Categories for Feature


Weird, weird, weird.

“For the well-being of our children, we ask that you respect our and their privacy.”

That is a quote. That is what Justin Trudeau and Sophie Grégoire wrote, in both official languages, when they announced their separation on August 2.

Some commentators, this one among them, strongly urged everyone to heed those words. Justin Trudeau is Prime Minister of Canada, yes, and a public person. Criticism of his votes, his quotes and his spending of bank notes are always fair game, we said.

But not Sophie Grégoire or their three kids, all aged 15 and under. They’re unelected. Leave them alone, we said. (We still say it.)

The “respect our privacy” request is heard a lot. Sometimes couples – separating, divorcing or “consciously uncoupling,” per the vagine visionary, Gwyneth Paltrow – add: “at this difficult time.”

Couples who have used those words, or a variation on those words, recently include TV star Sofia Vergara, Yellowstone lead Kevin Costner, movie star Reese Witherspoon and Oasis guitarist Noel Gallagher. Usually, the call for “privacy” during “this difficult time” happens when kids are involved, but not always.

Sometimes the paparazzi and the press respect the request for privacy, often they don’t. It depends.

What about those occasions, say, when a famous person requests that everyone “respect our and their privacy,” and then – a few days later! – does the exact opposite, themselves? What happens when they preach one thing on one day, and then practice another thing the next day?

We speak, here – reluctantly, regretfully – of one Justin Trudeau, he of the “respect our privacy” statement, issued on Instagram on Tuesday, August 2.

Who then posted, on Sunday, August 6, a photo of himself on Instagram with his son Xavier, 15, going to see the movie Barbie. And who posted a photo of himself with his daughter Ella, 14, going to see the movie Oppenheimer on Tuesday, August 8.

They were nice photos, and everyone looked happy. The kids look like great kids.

Except this: the person who put those photos up on Instagram – the person who did not respect the kids’ privacy – was the person who asked everyone to “respect their privacy” less than one week before.

Do you get that? I don’t. Does that seem wildly, bizarrely contradictory to you? It does to me.

It is arguably vintage Justin Trudeau, however: say one thing, do another. Preach Indigenous reconciliation, then hit a beach where he likes to surf. Promise ethical governance, then get caught breaking conflict of interest rules not once, but twice.

Condemn racism, get seen wearing racist blackface. Pledge to reform elections, balance budgets and finally end boil-water advisories and…anyway, you get the point. The guy is (in)famous for saying one thing and doing another. It’s practically in his DNA.

And, in fairness, you can say the same thing about most politicians. They break promises all the time. They get in power, and are persuaded – by bureaucrats, by lawyers, by circumstance – that what they said they’d do before they won the election isn’t very practical after the election.

Things happen beyond their control, in other words, and they have to reverse themselves. They have to flip-flop. Happens a lot. Happens too often. But the reversals aren’t always solely their fault.

However, in this bizarre instance, it’s pretty hard for Justin Trudeau to blame someone else for violating his kids’ privacy, when he’s the one who did it first. Him.

Is it possible the kids themselves said they were okay with being photographed, and memorialized, on Dad’s official Instagram account? It’s possible. God knows teenagers aren’t strenuously opposed to social media.

But, until someone produces exculpatory evidence, it looks very much like the guy who requested their privacy is the selfsame guy who violated their privacy.

Which, as we say, is weird.

And typical.

Comments (14)

Comments (1)

BEST BIRTHDAY WISHES EVER #gabbagabbahey https://t.co/Bdrnp05bQt

— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) August 11, 2023

Comments (2)

One has been caught making remarks that are intolerant and sexist. He’s facing multiple criminal prosecutions.

The other has similarly gotten into trouble for words and behaviour that are sexist and racist – and he’s been found guilty of violating two federal statutes while in power.

We are speaking, of course, about Donald Trump in the first instance, and Justin Trudeau in the second. And what is remarkable isn’t that both men committed misogynistic and racist acts — and broken the rules.

What’s remarkable is that their partisans — MAGA with Trump, TruAnon with Trudeau — have stayed with them. Even when both have revealed themselves to be the worst kind of politician.

Regrettably, politicians are regularly caught doing awful things: Racism, sexism, breaking the law. Happens all the time. It’s been happening since Jesus was a little fella, in fact.

But why — why, why, why? — does a segment of voters stick with two men who are so clearly unfit for any public office? Why do TruAnon and MAGA forgive every sin committed by their cult leaders?

It is bizarre and frustrating, to be sure. Most of us don’t understand it.

In Trudeau’s case, a majority voted against him in 2019 and 2021. In Trump’s case, a larger number of Americans also voted against him.

But their hard-core supporters remain stubbornly committed to Trudeau and Trump, arguably more than ever before. Despite the overwhelming evidence that has been marshalled against them.

Paradoxically, it is that evidence — allegedly breaking the law, breaking moral and ethical codes — that seems to have strengthened, not diminished, the loyalty of Trump and Trudeau’s partisans.

The very things that have pushed the majority away from Trump and Trudeau are the same things that have consolidated their grip on their respective parties. How can that be?

Three reasons.

One, scandals have little to no impact on many voters these days. We in the media and other politicos are mainly to blame. Citizens have seen the media — and political adversaries — cry “scandal” far too often. And, as in the parable about the boy who cried wolf, that cry just doesn’t change many minds anymore.

Unless Trudeau and Trump’s core see their man led away to a cell, wearing an orange pantsuit and handcuffs, they don’t believe what they’re hearing. Even if the evidence is overwhelming.

Two, social media. In the good old days, before Twitter and Facebook — which, in the latter case, is now actively censoring any Canadian news — it was harder to identify and organize partisans. It was hard work.

In the social media era, however, hardcore Trump or Trudeau fanatics can find each other — instantaneously, for free — just by typing in a hashtag. When they do, the committed partisans tend to stay within their own echo chamber, disregarding any evidence that is critical of their leader.

They start to regard disagreement as treason. They start to believe in conspiracies. And they see those on the other side as the literal enemy, who must be destroyed at all costs.

Three, and finally, Trudeau and Trump lead movements, not political parties. Trump has literally called MAGA a movement — and Trudeau has repeatedly called his TruAnon base the same thing.

In real political parties, control comes from the bottom up. In a movement, power comes from the top down. And, so, the leader at the top needs to be defended at all costs.

Which is why Canada and the United States remain saddled with Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump.

And it’s why both men — despite the evidence, despite what the majority think — aren’t disappearing anytime soon.

Comments (64)

Comments (40)

Leave the unelected ones out of it.

Many of us – most of us, if you believe the statistics – have been through it.  It is sad.  It is painful.  It is like death without dying, almost.

And the last thing anyone needs, when going through a marital split, is to have the whole world watching.

But make no mistake: the whole world is indeed watching.  Justin and Sophie Trudeau’s simultaneous and identically-worded statement, announcing their separation after almost two decades together, rocketed around the globe within minutes,

Top story on CNN World: “Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and wife Sophie are separating.” ABC News: “Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau separating from wife, Sophie.” The BBC: Canada’s PM Justin Trudeau and wife Sophie to separate.”

Everyone has read the statement, by now, but this part should be seen and remembered: “As always, we remain a close family with deep love and respect for each other and for everything we have built and will continue to build…For the well-being of our children, we ask that you respect our and their privacy.”

And the children, here, are not politicians.  They are not high-powered bureaucrats.  They are just kids – all under the age of 15.

Their father stirs up strong emotions, pro or con.  After nearly a decade in power, he (understandably, predictably) has made decisions that are controversial.  Sometimes, his decisions – as we all saw during the Ottawa occupation last year – produce very, very strong reactions.

But the folks who hate Trudeau still shouldn’t go after his kids or Sophie.  They are not elected people.  They do not wield great power.  They are just people, now dealing with something that is always sad without limit.

So, we need to heed those words at the end: “We ask that you respect our and their privacy.”

There will those who ignore that, of course.  The Internet is already surging with wild conspiracy theories and cruel speculation.  None of it will be repeated here.

And, yes, in the days ahead there will discussion – hopefully moderate and respectful – about the political ramifications of Justin Trudeau, single Dad, leading his Liberal Party into another electoral battle.  Will he do that? Can he do that? Should he do that?

All of that, and more, will be discussed and debated, from coast to coast.

But for now, this is just one of many, many separations happening in Canada – most of which lead to the 50,000-odd divorces that happen every year.  Out 100,000 or so marriages that take place every year in this country.  Half end.

For those of us who have been though it, the Trudeau announcement conjures up memories of near-limitless despair and misery.  Even if you dislike Justin Trudeau, you have to give him that much: today is one of the worst days there can be.  On that, trust those of us who have gone through it.

So, let’s leave them alone on this day, and leave the political speculation to another day.  There will be lots of time for that.

Today, instead, let’s give them the privacy that they asked for.

And that they deserve.

Comments (31)

Been through it. Everyone should leave the kids (and her) out of it. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/0zli6LxvK0

— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) August 2, 2023

Comments (6)

Bigot.

That word – along with its corollaries, racist, sexist, hater, et al. – get thrown around a lot, of course.  It happens so often, these days, that those words have lost all meaning.  Like they say: if everyone is a racist, then no one is a racist.

But Erica Ifill keeps at it, just the same.

To Erica, seemingly, everyone who isn’t like her – that is, a person with dark skin – is less than her.  She’s been preaching division for years now, on social media and behind a paywall at The Hill Times.  She calls herself “an award-winning anti-oppression journalist and economist.”

Full disclosure: I happily wrote for The Hill Times for years.  When I was there, my editor was mainly Kate Malloy.  Kate and I agreed that Hill Times columnists were not allowed to take cheap shots at each other, in the paper or elsewhere.  But if an occasion arose where criticism was merited, then the target would get a head’s up.

Other media have the same rule.  When Ezra Levant and I did commentary at the Sun News Network, for example, we promised we wouldn’t go after each other – even though we didn’t particularly like each other.  And we didn’t.

Despite that, I picked up the Hill Times one morning, where I found a column Erica Ifill had written about me.  Among other things, she said I was toxic, unethical, disloyal, and that I had never “lived up to any modicum of respectable conduct.” And so on.  Pretty good zingers, if not terribly original.

And then, she said I was a racist.

Given that I’ve spent most of my adult life documenting and opposing racism, that one was over the line – particularly coming from a newspaper I wrote for, and published without the courtesy of a head’s up.  So I quit, and I haven’t looked at the Hill Times since.

Until this week, that is.  This week, Erica unburdened herself of some opinions that – if the world was still in any way sane – would see her losing her gigs at the Hill Times, Canadaland, CBC and the like.  She won’t, but she should.

When Bingo, a Toronto police dog was allegedly shot by one Kenneth Grant – the day after Grant allegedly shot and killed one Sophonias Haile in Etobicoke – Ifill was unmoved.  Here’s what she put on Twitter (as it was then known):

“It’s amazing to me how white people show more compassion to animals than to people on the street. You people are reprehensible.” She then posted a graphic of a white person and a dog, mouth on mouth.  It even looked sort of sexual.  “WHITE PEOPLE BEFORE THEY LEAVE THE HOUSE,” the graphic read.

Can you imagine what would happen if a white columnist at the The Hill Times said that about black people?

Anyway. People were outraged, of course, because what the Hill Times columnist posted was insane.  But she wouldn’t back down.  She posted a “study” that read, in part: “The use of dogs as tools of oppression against African Americans has its roots in slavery and persists today in everyday life.”

“Slavery.” And here we simply thought that a dog had been shot and killed: turns out the dog deserved it, because slavery.  So said Erica, who wrote: “F*ck Bingo. Guess he ran out of luck.” She then posted a smiling emoticon.

And, even then, she would’t concede that she had gone too far. “Free speech is for white people and white feelings only,” she declared. She’d experienced a “whitelash,” she said. She was “glad y’all are offended,” she said.

For the Hill Times’ Erica Ifill, all of this is great fun.  A giggle.  She calls white people racist all the time.  She has suggested that “white people” have “a Nazi phase.” That Canada was “built on white supremacy and the fascism of right-wing, Christian dogma.”  That Canada has “white supremacist and seditious elements within.”

Even the Justin Trudeau government is white supremacist, apparently: “When it comes to racism and white supremacy, this country continues to be two-faced. While the Trudeau government denounces white supremacist extremism at home, it meets with them in the dark.”

And so on, and so on.  When you hear that Erica celebrated the death of Queen Elizabeth – a woman who “bathed in the blood of my ancestors” – well, none of this stuff is particularly shocking anymore.

It is, however, the sort of anti-white racism and black supremacy upon which Louis Farrakhan built his Nation of Islam empire.  It is dishonest and damaging and divisive.

It is also the sort of thing you hear from bigots.

Like Erica Ifill.

[Kinsella is the author of the bestselling Web of Hate, and the leader of the group Standing Together Against Misogyny and Prejudice, which led a successful campaign against a pro-Nazi newspaper in Toronto.]

Comments (19)

Comments (41)

Name ten federal cabinet ministers. Just ten.

It’s not a lot. Ten represents just a quarter of Justin Trudeau’s cabinets in recent years.

So, name ten. But you can’t, can you?

You’re not alone. Few can. With the exception of weirdos like media political columnists and Ottawa-based bureaucrats, Joe and Jane Frontporch generally don’t know who is in cabinet, and they mostly don’t care, either.

Apart from Chrystia Freeland and Dominic LeBlanc – perhaps – most voters couldn’t pick a Trudeau government minister out of a police lineup (where not a few voters think they belong, but that’s a column for another day). The majority of Trudeau’s ministers are distinguished by being indistinguishable. They are remarkably unremarkable.

In the annals of Canadian politics, successful Prime Ministers have tended to surround themselves with notables. Jean Chretien had Paul Martin, John Manley, Brian Tobin and more. Brian Mulroney had Joe Clark, Don Mazankowski and Jean Charest. Stephen Harper had Rona Ambrose, Peter MacKay and Lisa Raitt.

Even Justin Trudeau’s father, Pierre, always cultivated talent around the cabinet table – Marc Lalonde, Allan MacEachen, John Turner, the aforementioned Chretien.

But Justin Trudeau? As mentioned, it’s all about him, generally. L’etat, c’est lui – the State is Him. You don’t really hear about anyone else unless they get in trouble – and Trudeau Junior’s ministers get in trouble quite often (Marco Mendicino, Bill Morneau, Bill Blair, et al.).

So why don’t we know more about the people who make up Canada’s federal government? Because Justin Trudeau’s government isn’t really a government. It’s a cult of personality.

It begins and (one hopes) ends with Justin. It is entirely, indisputably, All About Him.

A cult of personality, the dictionary folks tell us, is “a cult promoting adulation of a living national leader or public figure.” Which, in Trudeau’s case, sounds about right.

None of his ministers ever spoke out about, say, the fact that Justin Trudeau is the first Prime Minister to have been found to have violated multiple federal statutes. None of the people within his Liberal Party bothered to check, back in 2008, whether the aspiring politician had groped a woman without consent (he had) or worn racist black face (he had, more than once).

But none of his partisans – christened “TruAnon,” memorably, by CNN’s Jake Tapper – care about any of that stuff. You can see the TruAnon types in the comments below this column, like a swarm of oily earwigs, objecting to anything and anyone who is outside the cult.

So, it’s a cult of personality. Generally speaking, if a cult leader is effective at suppressing dissent and bad PR – like Scientology or the Moonies – then the cult leadership survives.

But that’s the imperfection at the center of Justin Trudeau’s cult of personality: the leader is imperfect. Aga Khan, SNC-Lavalin, WE “charity,” now Chinese interference in our democracy: in every single case, the biggest Trudeau-era scandals have implicated Trudeau personally. Him.

So, in a cult of personality, when the leader stumbles, it jeopardizes the entire organization. It places the whole shebang at risk. And that is particularly the case when there isn’t someone standing in the wings, ready to take over.

And there just isn’t. With the exception of Intergovernmental Affairs’ LeBlanc or Industry’s Francois-Phillippe Champagne, it is very, very hard to picture anyone else taking over and surviving a Tory landslide.

Because they’re all mostly invisible.

Because there was a big-deal cabinet shuffle, this week, and the chances are excellent you (a) didn’t know or (b) don’t care.

Welcome to the club.

Comments (92)