, 05.13.2019 06:33 AM

The “feminist”

Ah, The Feminist.

There he was again, last week, sleeves rolled up, tie loosened. All moist-eyed sincerity, all sotto voce.

The Feminist had just athletically jogged down a flight of stairs, and paused to take media questions, en deux langues. The questions were about the total and complete collapse of his planned show trial. You know: the one to destroy Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, who had had the temerity to disagree with The Feminist’s desire to hand over a fat military contract to a Liberal Party donor.

The Feminist said that the criminal prosecution of the Vice-Admiral – which The Feminist had coincidentally said was coming, well before charges were even laid – was on the up-and-up.

“The process involved in a public prosecution like this is entirely independent of my office,” he said, and lie detector machines miraculously started to stir to life, all over Central Canada. “We have confidence done in the work done by the director of public prosecutions.”

Well, that’s good to know, because the Director of Public Prosecutions Canada sure doesn’t have much “confidence” in The Feminist. Back in March, on the very morning The Feminist had refused to apologize for destroying the career and reputation of Jody Wilson-Raybould – on the very morning he refused to apologize when he and his senior staff were caught interfering in another criminal prosecution more than twenty times, over a four-month period in 2018 – the public prosecutors did something extraordinary. On Twitter.

Here is what they tweeted, in apparent direct response to The Feminist’s claim to have been “entirely independent” of a public prosecution of another Liberal Party donor. Here is what the prosectors said to the world, capturing the attention of the OECD Anti-Bribery Working Group, among others: “Prosecutorial independence is key to our mandate. Our prosecutors must be objective, independent and dispassionate, as well as free from improper influence—including political influence.”

Sound like an act of defiance? It was.

But as he lingered there, for a moment or two, none of the assembled media asked The Feminist about something else. Something important. Namely, his repeated claim to be a feminist.

It would have been a very relevant question, too. Across town, Mark Norman’s extraordinary lawyer, Marie Henein – with whom my firm has done work, full disclosure – had just held a press conference with her client. And, as things were getting underway, she had eviscerated The Feminist.

“Before we get started,” she’d said, pausing. “I’d just like to introduce the all female team that represented Vice-Admiral Norman.” She emphasized the words “all female.” Then, introductions made, she went on, and no one mistook her meaning.

“Fortunately,” Henein said, “Vice-Admiral Norman didn’t fire the females he hired.”

Did you hear that? That was the sound of a metaphorical shiv, sliding between The Feminist’s ribs, aimed at the spot where his soul is supposed to be. It was Marie Henein, who actually knows a thing or two about feminism, pointing out that The Feminist had destroyed the careers of three women – Jody Wilson-Raybould, Jane Philpott, and Celina Caesar-Chavannes – simply because they talked back to him. Simply because they said “no” to a bunch of men who refused to take no for an answer.

Henein wasn’t done, however.

She next took aim at The Feminist’s months-long effort to deny Mark Norman – and, inferentially, Wilson-Raybould, and Philpott, and Caesar-Chavannes – the most basic courtesies. To deny them natural justice, which is at the root of all our laws. To deny them fairness.

Said Henein: “You should be very concerned when anyone tries to erode the resilience of the justice system or demonstrates a failure to understand why it is so fundamental to the democratic values we hold so dear,” she said, referring to The Feminist’s repeated efforts to interfere in the criminal justice system to reward a supporter (SNC-Lavalin) or to punish a whistleblower (Vice-Admiral Norman).

“There are times you agree with what happens in a court room there are times you don’t. And that’s fine. But what you don’t do is you don’t put your finger and try to weigh in on the scales of justice. That is not what should be happening.”

She could have mentioned, here, that The Feminist had “put his fingers” on a reporter at a beer festival in British Columbia a few years back, and about which he said “the same interactions can be experienced very differently from one person to the next.” Said “interaction” being what is regarded – in other contexts, among lesser people who don’t ride for free on the Aga Khan’s private jets – as “sexual assault.”

Marie Henein could have said that, but she didn’t say that.

Instead, she used the occasion of her client’s exoneration to point out something important about The Feminist.

He isn’t one.


  1. J.H. says:

    Something said at a multi-family gathering Sunday struck a chord, that hasn’t been discussed all that much as yet. That is the feeling of the serving military and Vets re the Adm. Norman case. A number were wondering how these folks could ever trust or vote for a Trudeau Liberal government in October after seeing what the PM and his henchmen/women had done to the Admiral.

  2. Susan Balint says:

    She’s great. Should get into the political scene.

  3. the real Sean says:

    The problem isn’t about including women. The problem is that the women who are included are never taken seriously. They aren’t there to offer expertise. They are all there for image. Like escorts.

  4. Steve says:

    Absolutely correct, Warren. The “little potato” is no feminist, nor is he a purveyor of “sunny ways”, a true supporter of indigenous reconciliation, a backer of actual “rule of law”, etc. etc. He is an out-and-out fraud and impostor, doing the bidding of his rich friends, well-practiced in bullying to get what he wants and bringing his barely-veiled temper to bear against anyone who challenges him (remember the “P.O.S” insult or the elbowing of the NDP female when trying to corral a vote in the HOC?)

    ASIDE: When I heard Marie Henein make that thinly-veiled insult I laughed for hours! Clearly JT can’t handle strong women like Henenin, JWR, JP and CCC; they don’t fall for his tie-loosening, shirt-sleeve rolling fake dreamy-eyed BS.

  5. Matt says:

    And then yesterday the Liberals sent out a tweet/email begging people to send Sophie Trudeau a Mothers day greeting.

    Yeah, I know it was a pathetic attempt to data mine, but what moron thought it was a good idea?

  6. Jason says:

    Hi Warren,

    Do you think this story is credible at all – that the tweet in question was a “total coincidence”?


  7. RKJ says:

    Polls indicate Andrew Scheer has good prospects this year. Mr. Selfie certainly deserves to lose. Nonetheless, I fear the “inner Tim Hudak” in Conservative leaders. Scheer still has to go out and present a case for being the leader for all Canadians, or, at minimum, not seeking to alienate voters who are neutral to somewhat negative towards him.

  8. Miles Lunn says:

    See today’s Nanos poll. Liberals for first time have fallen below 30%, Greens now double digits. Also more think Trudeau doesn’t have good qualities to be a leader whereas this category was never negative for Harper not even when defeated.

  9. Dave Fuller says:

    According to Keith’s book,Ronnie was the father.

  10. Oscar Block says:

    To anyone with a brain, it’s quite obvious the Norman affair was a cynical & revengeful attempt to smear and destroy the career of a distinguished & honourable man, with the directions coming from the highest office in the land.

    For you legal folks out there a question, are we ever going to get to the bottom of this?

    If not, why not?

  11. Campbell says:

    Here’s an article in which CCC is quoted that I think you would do well do read before continuing to cite Trudeau’s “treatment” of CCC in your assertion that he is somehow a fake feminist:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.