. These folks possess not an iota of shame, of decency, or of understanding of the history and sacrifice that gave them the good life they presently enjoy and refuse to recognize. They prefer to whine and bully and threaten while uttering the words “freedom” and “rights”. They are not talking about rights or freedom for all. Otherwise they would not behave as they do. It is their rights and their freedoms only and always, on their terms.

To add insult, almost all of them informed and manipulated by extremists with agendas of their own, are seen in increasing numbers wearing a potent symbol of the past, the yellow star in which they seek to equate their imagined suffering and loss of freedom to the pain, torture and deaths of millions of holocaust victims forced to wear this symbol that identified and doomed them. This vile insult by the protesting, posturing jerks is defilement of the grossest kind. 

Yet, when one thinks it can’t get worse, it does. The anti-mandate thugs, and there are too many, went about harassing pedestrians and beating staff of businesses seeking to enforce the mask mandate. In one instance, they attacked and beat a security employee of a shelter while hurling racist taunts at him as they stole food meant the homeless who, unlike those thugs, really do not have anything. You see everywhere pro-Nazi sympathy, the Confederate flag and hear the endless blare of truck horns and partiers depriving citizens of sleep unconcerned about the health and well-being of the elderly and ill. Citizens were taunted and called “traitors” for wearing a mask, which is their right to do. Evidently these ugly lunkheads don’t seem to understand the irony.

And then you have the low-life sewer rat politicos, Andrew Scheer, Erin O’Toole, Max Bernier, Pierre Poilievre, Candace Bergern and the rest of the sleazy conservative and libertarian haters apprently sanctioning racism, violence and stupidity calling these folk “good”, “honest” citizens. Sure they are. Even the imbecilic Donald Trump and his equally brainless son inserted themselves into the foray. Nothing is too low for such as these. Lawrence J. Peter once quipped, “There’s not such thing as a cheap politician.” He almost had it right. Far too many are cheap in character.

Stealing food from the homeless! Dancing on the grave of the Unknown soldier! Going after the statue of Terry Fox! Displaying the Nazi flag!

Am I angry? You bet. I despise these people. The protestors live in their own world of victimhood, indulging in fantasies and imagined wrongs done them and the opportunistic politicos spur them on, adding fuel to those fears and wrongs. To them, nothing matters but their own selfish desires. They deny others what they demand for themselves. But when they demand the overthrow of a government, they should face charges and for the costs to taxpayers, they should foot the bill with severe fines or, better yet, the seizure of their trucks until the fines are fully paid and the city of Ottawa compensated. Not all the truckers were looking for trouble but those blocking highways, streets, forcing businesses to send staff home were no doubt encouraged by agents provocateurs. They are beyond selfish. They are frightened, loudmouth losers who deep within their core fear that they are less than adequate, that their lives are as empty and meaningless and worthless as they suspect. 

Watching them in action, I can offer them assurances: They are absolutely right in this only. Their lives are empty, meaningless and worthless.

***

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

Leave a comment

Posted in Canadian Politics, Political Commentary and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

SAINT JUSTIN TRUDEAU: THE END OF PRETENCE

Posted on August 25, 2021 by Frank A. Pelaschuk

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

Frank A. Pelaschuk

Abandoning Allies & Abusing Democracy

Justin Trudeau doesn’t even talk a good game. For the Afghani interpreters and their families numbering in the thousands, there is doubtless a profound sense of betrayal by the US, Canada and allies who have set August 31, 2021 the final day of hope for those seeking help in escaping the Taliban who have marked them for torture and death. 

For Trudeau, who has called an unnecessary, unpopular election in the midst of a pandemic that is on the upswing with the Delta variant, just two years into his second term, the fate of the Afghani men and women, women in particular, who have worked, suffered and risked all alongside Canadian and American troops, is of less importance than that Trudeau gain his Liberal majority. 

He may have miscalculated in that. 

By offering little more than a token gesture, begun eight years too late, he likely weighed the costs and determined the risks of working to rescue those people who helped Canadian troops when they were needed. He likely has determined he risks and gains little by doing nothing; he will allow Americans to bear the burden and do the work.

When Canada, under Harper, pulled out of Afghanistan seven years ago, the Taliban was still seen as a resurgent threat and even then, there were calls to assist those who had worked with western nations hoping to stabilize the country because they were clearly at risk as were their families. The calls fell on deaf ears and Harper and crew, waged the 2015 election exploiting the suspicion, fears and bigotries of Canadians against Muslims from Syria which would eventually extend to almost all Arab speaking states. For Canadians, the Harper-fed bigotry has run deep and still flourishes unable to differentiate friend from foe or, more likely, indifferent to such nuances: all Arabs look alike and must be Muslim and will threaten our good Christian way of life. Trudeau understands this. If he is one consumed with his public image (the saintly, heart-on-sleeves, politically correct, embracer of all safe, feel-good, societally approved schticks) and winning, he is also a pragmatist who finds it very easy to discard and kick aside all that has lost public favour or that proves useless to him embracing even what he once ridiculed. Trudeau loves nothing but the image of Trudeau intact and polished to eye-burning sun-dazzling extremes. He will do as much and as little possible to ensure that his star is the one that is ascendent and witnessed and draws the loudest gasps of awe. For a politico of his stripe, everything is of less importance than what offers the best chance of securing his political survival. He has no soul, harbours no real beliefs and is adept at moving whichever way the wind blows.

Canadian veterans have begged him to act; he has made a pretence of doing so but much, much too late. Men and women and their families are hiding, they are frightened and they are being hunted down. Many will die. But Trudeau will have his election.

And, like all federal elections since Canada became a nation, the outcome will be as it always has been because we have a revolving door that only allows Conservatives and Liberals to win. In spite of claiming to want change, to want something new, better and more transparent, Canadians will vote as they have always done, wanting more of everything while holding tight to their wallets. And the politicians will promise more of everything waving bright, shiny trinkets as bribes and we will snap them up and believe them as we have since 1867. We say we want change but that is a lie. We say we want honest governance. That, too, is a lie. When we keep on voting for the same parties offering the same lies, it’s clear we do not want change or honesty. We are not even honest to ourselves. 

We just want to be stroked, lied to and led. We have always wanted that. If not, why don’t we try something new and yet not that new. What do we really risk by voting NDP? There is no risk. We don’t like what they do, we vote them out.

But at least, we will have opened the revolving door enough to accept one more member. That’s a start. Maybe one day, Canadians will actually do what they say they want to do, that is, hold fair, democratic elections. 

Maybe the day will come when Canadians will actually embrace Proportional Representation as a model. But I will not hold my breath. And I will not hope. I’ve seen this charade too many times and know voters really do not want change, or have vision or even have wisdom. Politicians, when they lose will utter this platitude: The voter is always right. 

They don’t believe that. Neither do I. And, if you are honest, neither do you. 

***

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

Leave a comment

Posted in Canadian Politics, Political Commentary and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU, ERIN O’TOOLE, JAGMEET SINGH: HOSTAGES TO QUEBEC; DOUBLE STANDARDS IN THE FACE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA

Posted on June 15, 2021 by Frank A. Pelaschuk

Terrorism will spill over if you don’t speak up. — Malala Yousafzai

Speak your mind even though your voice shakes. — Eleanor Roosevelt

Never be afraid to speak your mind, you have one for a reason. — Sarah Moores

Frank A. Pelaschuk

Maybe it’s just me. In Canadian politics, I just don’t see much, if anything, to admire or respect, to risk hanging one’s hat on; it’s all about the main chance. Apparently, in matters of belief, principle, duty, and ability, the most important facility one needs to enter politics is the ability to be shameless. Integrity, character, empathy and sincerity are useful assets but not essential, items to be called upon when needed then set aside when not if and when they threaten one own’s goals. Honesty is a mug’s game so best possess a pokerface proficiency when lying.

The day of the truly honest, perhaps principled is a better word, politician has long passed, a product of another era; there was Tommy Douglas and Stanley Knowles. Three were even Conservatives: Robert Stanfield, Flora MacDonald and Joe Clark. But these are mostly personal impressions from what I have read, heard and witnessed on television. Though I cannot vouch for them first hand, I suspect these five were people, I might have liked though not enough to join the party of three.

The politicians of today do not interest me. None intrigue me or show signs of promise offering hope. The Conservatives are obstreperous, shrill, whiney, dishonest, short-sighted, and two-faced more likely to draw upon and appeal to the worst in us; they prefer to tear down than to raise up and are more willing to foment fear, create enemies and exploit bigotry not with the goal of making Canada a better place but in gaining power and clinging to it for as long as possible. The NDP fares not much better. It has surrendered too much of what I have always supported in the socialist vision. In fact, it spends too much time denying its roots drifting to the right, less interested in actually achieving things, as it often did in the past by holding the balance of power, than in gaining power. It’s a party that has consciously sought the middle ground threatening to drift and sink on the shoals of irrelevancy. As for the Liberals, well, what can one say? It’s a party steeped in corruption, hypocrisy and putrid with smugness, less interested in the governance of the nation than in protecting malfeasant corporate interests at the expense of judicial integrity provided the corporate interests are Canadian.

For all three, it’s about the main chance. 

Justin Trudeau is not a man I would care to know or even meet; I see enough of him on the daily news and that is more than sufficient to form an opinion: he is a poseur. When he wants the world to know that he is about to do done something, particularly if it is politically correct or, at the least, sounds good, as when he announced during the 2015 campaign that that year would be the last ever first-past-the-post election in Canada, he will, first looking to ensure the cameras are there and correctly positioned, loudly, and smugly make the declaration with a bombastic flourish, head high, chin and chest out. A certain cartoon majesty seeking public notice and attention. That will almost always work when the declarations are what most can agree on: equality, human rights, feminism, an end to intolerance and it will work particularly well with those who actually do believe in the good of people, even the very politicos who betray them time and time again. Myself, I’m skeptical. But hindsight informs. The smugness, and you can see it in his carriage in almost every announcement that he believes significant, (they all are — to him), derives from his awareness that, however bold and bombastic the promise, he has them. And if he breaks his promise, and he has and does time-and-again, it doesn’t matter. Regardless of how dishonestly, dishonourably or brutally he breaks the pledge and, at times, their hearts, he only has to smile and, oozing, simply oozing sincerity, dish up another offering just as meaningful to his fans. He is a rock star who can do no wrong no matter how outrageous or callous his betrayal. He treats them as suckers. And they are. They still follow and believe him when he utters, less often now than the early days as prime minister, that he is a feminist, that he believes in human rights, that he will fight for Canada, that his governance will be honest, open, transparent by default. Well, we know none of that was true, don’t we? One can almost hear him snickering: Suckers! He has wormed his way into their hearts with lies and promises that he broke again and again and will do again and again. He is tin sheet with the same depth.  

Oh, he looks good. He looks convincing. But I do not trust him; I cannot believe in him; I certainly cannot like him. I tried, but within months of his taking office, you could see him for what he was. A phony. Jostling female members aside with his elbows as he sprang to the chamber floors of parliament to grab a member and push him back into his seat. Or, most recently, when he, and all the political party leaders, attended and spoke out at a memorial service in London, Ontario after a Muslim family of five, Yumna Afzaal, Madiha Salman, Yumna’s grandmother, and Salman Afzaal, were mowed down by a young man filled with hate using a truck as a weapon. A nine year old boy, Fayez Afzaal, survived to mourn the loss of his sister, mother, father and grandmother. All, three leaders spoke out against terrorism and Islamophobia, Trudeau oozing, simply oozing the most sincerity. Yet, perhaps, we should be reminded if reminders are necessary and they seem to be, that the liberals, conservatives and NDP are on the same page when it comes to words versus action. Addressing Parliament, Jagmeet Singh spoke of his outrage and the need for laws to combat hate, especially Islamophobia. At the London vigil, June 2, he spoke out against the “Heinous act of terrorism” and spoke of the need for Muslims to be proud of who they were, of combating on-line hate, of the need for political parties to stop using “Islam for political games”, a clear reference to the 2015 campaign in which the Harper conservatives announced their intent to create a Barbaric Cultural Practices snitch line targeting, you guessed it, Muslims. But Singh’s words were there, the rage real. Or so it seemed. Erin O’Toole who spoke before Singh and after Trudeau, had been a member of Harper’s regime at the time of the snitch line debacle. On that matter, he had been silent as have been all those conservatives reelected until this devastating event. O’Toole’s London address noted the “rise of Islamophobia is the pandemic of darkness” and the need to “repel evil with goodness.” Fine words. But that night, he did not own up to the role his party and he and his colleagues played in that “rise of Islamophobia”. Since then, conservatives O’Toole, Michelle Rempel and others started falling over themselves to apologize for their failures in not speaking out when colleagues Kellie Leitch and Chris Alexander, departed but unlamented MPs, breathlessly announced the promise of the snitch line. Fine words at the vigil, but too late by far and by close to six years. And then we have Trudeau, self-declared feminist and equal rights supporter with his own history of hypocrisy of groping and blackface partying declaring the murders of the London family, a hate crime and act of terrorism. He was and is right on that. But wait.

So, there we have them, the three party leaders on the same page regarding this murderous May 30th event in London, Ontario. And yet, and yet, turning another page, they, Trudeau, O’Toole, and Singh, also appear in agreement that seems to deny their own fine words and sentiments expressed during the vigil for the Afzaal family. On this page, there is no moral outrage, no denunciations of hatred, of racism and of white supremacy. Not a word or, if a word, barely heard, a whisper perhaps. When offered the opportunity to back their words of the Afzaal vigil with deeds, they are peculiarly dumb.

Quebec’s premier Francois Legault has passed into law, Bill-21. It bans religious symbols being displayed in public buildings and on public servants while at work. Quebec aspires to nationhood and calls itself a nation. It is not. Yet not one Federal political leader is willing to say this. Quebec not only aspires to nationhood but aspires also to secularism. But this aspiration has less to do with religion than it has to do with one particular segment of society. You’ve got it. Bill-21 targets Muslims. Again, not one federal leader has challenged this law. You see, they all want to be elected and to do that they need the Quebec vote and Bill-21 is wildly popular in Quebec and politicians, as you know, are nothing if not cheap, sleazy pandering, opportunistic whores. Quebec has Canada in a stranglehold and our leaders cravenly standby, putting their political fortunes over that of Canada. Their silence on Quebec as a “nation” is divisive and may embolden the malcontent whiney premiers like Jason Kenney, Scott Moe, Brian Pallister, Doug Ford and their supporters to boast the same and act accordingly. On the matter of Islamophobia or any form of hatred and violence, there is even greater, more immediate need for concern.   

Shortly following the vigil for the murdered family where politicians of all stripes said their fine words, a reporter asked Trudeau if he, Trudeau, believed Quebec’s Bill-21 to be racist. Without looking at the reporter or camera, staring fixedly ahead at nothing, Trudeau, his face tight and expressionless, gave his succinct one-word verdict: “No”! It appears that O’Toole and Singh agree.

That’s about all I need to know about these people.

***

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

Leave a comment

Posted in Canadian Politics, Political Commentary and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

TRUDEAU: STARSTRUCK, BAD CHOICES AND CHARACTER

Posted on February 10, 2021 by Frank A. Pelaschuk

Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke. – Will Rogers

What the country needs is more unemployed politicians. – Angela Davis

Frank A. Pelaschuk

Even as opposition member during Stephen Harper’s reign, Trudeau had about him the air of a youngster eager to please alertly mindful to how the elders were responding to anything he did: Had they noticed what a good boy was he. For many, exhausted by the mean-spirited leadership of the conservative regime, Trudeau’s desire to be liked and noticed, seemed refreshingly innocent particularly when accompanied by loud pronouncements of what he would do during his run as prime minister, a few bold and easy to support: electoral reform; reconciliation with indigenous communities; action on climate change; ending omnibus bills in which were slipped questionable, unannounced legislation; reinstatement of disability pension plans for veterans; and ending the practice of prorogation of Parliament as a tactic to reset an agenda, to avoid questions, to prevent scandals from gaining traction, and to trigger an election. Said Trudeau of the last in 2015, “Stephen Harper has used prorogation to avoid difficult political situations. We will not.” With him and his liberals at the helm, governance would be different, better wherein honesty and transparency “by default” would be the hallmark was the promise. Canadians had heard this before, of course, countless times, but there was something about the young prince that made many willing to suspend incredulity for there was much to like and embrace apart from his earnestness. For the sceptical, perhaps spent by too many disappointments, while there was a desire for change, hope was measured; there was about Trudeau something too calculated for either trust or faith; he could earn their liking, receive their best wishes but not their vote. 

During the 2015 campaign and for some time following as prime minister, Trudeau seemed almost a naïf, earning good-humoured ribbing for his willingness, nay, eagerness, to apologize for almost every real past and present grievance experienced by segments of society. But humour soon turned to scorn when the apologies came too easily and as if by rote and for things over which he had no control ringing even more hollow when offered without reflection or followed by remedial measures. For a period, he was likely the sorriest world leader of our time if not all time. Eventually, ever sensitive to the direction of the public wind, perhaps realizing charm had morphed to smarm in the eyes of some, Trudeau’s apologies waned and then all but ceased. Now, when matters for which he should apologize are raised, and there are a lot of them, there has been a noticeable shift in how he reacts to questions he does not like. The warmth vanishes and, with it, the charm, his body becomes rigid and his gaze wanders coldly off into space for extended periods of time. When he does respond, he does so with frosty politeness offering non-answers, equivocations, deflections, side issues, glib dismissals, and/or excuses meant to be accepted as reasons. Still, the public likes him. Why?

Trudeau’s early forays into his first term, gave a clear vision of the man he would be and is…one of fluid ethics and familiar character failings common among cheap politicos. Even as he took steps to initiate the electoral reform promise, it was clear he meant to rig the outcome to his liking and when that didn’t happen, the committee recommending some form of proportional representation practiced by most democratic nations around the world, he preceded to sabotage it saying Canadians had lost interest. His minister of democratic reform, Maryam Monself denounced the committee for taking a pass on making a decision. The public outrage stemming from that prompted Trudeau to contract a firm to do an online survey on electoral reform that was mocked as unscientific and dishonest, allowing individuals to make unlimited entries and denied opportunities to answer direct questions on electoral reform systems because none were offered. Trudeau was determined. He was going to kill electoral reform and, to that end, Trudeau replaced Monsef with Karina Gould who officially drove the stake into the heart of electoral reform while he, having washed his hands of the affair, walked away the two female MPs bearing the brunt of the fallout. That would not be the last time that happened.

In appointing Jody Wilson-Raybould Attorney General and Minister of Justice, the first indigenous and third female to hold the post, Trudeau had made a prize catch in which he could bask. Unfortunately, politics and business got in the way when he sought to have Wilson-Raybould intervene in a charged court case involving SNC-Lavalin, a Quebec-based construction giant facing charges of bribery, corruption and fraud. If found guilty, the company would have been barred from doing government business for ten years. Worse, such a verdict might have a negative impact on Trudeau’s Quebec political fortunes if he was perceived as having not done enough to protect a major Quebec employer. Trudeau wanted the Minister of Justice to lean on the Director of Public Prosecutions to offer the company a Deferred Prosecution Agreement that would have allowed the company to avoid a trial, a guilty verdict and continue to do government business simply by meeting certain remedial conditions that were mostly window dressing in nature. Jody Wilson-Raybould’s refusal to intervene in the case enraged Trudeau and liberals who then embarked on a smear campaign to discredit her eventually forcing her from office of Governor General and Minister of Justice to that of Veterans Affairs until her resignation from cabinet to sit as an independent. Of the remaining liberals, only one other, Jane Philpott, a very capable minister and recently appointed to the senior position of President of the Treasury Board, stood up in defence of Wilson-Raybould, resigning to sit as an independent in solidarity. For that debacle, Trudeau staunchly refused to apologize “for saving Canadian jobs” nor did he apologize for seeking to pervert the rule of law. The gloves were off. No more mister nice guy. For that. too, he remains one of the worlds sorriest world leaders. Two more women took the hit. Trudeau? Not so much. Bruised but not battered enough.

Feminist? He declared himself so often enough. If so, perhaps adopted when he was about 28 or 29 and after attending a Creston Valley music event where he was accused of groping a local female news reporter. When it made the news at the time, he apologized to the woman, claiming not to recall any inappropriate behaviour even saying the same 20 years later, “Who knows where her mind was and I fully respect her ability to experience something differently” (CTVNews, July 6, 2018). Incredible. After all these years, when questioned on the allegations, he appeared fairly untroubled even seeming to suggest the reporter chose to remember whatever encounter that took place in a way that suited her. How far removed from his zero tolerance days when he booted from caucus two liberal members for unrelated allegations by an NDP member of sexual harassment. Though both denied the allegations, they were informed that they would not be allowed to run under the liberal banner as long as the allegations stood, Trudeau, to all intents destroying the careers of two individuals on untested allegations. It made for a good if bloody show; unfortunately, the zero-tolerance edict ostensibly didn’t apply to him. Feminist? When it is safe for him, evidently. Then we have Trudeau’s response to the release of the Trump tapes during Trump’s 2016 election bid with Trump educating a tv host on how the rich and wealthy treat women boasting of “grabbing them by the p____”. When asked on at least two separate occasions to comment, Trudeau refused to take the opportunity to condemn Trump saying he didn’t comment on American politics! Evidently, Trudeau’s views on feminism and harassment (among others) are not so deeply entrenched as to hobble him. Politicians are rarely ensnared by principle. Feminist? We only have his word. 

Free gifts; access-for-cash secret fundraising events with multi-millionaires; turning a blind eye to human rights by signing off on the Harper initiated LAV deal with murderous human rights abusing Saudi Arabia and then offering lie after lie as reasons for doing so. When not pretending to be a progressive, as he sought to slip legislation into omnibus bills, Trudeau prorogued parliament to avoid answering questions regarding his sole-sourced contract (two more broken promises) to the high profile WE Charity having determined that charity the only organization capable of administering the $912 million government funds for the student summer grants program. This was a highly visible and popular charity, something Trudeau could easily latch himself to and further burnish his image. But there was a hitch apart from the sole-sourcing of the contract: Trudeau and the liberals had a few too cozy ties with the charity. Trudeau and his wife, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau had made several appearances at WE Day events before and after he became prime minister. In fact, Trudeau’s wife, mother and brother received from the charity about $427K for appearances and expenses. WE Charity paid Sophie Grégoire Trudeau’s expenses to the UK so she could meet British superstar Iris Elba. This was arranged by Bill Morneau, then finance minister, whose daughter worked for the organization. When the decision was made to offer the student grant program to WE Charity, both Trudeau and Morneau were in attendance. They should not have been. Morneau had the grace to at least resign. Trudeau? He offered a puerile apology; his days of oozing, simply oozing sincerity over it seemed. The founders, Marc and Craig Kielburger, and the charity, were left battered and bruised, reputations tainted leading to the closure of the Canadian arm. While much of the Kielburger’s difficulties were largely of their own making in the way of bad business decisions and advertising tie-ins, the decision to sole-source was Trudeau’s. He threw the charity and his dazed friends under the bus just as easily as he sabotaged electoral reform once they were no longer utile and posed a threat to his brand. When around Trudeau, it might be well to recall Jeremy Thorpe’s words: Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his political life. Trudeau smiles, but he is as ruthless and as untrustworthy as any political snake. When the WE Charity scandal broke, prorogation was the tool to which he resorted hoping Canadians had a quick forgettery. Clearly, we do; some still consider him Prince Charming.

In one of the most egregious, odious and disgraceful acts by Trudeau and his liberals, the political meddling in government supply ship contracts favouring Irving Shipbuilding must certainly be topmost. As with Jody Wilson-Raybould, Trudeau’s liberals embarked on a campaign to shred the career of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman who opposed the political interference in the contract made by the previous Harper regime. Even when it became clear that Trudeau and his government had lost the public relations and legal battle, the PMO persisted on a path that was vindictive, cruel and incredibly petty. When the case against Norman for breach of trust collapsed, a motion to issue an apology in the House was made, a motion to which Trudeau agreed. However, before it was adopted, Trudeau left the House for an “appointment” in Hamilton, Ontario. That move was worthy of Stephen Harper. Classy. Oh, yes, Trudeau’s days of apologies are seemingly over while another’s life sits in ruins. That is Trudeau. Gotta love the guy!

And, if anyone thinks this is a man of sound judgement, let’s go back to another time after his groping days of reporters to when he was 29 and appeared in blackface, another thing he neglected to mention from his past. When confronted by this, he admitted to doing some “dumb things”. That’s allowed, we all do dumb things. But, in the age of feminist and racial sensitivity, an individual of 28 and 29, especially one as attuned to the political winds as Trudeau, must surely be aware of what is tolerated and not particularly when contemplating a political life smugly serene of having created an image of the sensitive new age guy appealing to the young, women, grandparents, and those calling themselves progressives. He might have been better served by addressing his own “unconscious” racism long before it became public. As leader of a nation, shouldn’t he be more reflective and receptive to delving into his attitudes then and now? 

Trudeau has manufactured an image of himself that the public was meant to embrace. He could be touchy-feely but was determined to demonstrate he was no soft mark. In 2014, as liberal leader, he informed senators in the Upper Chamber who had always considered themselves liberals that they no longer had ties to the party and were, in fact, no longer liberals, but independents. It was a raw, showy, nervy display of muscle-flexing, arrogance, and cynicism that was and remains meaningless except as an indicator of his hubris and character. In May of 2016, seeking to rush through a bill on assisted dying, Trudeau, now PM, strode on the floor of the House to manhandle the Opposition whip and, in doing so, roughly elbowed a female NDP member telling her to get out of the “f… way”. Mr. Nice Guy…well, seems he’s not so nice after all. Political theatrics. He had a point to make. 

Does it boil down to simply politics, the way of doing business? What does that say about his character? Is it that easy it is to throw away the trust of those who gave you the keys to the House? New. Different. Better.

Some have dismissed many of what I have outlined as just youthful enthusiasm and a sincere if at times over-zealous desire to do good. I am not so sure. Trudeau is too studied in what he does, one always on the lookout for the approving looks, the props he can exploit, and is well aware of the location of the cameras. He is starstruck with his own personae believing, I suspect, Canadians will forgive him almost anything. But he is also starstruck as in celebrity stars, but not in the way of a true fan patiently waiting in line for an autograph or hoping for a photo with the star or sappily mooning when the celebrity speaks to him. For Trudeau, celebrities are only tools to be used in the same fashion they and politicians use citizens. Sure, they all stroke and use each other ensuring they all get their rewards. Even the little people, the grateful seekers and voters, if only often in the way of shiny trinkets and empty promises.  

Yet, even as he reaches for the stars and wins them over, he occasionally misjudges and misfires; the reflected glory that he seeks at times redounds negatively on him as it has recently with the resignation of Julie Payette, his personal choice as Governor General. When it came to replacing the governor general, Trudeau did not trouble himself with using a committee to find and vet candidates. He already had one in mind: female, single mother, famous astronaut, Quebec born, fluently bilingual, a scientist, a professor, a musician. On paper, Julie Payette was an excellent choice, a superstar; Canadians would love her, and he would come out of it a winner. He was golden because she was golden. 

Except, she wasn’t so golden, after all, quickly proving herself a loose cannon racking up massive expenses of close to $400K in renovating Rideau Hall, customary home for GGs, and then refusing to move in preoccupied with privacy and scrutiny. And if she proved a headache for security, often ditching them to do whatever, she also proved lazy in the performance of her duties, failing to visit some provinces, often ignoring many public functions routine to her position. Then came the release of the damning report of how she and her top aide, a personal friend, Assunta Di Lorenzo, had transformed a once “idyllic” workplace, as described by one worker, into a “hellhole” of meetings that involved harassment in the form of screaming, foul language and victimization of individual targets at staff meetings that left workers weeping, bruised and exhausted until some, unable to tolerate the toxic environment created by Payette and her aide, resigned. When the noise became too much, Payette offered her resignation, her annuity of $150K a year and an expense account reputed to range from $150K to $200K a year…for life, still intact. And Trudeau’s response to all this? Pretty tame, platitudes about how everyone is entitled to work in a harassment free environment, but no apology for his role in scrapping the vetting committee and for opting for celebrity and the spectacular rather than the more down-to-earth hardworking, capable talent required of the position. With this debacle, he further entrenched his position as a leader of the sorriest kind. No regrets. Not a hint of shae.

There is very little about Trudeau to admire in my books. He is too willing to resort to legalese rather than what is ethical as whe have seen time and again. One more example.

He has opted to dip into COVAX, a global plan coordinated by the World Health Organization created to pool resources of richer countries to offer funding and equal access to vaccines to poorer nations during this current crisis. Now Canada and any of the G7 nation are entitled to dip into the stock, but most, it appears, have no intention of doing so preferring to let it do what it was created to do. Not so Canada. Because the deals made with Pfizer and Moderna to supply the Covid-19 vaccine will not happen as quickly as believed and hoped, Trudeau has unapologetically (are we surprised?) dipped into the plan saying Canada is entitled to do so. That’s true. That’s also legalese. Because one can doesn’t mean one should. No wonder so many are looking at Canada askance and shaking their heads. Have we no shame.

And yet?

For the public, Trudeau’s handling of the pandemic crisis seems about right. Charm, good looks and oozing sincerity, are apparently sufficient. But there are signs the crown is slipping. 

Oh, yes, he’s a good boy, is he 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

2 Comments

Posted in Canadian Politics, Political Commentary and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

DONALD TRUMP LOSES AND HIS DIAPER BRIGADE GETS TO WORK

Posted on November 7, 2020 by Frank A. Pelaschuk

In a republic of mediocrity, genius is dangerous. – Robert G. Ingersoll

From the errors of others, a wise man corrects his own. – Publilius Syrus

Frank A. Pelaschuk

God help America. Words likely no more heartfelt than today.

Donald Trump is yesterday’s man in the world of politics. Even so, the stain of his legacy will be difficult to erase. In every conceivable way, as a man, a role model, as a businessman, as a leader, as a president of the United States, he is a contemptible loser. He is not only crude, he is cruel. He is a misogynist yet preys on women and thinks nothing of mocking those with disabilities and better people, real heroes, who have proven themselves in battle. He is a racist. He is stupid; to call him ignorant suggests a capability to learn and grow giving him too much credit. He surrounds himself with sycophants and panders to racist extremists fanning the flames of discontent and uncertainty. He encourages conspiracy theories and violence against perceived enemies which includes everyone who is critical. He possesses nothing of character that is not cartoonish, certainly nothing of dignity and the same goes for those who continue to stand by him, those whom Hillary Clinton had, to my mind, correctly judged as making up the “basket of deplorables.” For this, Clinton was roundly and unfairly criticized. What she had said may not have been to everyone’s liking but, given what has followed and continues to this day, convinces me she was right and right for saying so. 

Without any evidence to back the claims, despite courts tossing out suits in states where he lags behind, Trump continues to make declarations of widespread voter fraud with his plavlovian following of losers blindly repeating the charges, unwilling or unable, probably the latter, to accept and process what the whole world knows, the fraudster, the huckster, the liar, the cheat is himself seeking to steal the election in the belief that wailing and flailing like some gigantic baby soiling his diapers in a paroxysm of fury over the fact that he is a loser will magically set things aright in the fantasy world in which Trump and his kind live. These are not smart people nor are they good people. They are spoiled, self-absorbed, thoughtless people who believe nothing should get in the way of the fictional world they inhabit; their rights, their wants, their beliefs are all that matters and the hell with the world that doesn’t mesh with theirs. Covid-19 is Chinese made transmitted by telecommunications towers or a gigantic hoax or no worse than a flu. Wearing a mask is the end of their rights. As I say, these are stupid people placing faith in a buffoon who holds them in contempt. These folks are bluffers and hot air with streaks of meanness and pettiness as core to their character. And they are dangerous. Not only to themselves but to others and to the very concept of democracy and the nation they claim to love. Demagoguery and discord are what they thrive on and Trump is all too happy to feed them what they want: the right is victim to a gigantic conspiracy. They are shameless in their dishonesty, their efforts of revisionist history, in their self-deceit and utter lack of moral integrity, not only as citizens but also as adherents of American democracy. These gun-totting, gun-loving, God-fearing, church-going hypocrites, extremely vocal in their professions of love for America believe in none of it but their gun love and Trump love and their love of victimhood. For them, to truly commit to democracy would necessitate a turning of their backs against the church of Trumpism, of opening their eyes and minds to the world that is rather than the lala land of their fervid imaginings and of accepting the fact that their leader is a L-O-S-E-R wanting them to be exactly what he is: losers. 

For them, in their petty partisan fugue state, that would be no stretch.

Facts do not matter. Truth must be distorted. They wallow in the demagogic ramblings of a lunatic who must be constantly stroked, who cannot accept he can lose, who insists he is the smartest man to have ever been born; luckily for Trump, the likes of Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and Rudy Giuliani, morally corrupt and venal, are always there to give him what he craves. They were born for roles such as this.

Lose, Trump will not go quietly. Win, he will not do graciously. The fact that this loser continues to cast doubt on the integrity of the vote count has led to a crisis that is truly alarming. As one group of Americans, under threat of violence, undertake the duty and honour of ensuring the democracy once much admired around the world remains intact with an accurate, honest and secure count, another group of armed miserable Yahoos threatens to tear it apart. It is these Yahoos who do not believe in the vote. Nor do they believe in democracy and the vision of America. Facts account for little their world of alternate reality. As I write this, Biden has been declared the winner. Trump and his supporters would have you believe the vote stolen, democrats dishonest, that everything that makes Trump a loser is just part of a conspiracy. Regardless of the facts, of the evidence, Trump has won his second term. They are zealots of a faithless cause with whom there can be no reasoning. For them, as for Trump, it will always be: the cheaters won. 

Unfortunately, when all this is over, Trump will have left his stain on American democracy. It may never be removed. He will have triumphed in his own vile way and it bodes no good for America. Even so, Trump can ramble incoherently all he wants; that’s allowed in a democracy. No matter the final outcome, the judgement and verdict of history will be final. Trump and the republican party has disgraced themselves and the offices they held. They have happily played the part of petulant vengeful thugs and losers.

That’s all they had and have going for them.     

***

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

Leave a comment

Posted in Political Commentary and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
← Older Posts
→