, 03.08.2023 10:16 AM

My latest: Judge Justin

You can’t judge yourself.

More specifically, you’re not allowed to decide – or control, or influence – a case in which you are one of the main players. In law, that’s as basic as it gets.

The Bible says we can and should judge ourselves, yes. It’s in 2 Corinthians 13:5, where it goes on about “testing yourself” and “examining yourself.”

But that’s not the law. The law is quite clear: no one is permitted to stand in judgment of themselves.

In law, it is a principle that has been around for centuries. There’s even a Latin phrase for it: “Nemo iudex in causa sua.” That essentially means “no one should be a judge in their own cause”.

It’s an ancient principle of what is called natural law – the unchanging moral principles that serve as the basis governing all human conduct. Natural laws are considered so fundamental they cannot ever be debated.

In Canada, the notion that no one should have the power to judge themselves is seen in section 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act. That law reads: “A public office holder shall recuse himself or herself from any discussion, decision, debate or vote on any matter in respect of which he or she would be in a conflict of interest.”

The “public office holder,” here, is one Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada. The “discussion or debate,” here, is the interference of China in Canada’s federal elections in 2019 and 2021.

The interference isn’t an allegation: there’s been a veritable avalanche of detailed disclosure by intelligence agencies, foreign and/or domestic, characterizing Chinese election interference as a fact, not a claim. The media, too, are now reporting Chinese wrongdoing as fact – and not prefaced by the usual hedges, like “allegedly” or “reportedly.”

For months, the fact of Chinese election criminality has been adamantly denied by Trudeau and his Liberal Party. As recently as last week, he was refusing to do anything about it.

This week, Trudeau did a reversal that was so complete, so colossal, it is frankly amazing that he didn’t suffer actual whiplash. But you knew that he finally knew he could ignore the crisis no longer.

So, he stood before the media for almost an hour – a gaggle of ministers arrayed behind him, nodding their craniums like bobbleheads in a pickup truck window careening along a country road – and pretended to answer questions in that cloying, counterfeit manner he uses whenever he’s caught. All dewy-eyed and inflection.

Except he didn’t answer the key question, however many times he was asked it. Namely, how can he decide who will investigate China’s malfeasance – and what their terms of reference are, and when they will report – when he, him, is the prime beneficiary of the interference?

Because we all know that China interfered in our elections, in our democracy, for one purpose and one purpose alone: to defeat the Conservative Party, who they saw as inimical to their interests. And to elect the aforementioned Justin Trudeau, who they rightly saw as the Western leader most likely to act as supplicant to China.

In the United States, when Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump was not the one who decided whether the interference would be investigated or not. If he alone had had that power, no investigation would have taken place. Trump was quite clear on that.

So the decision was made by an official within the Department of Justice. A public office holder whose fate did not rest on the outcome.

Justin Trudeau’s political fate now rests on the outcome of the Chinese election interference story. That, too, is a fact: he would have continued to stonewall and prevaricate if the metastasizing scandal wasn’t taking a serious toll. He done it before.

Which leads us back to the key question, the one with which we started: how can Justin Trudeau stand in judgment of himself? How? Because, ultimately, that’s what he’s doing. He alone determines the parameters for the investigation of a scandal in which he, personally, was the beneficiary.

That is not just unethical, it is against natural law. And the only way to deal with this abomination, now, is this:

Have a real election, free and fair, and vote the abomination out.

[Kinsella is a lawyer who taught at the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Law.]


  1. Warren,

    This Prime Minister ain’t seen nothing yet. If the PMO thinks THIS is pressure, boy are they in for one rude awakening in short order.

    Justin Trudeau will resign. He just doesn’t know it yet.

  2. Martin Dixon says:

    Garneau gone-can’t believe he stayed as long as he did. Timing can’t be a coincidence. Good for him.

    • Martin,

      I won’t speculate on Marc’s motives. Suffice it to say that he has always been his own man. His departure is a great loss for Canadian politics and he’ll be genuinely missed. Job exceedingly well done. Bravo!

    • Sean says:

      It has been really sad to see someone of such high caliber just sit on their hands through Khanscam, Lavscam, Blackface X 3, Wescam…. only to flutter along and pack it in after this.

      Marc Garneau is a genuine Canadian luminary. But, more than anyone, he willingly normalized the outrageous Justin ethics circus through his silence. In space no one can hear you scream. Thanks to the most disgraced PMO of all time, I suspect he was afraid to speak.

      • Sean,

        I remember Marc speaking to the press about SNC as he either entered or exited a cabinet or caucus meeting. The gist of what he said was that he had not been informed about the particulars of SNC Lavalin and the PMO’s role therein.

  3. western view says:

    Great article.
    Please forward to the inbox of J. Singh. Maybe it would nudge him toward the election Canada really needs right now.

    As an aside, if Trudeau was riding in the cab of the metaphorical pickup truck, he wouldn’t be driving, he would ride in the middle and let some other sucker open the gates.

  4. Peter Williams says:

    How can Justin judge himself?

    It’s simple, he just does it.
    L’Etat, c’est moi.

  5. Curious V says:

    Trudeau may have fucked up, but the alternative is worse. That’s the sad truth. As much as this stinks, the rank and stench of the alternative is worse.

    • Sean says:

      Sunny ways indeed.

      That is the defense of a government that knows its over.

    • Martin Dixon says:

      No, he actually isn’t but if you believe that, then vote NDP. Like many conservatives did in 2015(or stayed home). To STILL support JT and this party after all of this is basically Trumpian. It actually always has been, but I digress. Where are the Liz Cheneys up here?

    • Ray says:

      Ah, no.
      Not at all.

    • Douglas W says:

      At this point, I’ll take the alternative.

      And I’ll abandon them, the moment they sell out to foreign influence.

  6. The Doctor says:

    I was taking to a couple of Torontonians last night, one of whom is a very reliable Tory voter but not a partisan zombie either. He loathes JT and would love to see him turfed but he also really dislikes Polievre. He honesty doesn’t know what to do next election. I suspect there are many others like him. I think this is going to be a huge issue and frustration for the CPC and their core supporters next election— big negative ratings for JT that don’t necessarily result in a corresponding uptick in CPC support.

    I find that a typical reaction of Polievre supporters and far-righters to this phenomenon is just this white-hot rage at the seeming injustice of all this, etc without any ability to constructively criticize and analyze why PP is turning off a lot of potential Tory voters.

    • Curious V says:

      Same thing – the folks I know who vote Tory don’t like PP. He’s from the rough side of the conservative fold, and they don’t like him.

    • Martin Dixon says:

      My reaction to this kind of information is and always has been consistent. Toronto is a ridiculous city that has the army on call when they get a couple of inches of snow. The fact that they control who we get as PM is is actually quite funny. Follow the money. The Bridal Path types see their gravy train being harmed. The dirty little secret. Tell your friends to vote NDP. No thinking person can continue to support the Liberals after all of this.

    • Pedant says:

      Your friend is not a conservative. He is not even a centrist. He is a status quo-ist, probably over 50, certainly well to do, won the housing bubble lottery, and won’t be satisfied until the CPC is a clone of the Liberal Party. This is why the CPC has decided to form a new electoral coalition based on the working class, the young (without rich parents), immigrant communities with traditional views, and classical liberals.

      • Martin Dixon says:


      • Martin Dixon says:

        I have a lot of successful friends and clients just like the Doc’s and Curious V’s Liberal Toronto lottery winning 1% types who don’t think “rough”(funny-that sounds like “wrong side of the tracks” terminology-is one still allowed to say that?) ex paper boys should be in charge. The difference is that I point out how they are benefiting the most from JT(everyone else not so much) which always comes as a revelation to them. They think they are conservatives.

        • Pedant says:

          If Warren will permit me to link this, I highly recommend this substack piece by Mitch Heimpel, a former Ontario provincial PC staffer. A must-read to understand why Poilievre’s strategy of appealing to the working class and ignoring the wealthy urban status-quoists (so-called “centrists”) is the correct approach.


          • Martin Dixon says:

            Great article. Describes many people I know very well. The difference with me is I actually point it out rather than humour them like the Doc does.

          • Pedant,

            First off, this article is based on a false premise: people who are more right than centre-right vs. centrists-moderates. Last time I checked, that principally was not the membership: most Conservatives are fiscally Conservative with law and order types coming a close second. Then comes libertarians followed by social conservatives. That’s most of the membership right there. Red Tories hopefully still outnumber the far right types. Hopefully.

          • But going with their model: are there more extremist far-right types in this party than moderates or centrists? I hope not but maybe. And which group is the reliable voter? Sure, a lot of far-right types will vote next time for us, likely more than centrists and moderates will. We’re talking membership here.

            But back it out to the average Joe and Jane: do far-right types really out vote centrists-moderates in an election? No, not ever, and won’t happen next time either.

          • You see Pedant, our host got it 1000% right: inevitably, governments defeat themselves due to policy or ideological orientation. That’s exactly what happened to Harper in 2015. Harper went too right post the majority in 2011 and the country refused to stomach it. Period. Trudeau didn’t so much win as Harper lost. It was the empty suit that benefitted from Harper’s unpopularity in 2015.

            Harper had checked his impulses in 2006 and 2009. That was the smart, savvy thing to do and not just during the minorities. So he was rewarded with a majority, only to squander it based on policy decisions and his government’s record. In short, Harper didn’t learn while in power and SO he was out on his ass.

          • Finally Pedant, when PP talks about gatekeepers in favour of the status quo, he comes off as a kook to most sentient Canadians. PP has it backwards: the next election should be only about CPC policy that helps or aids most of our fellow Canadians, forgotten or otherwise. All this WEF, crypto and convoy shit only reduces the voting gene pool for the CPC. And the new vote for our party won’t even come close to refilling that electoral gas tank. Not a chance.

          • Pedant says:

            Ronald : you seem to be of the view that any politician who upends the status quo is “far-right”.

            Do you not realize that you love the current regime (in a broad sense, not referring the current government) because it especially benefits you? What do you have to say to demographic groups who have been screwed over by that same regime? Namely, young people who don’t have rich parents, working class, renters, citizens stifled by govt overreach, classical liberals appalled by the illiberal direction of progressivism over the past decade. Are they “far right” for wanting radical change?

            I don’t even think PP will do all that much, although he will at least halt the creeping expansion of government in our lives and economy. Killing bill C11 alone is reason enough to elect him.

          • Pedant,

            With respect, that’s not my view. Humanity exists to upend the status quo, does it not? That’s how we grow as people both collectively and individually. One could even call it shit disturbing, which I know a little about. LOL. But back to being serious: no, I don’t love the status-quo that principally benefits the fortunate and up-and-coming. Ironically, that’s one trait that we Progressive Conservatives share with the leader. Pierre is against economic injustice, far more than any other previous leader and I applaud his efforts. I disagree with Pierre on a few things but I support his leadership, especially as the change agent. Where we differ is on approach and priorities with respect to that change.

            To get a bit personal, my Dad’s family were 11 children with one income. They were not only lower class but also poor. But for the city clerk in Quebec City who made grandad’s tax bill temporarily disappear year after year for a decade, they would have lost the house and been in the streets. My Mom’s family was lower-class with little income to spare for many decades. They followed a budget as if it was their religion. But I digress.

            Now to your point on progressivism: here, let me nuance it. There are a lot of have-nots in this society but that’s not necessarily progressives’ fault. It is to the extent that the left and the right both should have been crusaders for economic and social justice but both have failed miserably. I’m not talking the subset of woke politics here, which is more nonsense than anything else. Both progressives and conservatives can be and have been accommodative of people’s needs and compassionate about same as well. PP’s run is an economic crusade for the forgotten and down and almost out people and I see nothing wrong with that, per se. But he can do that without resorting either to the impulses or excessive dogma of the far-right. Pierre is in no way far-right and never will be. Again, approach and priorities is where we differ. He is truly a compassionate conservative as HW used to say. Remember a thousand points of light? Again, no argument there. I want a government that helps people who truly need it and gives them a cushion economically. That’s why a loathe universal benefits that go to too many people who don’t need them. I want my government to have a heart but like you and the leader, it’s already more than self-evident that government at least in this country needs to be made smaller and far more efficient. We need far more bang for our taxpayers’ buck and we need it yesterday. Hope this helps.

        • Martin Dixon says:

          I have no idea where this will fall on this thread but no true conservative could possibly have voted for JT. Sorry but that literally shocks me. That is my test. At least Coyne voted NDP.

      • The Doctor says:

        I love how you claim to know so much about my friend whom you have never met. That’s quite a gift you have. History shows that the Tories win when Red Tories and some Blue Liberals vote conservative. I think people ignore this fact at their peril.

        • Ron Benn says:

          Thank you Doctor.

          Who is Pedant to decide what constitutes a conservative? Such unmitigated arrogance to decide that he/she/they is/are the sole arbiter of defining someone’s political leanings.

          It is possible to be fiscally conservative while having empathy for those who are in need and be willing to do something about their collective dilemmas. Are those who fit this description Red Tories or Blue Liberals or …? It is not up to me, or Pedant, to decide which banner they are permitted to stand beside.

          To borrow from Peter McKay’s failed leadership campaign of several years ago, the conservatives need to offer a broader tent, one that allows more people, not fewer to identify with conservative concepts.

          Until the federal Conservatives figure out how to win significantly more than 6 of the 56 ridings between Lake Ontario and the 407 they will not win a majority. That means that they need to listen to these voters, not dictate to them. It may mean that the Conservatives need to adjust their platforms to cover areas that resonate with those voters. Why not? More people live in that stretch of contiguous urban settings than live in Alberta and Saskatchewan combined. Are the needs and wants of these urban residents less important than those in the western provinces?

          Until the Conservatives figure out how to win both urban and less urban votes, PP et al are destined to continue to populate the seats on opposition side of the House of Commons.

          • The Doctor says:

            Thanks, that’s basically my view too. But it seems to me these days that there’s a significant chunk of the CPC base that sneers at big-tent politics, and is hooked on a combination of rage, resentment at those whom they label “elites” and a peculiar notion of supposed, self-anointed ideological purity.

            Yet when you do a deep dive, the views of a lot of these people who label themselves “true conservatives” and who purport to decide that others are not “true conservatives” have views that are unrecognizable to Reagan, George F. Will and William F. Buckley conservatives. And Will and Buckley had serious intellectual chops. I don’t see a lot of that out there these days.

            George F. Will in particular has been very principled and intellectually rigorous these days in, on the one hand, going after Democrats very hard but also going after populist Trumpism for the fact that it has almost nothing to do with real conservatism. I love his term for it: crybaby conservatism.

          • Martin Dixon says:

            You are asking the Conservatives to maintain the status quo before you will vote for PP. Sorry, that isn’t empathy, that is greed. That is the actual point. Pedant is bang on.

          • Martin,

            Nope. We will likely lose because of this approach. Notice how Harper won three times without resorting to this so-called enlightened approach. It’s purity over power and guess what, Conservatives never, ever, get to enjoy both. The first waning popularity signs are already in the latest polls except for one.

          • Pedant says:

            You think the battle lines are regional. No, they are class-based.

            And I’m not sure how the needs of urban elite are compromised by the Conservative Party, unless you mean that the CPC is less likely to intervene in the free market to keep artificially high home prices from deflating?

          • The Doctor says:

            It is absolutely, patently ridiculous to assert that unless you are a supporter of PP, you’re in favour of the “status quo”. Talk about a false dichotomy fallacy.

            If you can’t see that, I don’t know what else to say.

          • Pedant,

            Class-based. That smacks a bit of tribalism. Is that what we really want in this party and in our future government? Shouldn’t we automatically help economically those that need it without an ideological litmus test? As for housing prices, inflation is devaluing house prices faster than I can breathe and no government can realistically do anything to reverse that trend. It will only end when the Volcker approach is used in Canada by the Bank of Canada.

          • Martin Dixon says:

            I never said unless you are a supporter of PP, you’re in favour of the “status quo”. I have said on several occasions that if you don’t like PP, stay home or vote NDP.

        • Pedant says:

          The “history” you refer to mostly did not occur at a time of record wealth inequality, dwindling quality of life, smothering govt overreach, a crippling housing crisis, and a crippling hospital crisis.

          Your model of Liberal-clone party (“Red Tory”) might work when young and middle aged middle-class and working class people are doing reasonably well with low financial stress (particularly mortgage/rent stress). It does not work well for the times we are living in.

          This is the UK in 1978. And Poilievre is our Thatcher if he plays his cards right.

          • Pedant,

            Fair point but I would not endorse it unless I knew to what extent inflation was at work in the UK during her time, both prior and while in office. Inflation is quite literally killing people or wiping them out. And government is SOLELY to blame for that, what with the misguided economic policies of QE and MMT, both of them classically defined as massively inflationary. Not COVID-19, not supply chain disruptions, not anything else. The digitization of money by various central banks is the sole culprit for massive inflation creation. Period. And who oversees the central banks: their respective governments. Sure, they are technically independent but they quite literally don’t implement policy that is not generally accommodative to their host governments.

        • The Doctor says:

          Pedant: look, to put my cards on the table, I’m guessing I’m going to be holding my nose and voting for PP next election. But I think he’s a fucking tool, and some of his pronouncements, e.g. on crypto, are just fucking stupid. His firing the Bank of Canada head is just stupid fucking populist bullshit. And he seems blissfully nonchalant about the fact that the leaders of the Truckers’ Convoy in Ottawa explicitly, in their written manifesto, called for the illegal and undemocratic overthrow of our government. Call me crazy, but I have a problem with that kind of shit. I guess you don’t?

          All that said, I agree he would likely be much stronger than Selfie Boy & Co. on fiscal responsibility. And what Selfie Boy did on SNC was beyond the pale.

          Anyway, because you appear to be a big fan of PP, I would genuinely like to hear what specifically you think PP is going to do to eradicate or seriously ameliorate “record wealth inequality, dwindling quality of life, smothering govt overreach, a crippling housing crisis, and a crippling hospital crisis.”

          • Martin Dixon says:

            Doc-it is clear your guy never won the leadership race. Boo hoo. Mine never have and I threw I don’t know how many thousands of dollars at them. And helped to pay off some post race debt. But here is how it works in Canada. You vote for an MP and if your MP’s party wins the most seats, your leader gets to be PM. But the last few elections(especially the last one), because many in our party didn’t get their “perfect” candidate(read status quo basically), they sat on their hands and didn’t even help their local candidate or even worse voted Liberal. WTF. And we are still doing it now. I just picked myself up and worked just as hard for my local guy(not whiny keyboard warrior work) and financially supported him like I always had. That was all I could personally control and we were successful. Any other conservative that didn’t was just as responsible for electing JT as the cult members. It was maddening to watch.

          • Ron Benn says:

            Pedant, I don’t see the battle lines as being regional or along class lines (what ever class means now), or anything else. What I was trying to communicate is that in order to form a majority government, the winning party needs to win urban seats.

            The CPC seat count in the area between Lake Ontario and the 407 is just over 10% (6 of 56). They hold one of 13 in the Ottawa-Gatineau region (PP’s). They hold nil/zero/zilch in London. How many seats does the CPC hold in the greater Montreal and Vancouver areas? You can count them on one hand and still order a round beer.

            What will the PP lead party need to do to win 25-30 more of those urban seats? Taking 25 seats away from the Liberals = a 50 seat swing in the House of Commons. And a 50 seat swing = majority.

            If PP can focus on matters economic, he stands a chance. But his ill-considered comments about crypto (shortly before their over-hyped values collapsed), his petulant demands for the head of the Bank of Canada on a stake in the village square, and his brain-dead blanket support of the convoy have damaged his credibility with voters in urban areas. Rest assured that the Liberals and NDP will put those sound and video bytes front and centre during the next election.

            I am concerned that in his efforts to win the leadership, PP ruined his chances of becoming PM. Not unlike Andrew Scheer and Erin O’Toole.

          • Doc,

            With respect, got to differ with you on the Bank of Canada. Remember that in the States that the Fed Chair serves at the president’s pleasure: remember in February of last year when all of DC was preoccupied with the soap opera as to whether Biden would allow Powell to have a second term? Much of CW believed that Brainard would be tapped instead. In the final analysis, Biden stuck with Powell because Brainard was perceived as being unrealistically dovish re: continued money creation via digitization, while Powell was viewed as relatively hawkish, which matched the monetary times and its requirements. So, I see nothing wrong with our government replacing the Governor when circumstances warrant it. But not on a whim, or merely for showboat political reasons.

  7. Jonathan J Weisman says:

    Judgment has never been his strong suit.

  8. Glen says:

    I just watched one of his latest condescending rehearsed spewing of talking points non-answer to reporters that were asking him what he knew and when did he know it.

    Only this time I think I saw stress in his body language and tone. I think the walls are closing in, and fast.

    It appears Marc Garneau is getting out now rather than getting smeared with the same brush that will be applied to many Liberal MP’s. Does he know something we don’t?

    When you look at ALL of Trudeau’s dealings with China, even pre 2015, and put them in order, it’s quite a list.

    One can’t help wondering if this whole stinking kettle of fish is even more than it appears right now.

    What IF, the reason Trudeau is so scared of a full public inquiry that doesn’t answer to him finds more than what’s on the surface?

    What are the implications for Trudeau if an inquiry exposed not only interference, but collusion?

    What would he do to try and stop that from coming out?

    Desperation can invoke irrationality.

    All hypothetical, of course..

    • Martin Dixon says:

      He was actually pretty relaxed in the HOC during QP when he was sitting down. Joking a lot with Mark Holland. Maybe he has made a decision.

  9. Martin Dixon says:

    Justin played the abortion card in QP today! Next up the death penalty.

  10. WTF says:

    Freeland is the Queen of bobbling genuflection, like a slinky that got slapped.

    As far as how Lord Fauntleroy judges himself? Easy, he broke all the mirrors in Rideau Cottage. Problem Solved

  11. Douglas W says:

    “Have a real election, free and fair ..”

    You can’t be serious.

    They’ll never be “voted out” because JT, Katie, Gerry and Ben will go to extraordinary lengths to manipulate and demean, and there’s plenty of willing friends (CBC, CTV, Toronto Star) to do their dirty work.

    • Douglas,

      They voted Martin out for the sins of two previous governments.

      So glad that PhoneyBaloneyTM is finally feeling the heat. Long overdue.

      • Douglas W says:

        Martin had honour.

        He and his crew knew how to play rough, but there was a limit to their roughness at election time.

        Not with this bunch.

        The question begs: how low will they go?

  12. Gilbert says:

    This is a brilliant piece of writing. It should be in every newspaper in Canada.

  13. RKJ says:

    Canadians have more than enough information to make up their minds about J Trudeau. This includes the opposition in the House of Commons. It is pathetic there are still those who defend this man and his party.

  14. PJH says:

    Interesting to see the CBC, normally the Dauphin’s biggest cheerleader/apologist, is allowing the story to grow legs (usually they try their best to bury stories unbecoming to the Dauphin) They are also allowing people to comment on the unfolding story.

    I am curious if this is controlled opposition, allowing an angry electorate to vent their collective spleens so the wave of anger dissipates before a coming general election(as was done with the SNC-Lavalin and the Jody Wilson-Raybould scandals)

    Or is it as someone observed on another site: “Probably already shifting gears so the next (Tory) government doesn’t defund them.”

    I suggest the Liberal brain trust save themselves, and give their leader his walking papers before the electorate does it for them and takes many along with him,

    • Martin Dixon says:

      Shifting gears would be the smart move but I doubt they are that smart.I am going with the venting theory.

  15. Curious V says:

    PP goes way too far in his litany of allegations. Like McCarthyism – he’s a radical. He’s also beholden to the same movement that draws inspiration from German Nazis – so who’s beholden to who. the stuff he’s throwing at Trudeau is ridiculous, but he won’t turn his back on a convoy that gets its inspiration from German Nazis.

    • Curious V,

      If you think PP is another McCarthy, you need to retake your American history classes.

      Won’t argue about the convoy though.

      • Pedant says:

        You won’t argue that the working class freedom convoy participants took inspiration from the Nazis?

        Very easy for the laptop class and retirees at home in their pyjamas to judge.

        • Pedant,

          You need a history refresher: remember what the Chancellor did when he formed government? In short, abolished elections. That crowd wanted Trudeau out but unlike US not necessarily by democratic means. Try again because you just lost this round.

          • Martin Dixon says:

            Come on Ronald, Curious V is constantly labeling PP a Nazi. This is just giving him oxygen. Anyone who believes he is a Nazi or that the convoy protestors AS A WHOLE were Nazis needs to bone up on that history too. I can provide some helpful links. Most are NSFW though.

          • Martin,

            I take your point. The ones who I consider to be Nazis are only those that wanted to get Trudeau out in any way possible, including violence. Like you said, that’s not all of the protesters but it isn’t just a slice of them either. Only the vote can remove Trudeau and anyone who doesn’t agree with that is basically either a fascist, a domestic terrorist or both. It’s all about the rule of law in this society.

      • Curious V says:

        I got A’s in American history, but, admittedly, my focus was Slavery, and Wage Labor – not McCarthyism. I studied it briefly, but not thoroughly.

    • PJH says:

      No great fan o’ PP, as any regular viewer of Mr. Kinsella’s august forum would know, but to his credit, he issued a statement critical of the MEP and her party. I think PP did a credible job here in distancing himself and the Conservative Party of Canada from the extreme alt right:
      “Christine Anderson’s views are vile and have no place in our politics. The MPs were not aware of the opinions of this visiting Member of the European Parliament. They regret meeting with her.
      Frankly, it would be better if Anderson never visited Canada in the first place. She and her racists, hateful views are not welcome here”.
      Can the same be said of the Dauphin. and his known dalliances with the CCP in our Federal elections?

      • Martin Dixon says:

        And blasted his caucus yesterday in his weekly meeting.

      • PJH,

        But it doesn’t meet the minimum threshold for public disclosure by said candidates: they needed to hold, at minimum, a presser with the leader and each MP needed to apologize publicly in front of said press and cameras. That didn’t happen to the best of my knowledge. As for my view, they should be either suspended or kicked out of caucus. In short, there were no internal caucus consequences for their stupidity and that is the Mother of all mistakes. Expect more idiot eruptions in the campaign, thanks to how this was handled.

    • Peter Williams says:

      When the House of Commons voted in Feb 2021 to label the China’s persecution of Uyghurs a genocide, PMJT and his cabinet were silent (absent).

      And on a similar motion in Oct 2o22, PMJT and his cabinet were absent.

      The Trudeau Liberal cabinet proudly embrace the genocidal Chinese Communist Party. One needs to ask why?

    • Martin Dixon says:

      Beholden? That is just silly. We get you don’t like him but you lose all credibility when you pretty well call him a Nazi. Trivializes the word and it is offensive and ridculous.

      • Curious V says:

        I’m not calling him a Nazi, but he’s beholden to the convoy crowd, and they draw inspiration from Nazis as evidenced by the recent tour one did that highlighted their ties.

    • Grant says:

      W hat a complete load of nonsense.

  16. Sean says:

    The very words “special rapporteur” seem to be a fitting end to the Justin nonsense that Liberals have had to put up with for 10 years.

    It communicates very simply… “I don’t know what I’m doing… No one understands what the hell is going on. We have no direction or inspiration on any issue at all anymore.”

    This encapsulates perfectly everything that has gone on in the Liberal Party for the last 10 years.

  17. Peter Seville says:

    Remember the 2011 election and the robocalls and Pierre Poutine? Quite the coverup there.

  18. Peter Williams says:

    Gerry Butts
    “It’s depressing to see foreign interference become a partisan issue in our politics and click bait for our press”


    Yeah, how dare people criticize for interference when it was supporting my guy.

  19. Peter,

    Is Trudeau still Butts’ guy? I wonder.

    • Peter Williams says:


      Why are you wondering if Trudeau is still Butts’ guy?

      • Peter,

        To put it diplomatically, there was a certain severing a while back. Is Butts still in the private sector? And if so, loyalty usually is a two-way street. Guess which side did not hold up their end in the name of political expediency? If it was me, I’d be thinking fuck the little bastard. But that’s just me.

  20. Warren,

    Who gives a flying fuck if Scheer and O’Toole won the popular vote. Totally irrelevant, the only place a poor second really counts is in horseshoes as per George H.W. Bush. We ended up precisely second because we stunk on issues: convoy, wrong; vaccinations, wrong; Assault-Style weapons, wrong. But you can’t get that in your average Conservative’s head. Translation: programmed to lose again with that already twice-failed approach…Jesus Christ, wake up and smell the damned coffee!

    • Curious V says:

      Nail on the head, Ronald.

      • Curious V,

        Now will you agree with me that the categorization of shotguns as semi-automatics, with a list as long as my arm (figure of speech) wasn’t the right approach? GENUINE Hunting guns need to be fully exempted. There also needs to be some flexibility on target-shooting long guns. But not real semis, trying to be passed off as shotguns. There’s a happy medium there and this government is totally clueless, like on so many other things.

        • Curious V says:

          I don’t know enough about guns to speculate, but I will say that it shouldn’t be an overzealous list that targets law abiding hunters. I grew up around hunters, I’m a country boy, but my father didn’t hunt – we had a rifle for the farm, but we didn’t get into hunting.

    • The Doctor says:

      Quoth Ricky Bobby: if you’re not first, you’re last!

  21. Warren,

    Has the party learned from the mistakes made by Scheer and O’Toole? I have my doubts. That’s why I’m pounding Pierre steadily to make sure he and his OLO don’t ultimately become another representation of Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same type of things, read decisions that the previous leaders did NOW, only to expect totally different results. I can tell Pierre with almost absolute certainty that going down that road will fail and keep us on the opposition benches once more. But hey, Pierre is the leader. Not me, not anyone else. So, come the election, whatever happens in the interim, we will collectively be dutiful soldiers because nothing on God’s green Earth in Canada is more important than kicking this Prime Minister to the curb. I live, quite literally, for that exquisite moment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *