The job of the media is to come down from the hills to shoot the politically wounded.

So, let’s put a few rounds in the carcass of the Green Party, shall we?

Let’s start by telling a tale. But full disclosure first: My political consulting firm has acted for every single federal political party. All of them.

(One exception: We haven’t represented the political party led by Maxime Bernier, who was last seen wearing handcuffs in the backseat of an RCMP cruiser, arrested for violating Manitoba public health laws.)

But we’ve worked for everyone else. The Green Party included.

I first met with Elizabeth May, then the Green leader, in Ottawa in the summer of 2019. Some of her senior staff were there, too. We talked about my firm running the Green Party war room in the election.

May eyed me warily. “You make me a bit nervous,” she said.

Recalling that unfortunate time in 2015 when May appeared at a press gallery dinner (see photo above), I replied: “Likewise.”

Anyway, we agreed my firm would be hired. I warned her that, when that news leaked out — because everything leaks in Ottawa, eventually — it would attract controversy. She assured me that she could handle it.

She couldn’t.

Fast-forward to July 2019. May is at a pre-election rally in Guelph, and someone stands up to ask her a question about me. The questioner is distressed. She says I’m nasty (guilty) and she’s upset (good). In front of several hundred people, May insists she said this to me: “What you did in politics previously was despicable, and he said, ‘Yeah.’”

This wasn’t just false. It was a whopping whopper. It was fabulist fiction. It was a bald-faced lie.

She didn’t say that. I didn’t say that.

I fired off an email to all of the senior Green staff who had been at the same meeting, gently reminding them I am a lawyer, and that I planned to publicly repudiate May unless she did so herself, govern yourself accordingly, etc.

May issued a grovelling tweet hours later, in which she whimpered that “some past campaigns had been despicable — not Warren.”

Long story short: A couple of my staff dealt with the Greens thereafter, but not me. I’m old enough to know a clown show when I see it.

Fast forward to 2021, now. The Green Party has an impressive new leader who happens to be (a) female, (b) Black, (c) Jewish, and (d) not Elizabeth May. I note this only because I think (b), (c) and (d) are relevant.

Hamas starts firing rockets into Israel, and Israel properly acts in self-defence. The rest of the planet descends into paroxysms of “anti-Zionism” (read: Anti-Semitism). The Green Party joins in.

One of their MPs, a non-entity from New Brunswick, tweets that Israel is a state that practices “apartheid.” Last time I checked, “apartheid” is the whites-only system of laws promulgated by South Africa. Israel, meanwhile, has two million Arab citizens, some of whom are members of the national Knesset legislature, the civil service, the judiciary, and the army.

If that’s apartheid, it doesn’t sound like it’s very effective apartheid.

Anyway. The new Green leader — who is, as noted, Jewish and Black — declines to agree with the “apartheid” blood libel. The MP non-entity thereupon defects to the Trudeau Liberals, who the MP says share her “apartheid” defamation. Senior Greenies start demanding the new leader be fired for being moderate.

Elizabeth May, still regrettably an MP, is heard from. She chastises her successor, and says she wants the anti-Israel defector back.

Had enough? Me too. And I don’t think, anymore, that we need to come down from the hills and shoot the wounded Green Party people.

They’re pretty good at shooting themselves.

— Warren Kinsella was special assistant to Jean Chretien

Comments (37)

So, our motion to dismiss the lawsuit launched against us by Maxime Bernier – seen above, in handcuffs and in police custody a few days ago – is being heard in court on Friday. I’m sure it is a complete and total and absolute coincidence, but someone has given two-year-old documents about the case to Bill Curry at the Globe and Mail. Bill has taken the bait, apparently.

So Bill has an invoice, and what looks like a proposal that was never acted upon. He also had some questions for me. Here are the answers I gave him, to ensure total accuracy and transparency:

“1. The document you have is not signed by me. It is not a contract.

2. The document you have does not in any way describe what we did. We researched racism and published our research on social media.

3. We don’t discuss client relationships when the client insists on confidentiality. But we are proud to oppose racism and bigotry, and will never apologize for doing so. The client, here, deserves credit for opposing racism and bigotry as well.

4. All of this was covered extensively by you and other media two years ago. All of it. There is nothing new here, in my opinion.”

In a separate email, I also told him this:

“The client was a lawyer, and that is who the invoice is addressed to. Who he gets to pay his bills, and from which address, is determined by him, not us.

When they paid is also up to them, as long as it is done within a reasonable time frame. But we always insist we get paid for good work, and we frankly did very good work here.

Again, all of this was investigated and verified by the Elections Commissioner two years ago. I strongly urge the Globe to speak to them before publishing a story based on two-year-old documents that bear no relation whatsoever to the work that was actually done.”

I’ve urged Bill to contact the Elections Commissioner, because they investigated Bernier’s complaint about us and quickly dismissed it. They can verify everything I’ve told Bill. I don’t know if he plans to do that, so I’m sharing all of this with you guys.

Slow news day, I guess.

Comments (2)