Trudeau is the most divisive PM Canada has seen in decades. Maybe ever. The Liberal party of today is not the Liberal party of Chretien, Martin etc. But at this point in our history, most political parties are a bit of a mess. No party has any real vision for Canada. Most politicians want to get elected for their own self-interest, not to make Canada better. Which is supposed to be the point of public office.
"Vendors provide services to the public, and shouldn’t discriminate against individuals or groups".
"Canadians will not support a government that seeks so transparently to divide it [sic]".
Our Covid response shows that all the old rules are inapplicable, as long as the media is willing to give the government their support, explicit or tacit.
Very well written. it seems to me that outsiders must consider us the most racist country in the world and that is certainly not what we are. However, I'm really wondering about our PM!
We've entered the post truth era. Whenever ruling governments reject history, and the pursuit of knowledge and truth, and when they label the very institutions which were instrumental in shaping and building our societies as racist and irrelevant, it only leads to chaos; a house of cards environment, so to speak. How much longer are people going to tolerate it, is the real question. I hope they wake up before the damage is irreparable.
Kudos. I agree with almost everything in this article, and it almost could have been written by me. Although I have never had a party allegiance, I have voted Liberal most of the time and have voted NDP and have voted for either PC or CPC. In fact, I've voted for 5 different parties in the last 5 elections I've voted in. And that includes having voted for Trudeau's Liberals in there.
But, he has rapidly become the worst PM in my life. I liked his potential when he freed up the Liberal Senators, while not in government or even opposition -- a move toward a more non-partisan Senate. I miss that guy. Instead, we get Canadian Trump. Actually, worse that that; we get the Trump that Trump-haters said that Trump would be.
They said Trump was a bully and called people names. Sure; he verbally attacked the press and called people names like liars, fake, lazy, and -- to his former porn star mistress -- "horseface". Compare that to our leader verbally attacking his own citizens who dare disagree with him on anything as racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, "unacceptable views", "take up space", and that "those people" are "putting their kids at risk, and our kids at risk".
We've heard that kind of demagoguery before, of course. After 9/11, "those people are a threat to our children". In WWII, both our internment camps or German concentration camps were justified because "those people" were a threat to our children. The KKK made those claims. Homophobes confusing homosexuality and pedophilia make the same claims. That is what demagogic bigotry looks like. "Those people are a threat to our kids."
The U.S. got orange-face. We got black-face. They said Trump would be fascist and take away your rights, and create a police state. Instead in March 2019 he made an Executive Order that federal agencies only fund colleges and universities that protect and promote free speech and free inquiry. And Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act to sent troops to address the 2020 riots that saw more than 30 people killed, thousands of police injured (and some killed), and $billions in damages.
By way of comparison, we get Trudeau invoking the Emergencies Act, tow-truck drivers forced to provide trucks against their will, $36 million in a paramilitary operation in Ottawa, freezing of bank accounts without a court order (and threats to anyone who donated), to deal with a peaceful protest filled with hugs, bouncy castles, singing of O Canada, national unity (even between Quebec and Alberta participants), who were in full compliance with the court order (which only limited air horns and train horns, not honking), and working with city police and politicians to keep lanes open and out of residential areas. He didn't even bother to send an envoy to talk to them. He went from name-calling and hiding to full tyrant mode and wasted money for no good reason.
Trump punches laterally to those in power; Trudeau punches down to attack the working class truckers and protesters. When it came to criticism, Trump was a thin-skinned man-child who said mean things back; Trudeau is a thin-skinned tyrannical toddler who throws offensive names and suspends basic human rights to silence his critics.
On any objective measure of personal and professional behaviour, Trudeau is much worse than Trump ever was. Yet, he gets both a free pass and even cover by the same people who criticized Trump.
The problem isn't that this is a double-standard. That hypocrisy is obvious to everyone. The problem is that this is what happens with divisive ingroup/outgroup psychology. It's not just bad thinking or bad behaviour. It is an evolutionary subroutine built into humans (and chimpanzees, so is ancient) that when you continually push narratives of people belonging to different groups and that they are in conflict with each other, the result is inevitably growing animosity from insults to vitriol to hatred to violence and ultimately the dehumanization of "those people".
This is what causes atrocities of historic proportions. And that is what is in our future with this PM and hyper-partisan press if they are not brought back to the reality that we are all part of one nation trying to get along with common interests, and need to talk out our differences without resorting to name-calling and tyrannical behaviour.
You can look up the psychology, from the Realistic Conflict Theory and the Robbers Cave Experiment, to Jane Elliott's classroom experiments using eye colour, to Social Identity Theory. It's not pretty what happens when you use divisive rhetoric and tactics at this scale. It does not make opponents suddenly silent or "shamed"; it does the opposite. Tribal psychology is like those finger trap games; the harder you pull the tighter it gets on both ends. If you want to escape the trap, you need to actively move toward the middle to come together and release the pressure.
I agree Pollievre isn't the best for the CPC. But, he is the result of -- and perhaps most short-term necessary for -- the "us vs them" divisive political culture we are now in. The Steam Whistle incident is but a tiny example, and it never served the purposes thought (as if they are thinking) by its proponents; that private companies will bow to the pressure and side with the political bullies under threat of "consequences". (Notably, under that theory every society has always had free speech and expression; they just had consequences. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, China, North Korea ... it's just "consequences".)
When the sitting government -- and mainstream press cover -- all act as partisan attack dogs, the response is a partisan attack dog. Anything less would be to allow "evil" to win, and "good people" know to stand up to it. And both sides believe their are good and the other side is the evil. And you get a divided country including private industry.
This is highly predictable. Even historically, it's right there in the pre-amble of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
"Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
"The General Assembly,
Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. "
I don't like Trudeau. I don't like Pollievre. I would like to see more thoughtful and respectful politics. But we're far from that environment where the patient run the asylum; the government, public service, the press, universities.
What can we, the people, do? I can hope for more articles like this. More people standing up. I volunteer with the Foundation Against Tolerance and Racism (FAIR Canada), which opposes divisive tribalism. We can vote, but with Liberal-NDP lock until 2025 that looks bleak. It would need intervention by the Liberal party, or perhaps GG. That is, it needs to people people to do something. I don't see how to get them there; at least not yet.
Perhaps now you will give the other perspective. Tarring the government as racist will backfire. Some how you missed the MP that called the prime minister a dictator in the House of Commons. Or the party leader who stood beside and supported the group calling for the overthrow of the government and the continuing vitriol from the opposition.
If you want to vent, please do so, but now write the other side as well.
Since 2016 I have always said that Trudeau is the "pretty Trump". He uses the similar methods to the former President to denigrate the opposition. In the US Trump had Fox and OAN to spread his views, in Canada we have CBC and others to uncritically cheerlead Trudeau.
The politics of combining a sense of moral superiority combined with paranoid fears can get pretty weird sometimes.
In the 2006 election, I was working on the central NDP campaign. A campaign co-worker told me that Stephen Harper "plans to kill people like me". (She was lesbian in her sexual orientation). I thought she was joking and started laughing. "No - it's true," she said. "If Stephen Harper becomes Prime Minister, he will kill every gay and lesbian person in Canada."
So - about a year after Harper became Prime Minister, I ran into her. "Still alive, I see" says I.
"He's just waiting till he gets a majority," was the earnest, fearful response.
What a load of hooey. Pierre Poilievre represents the worst of inflammatory demagoguery. His "platform" is hollow and utterly misleading. He demeans our country's most talented contributors. Based on what? His lucrative place at the trough since he was barely out of his teens? His advanced education? He is like a vandal with a blowtorch, nothing more.
At some point calling someone racist will be as effective as calling them a commie. It's been overused, and has no currency. Inflation applied to rhetoric.
It is always all about leadership or lack thereof. Methinks JT is an immature individual and should not have been elected as PM but that is what the electorate wanted regardless of his background or experience. Immature leadership allows the kind of whiplash governance that you cite above (such as the odd contradictions made during the pandemic to name but a few). I also concur with your points about Poilievre. He may win the CPC nomination but not the nation. So why bother.
Canadian politics is in the toilet. We see and hear the "hate" message from both the Liberals and the Conservatives, who spend more time bashing the character of the other party members, then they do in actually running the country.
Trudeau is the most divisive PM Canada has seen in decades. Maybe ever. The Liberal party of today is not the Liberal party of Chretien, Martin etc. But at this point in our history, most political parties are a bit of a mess. No party has any real vision for Canada. Most politicians want to get elected for their own self-interest, not to make Canada better. Which is supposed to be the point of public office.
Thank you for a clear and withering analysis.
"Vendors provide services to the public, and shouldn’t discriminate against individuals or groups".
"Canadians will not support a government that seeks so transparently to divide it [sic]".
Our Covid response shows that all the old rules are inapplicable, as long as the media is willing to give the government their support, explicit or tacit.
Very well written. it seems to me that outsiders must consider us the most racist country in the world and that is certainly not what we are. However, I'm really wondering about our PM!
We've entered the post truth era. Whenever ruling governments reject history, and the pursuit of knowledge and truth, and when they label the very institutions which were instrumental in shaping and building our societies as racist and irrelevant, it only leads to chaos; a house of cards environment, so to speak. How much longer are people going to tolerate it, is the real question. I hope they wake up before the damage is irreparable.
Great article. I doubt the Liberals will change attack tactics as conjuring racism to smear its opposition has worked so effectively since the 90's.
Excellent read. Trudeau has always been divisive. Nice to see that some are waking up to that.
Kudos. I agree with almost everything in this article, and it almost could have been written by me. Although I have never had a party allegiance, I have voted Liberal most of the time and have voted NDP and have voted for either PC or CPC. In fact, I've voted for 5 different parties in the last 5 elections I've voted in. And that includes having voted for Trudeau's Liberals in there.
But, he has rapidly become the worst PM in my life. I liked his potential when he freed up the Liberal Senators, while not in government or even opposition -- a move toward a more non-partisan Senate. I miss that guy. Instead, we get Canadian Trump. Actually, worse that that; we get the Trump that Trump-haters said that Trump would be.
They said Trump was a bully and called people names. Sure; he verbally attacked the press and called people names like liars, fake, lazy, and -- to his former porn star mistress -- "horseface". Compare that to our leader verbally attacking his own citizens who dare disagree with him on anything as racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, "unacceptable views", "take up space", and that "those people" are "putting their kids at risk, and our kids at risk".
We've heard that kind of demagoguery before, of course. After 9/11, "those people are a threat to our children". In WWII, both our internment camps or German concentration camps were justified because "those people" were a threat to our children. The KKK made those claims. Homophobes confusing homosexuality and pedophilia make the same claims. That is what demagogic bigotry looks like. "Those people are a threat to our kids."
The U.S. got orange-face. We got black-face. They said Trump would be fascist and take away your rights, and create a police state. Instead in March 2019 he made an Executive Order that federal agencies only fund colleges and universities that protect and promote free speech and free inquiry. And Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act to sent troops to address the 2020 riots that saw more than 30 people killed, thousands of police injured (and some killed), and $billions in damages.
By way of comparison, we get Trudeau invoking the Emergencies Act, tow-truck drivers forced to provide trucks against their will, $36 million in a paramilitary operation in Ottawa, freezing of bank accounts without a court order (and threats to anyone who donated), to deal with a peaceful protest filled with hugs, bouncy castles, singing of O Canada, national unity (even between Quebec and Alberta participants), who were in full compliance with the court order (which only limited air horns and train horns, not honking), and working with city police and politicians to keep lanes open and out of residential areas. He didn't even bother to send an envoy to talk to them. He went from name-calling and hiding to full tyrant mode and wasted money for no good reason.
Trump punches laterally to those in power; Trudeau punches down to attack the working class truckers and protesters. When it came to criticism, Trump was a thin-skinned man-child who said mean things back; Trudeau is a thin-skinned tyrannical toddler who throws offensive names and suspends basic human rights to silence his critics.
On any objective measure of personal and professional behaviour, Trudeau is much worse than Trump ever was. Yet, he gets both a free pass and even cover by the same people who criticized Trump.
The problem isn't that this is a double-standard. That hypocrisy is obvious to everyone. The problem is that this is what happens with divisive ingroup/outgroup psychology. It's not just bad thinking or bad behaviour. It is an evolutionary subroutine built into humans (and chimpanzees, so is ancient) that when you continually push narratives of people belonging to different groups and that they are in conflict with each other, the result is inevitably growing animosity from insults to vitriol to hatred to violence and ultimately the dehumanization of "those people".
This is what causes atrocities of historic proportions. And that is what is in our future with this PM and hyper-partisan press if they are not brought back to the reality that we are all part of one nation trying to get along with common interests, and need to talk out our differences without resorting to name-calling and tyrannical behaviour.
You can look up the psychology, from the Realistic Conflict Theory and the Robbers Cave Experiment, to Jane Elliott's classroom experiments using eye colour, to Social Identity Theory. It's not pretty what happens when you use divisive rhetoric and tactics at this scale. It does not make opponents suddenly silent or "shamed"; it does the opposite. Tribal psychology is like those finger trap games; the harder you pull the tighter it gets on both ends. If you want to escape the trap, you need to actively move toward the middle to come together and release the pressure.
I agree Pollievre isn't the best for the CPC. But, he is the result of -- and perhaps most short-term necessary for -- the "us vs them" divisive political culture we are now in. The Steam Whistle incident is but a tiny example, and it never served the purposes thought (as if they are thinking) by its proponents; that private companies will bow to the pressure and side with the political bullies under threat of "consequences". (Notably, under that theory every society has always had free speech and expression; they just had consequences. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, China, North Korea ... it's just "consequences".)
When the sitting government -- and mainstream press cover -- all act as partisan attack dogs, the response is a partisan attack dog. Anything less would be to allow "evil" to win, and "good people" know to stand up to it. And both sides believe their are good and the other side is the evil. And you get a divided country including private industry.
This is highly predictable. Even historically, it's right there in the pre-amble of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
"Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
"The General Assembly,
Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. "
I don't like Trudeau. I don't like Pollievre. I would like to see more thoughtful and respectful politics. But we're far from that environment where the patient run the asylum; the government, public service, the press, universities.
What can we, the people, do? I can hope for more articles like this. More people standing up. I volunteer with the Foundation Against Tolerance and Racism (FAIR Canada), which opposes divisive tribalism. We can vote, but with Liberal-NDP lock until 2025 that looks bleak. It would need intervention by the Liberal party, or perhaps GG. That is, it needs to people people to do something. I don't see how to get them there; at least not yet.
Please keep this up. Thank you.
Perhaps now you will give the other perspective. Tarring the government as racist will backfire. Some how you missed the MP that called the prime minister a dictator in the House of Commons. Or the party leader who stood beside and supported the group calling for the overthrow of the government and the continuing vitriol from the opposition.
If you want to vent, please do so, but now write the other side as well.
Neither side has clean hands in the name calling.
Since 2016 I have always said that Trudeau is the "pretty Trump". He uses the similar methods to the former President to denigrate the opposition. In the US Trump had Fox and OAN to spread his views, in Canada we have CBC and others to uncritically cheerlead Trudeau.
Great article. Stopped voting liberal for the same reasons.
The politics of combining a sense of moral superiority combined with paranoid fears can get pretty weird sometimes.
In the 2006 election, I was working on the central NDP campaign. A campaign co-worker told me that Stephen Harper "plans to kill people like me". (She was lesbian in her sexual orientation). I thought she was joking and started laughing. "No - it's true," she said. "If Stephen Harper becomes Prime Minister, he will kill every gay and lesbian person in Canada."
So - about a year after Harper became Prime Minister, I ran into her. "Still alive, I see" says I.
"He's just waiting till he gets a majority," was the earnest, fearful response.
What a load of hooey. Pierre Poilievre represents the worst of inflammatory demagoguery. His "platform" is hollow and utterly misleading. He demeans our country's most talented contributors. Based on what? His lucrative place at the trough since he was barely out of his teens? His advanced education? He is like a vandal with a blowtorch, nothing more.
At some point calling someone racist will be as effective as calling them a commie. It's been overused, and has no currency. Inflation applied to rhetoric.
It is always all about leadership or lack thereof. Methinks JT is an immature individual and should not have been elected as PM but that is what the electorate wanted regardless of his background or experience. Immature leadership allows the kind of whiplash governance that you cite above (such as the odd contradictions made during the pandemic to name but a few). I also concur with your points about Poilievre. He may win the CPC nomination but not the nation. So why bother.
Canadian politics is in the toilet. We see and hear the "hate" message from both the Liberals and the Conservatives, who spend more time bashing the character of the other party members, then they do in actually running the country.