From next week’s Hill Times column:
Justin Trudeau’s father, Pierre, regularly refused to make apologies when he was Prime Minister. In 1984, when pressed by Brian Mulroney to apologize to Japanese-Canadians who had been interned during World War Two, Pierre Trudeau refused.
“I do not think the purpose of a government is to right the past,” Trudeau told Mulroney. “It cannot rewrite history. It is our purpose to be just in our time.”
He could have added another reason, one that would have later had particular relevance to his eldest son: when you apologize a lot, people will expect you to continue to issue apologies – and particularly when it is right and just to do so.
But, this week, Justin Trudeau wouldn’t. He refused.
The occasion was the proposed apology to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, whose life and career had been effectively destroyed by the aforementioned Justin Trudeau and Trudeau PMO.
Conservative Deputy Leader Lisa Raitt, supported by the New Democrats, rose in the House to ask that Members of Parliament “recognize Vice-Admiral Mark Norman for his decades of loyal service to Canada, express regret for the personal and professional hardships he endured as a result of his failed prosecution and apologize to him and his family for what they experienced during their legal conflict with government.”
Everyone was in favour of Raitt’s motion. Every Liberal MP voted for it.
But not Justin Trudeau. He had slipped out of the Commons chamber mere moments before the vote.
And he didn’t come back to support the apology to Mark Norman, either.
Trudeau’s PMO has it in abundance.
— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) May 14, 2019
#LavScam scandal has dropped them to under 30% in Nanos (!), so what do they do? They bring into PMO the first guy to lean on @puglaas to benefit SNC-Lavalin! You can't make this shit up. #cdnpoli #lpc #cpc #ndp https://t.co/vp5SuFxYIk
— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) May 14, 2019
Former Mississauga mayoral candidate Kevin Johnston, a Muslim-hating lunatic, has been ordered by a Court to pay $2.5 million to Paramount Fine Foods owner Mohamad Fakih for defamatory hate. The Court ruled Johnston’s comments were not protected by the Charter – and appropriately so.
Make sure to read it all, Your Ward News losers.
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.
…and I am honoured. And honoured to be among so many accomplished authors, too.
The White Pine Award “is an annual literature award sponsored by the Ontario Library Association (OLA) that has awarded Canadian young adult books since 2002. Its goals are to
- promote reading for enjoyment among high school students
- to make students aware of quality Canadian young adult books
- to provide opportunities for students to discuss the nominated titles in an authentic manner
- Every year, award winners are chosen through the votes of students across Ontario.”
Quill and Quire: “Kinsella skillfully blends convincing depictions of both the punk scene and the racist underground with the hoary trope of a band of kids setting out to solve a mystery. The novel is a suspenseful page-turner that also gives considerable food for thought, anchored in realistically drawn characters and an eye for significant detail.”
Publisher’s Weekly: “Adult author Kinsella (Fight the Right) sets this riveting murder mystery in Portland, Maine, in the late 1970s…Tension starts high and stays there in this unflinching page-turner, which offers a fascinating glimpse into the early punk scene and a moving testament to the power of friendship.”
Globe and Mail: “Portrayals of rebellious and non-conforming teens can feel reductive or contrived but Kinsella nails it without any stereotyping or embellishment. Though this authenticity will have big teen appeal, the novel is also part police procedural, part detailed history on the emergence of punk and part gritty murder mystery, all elements that skew more adult. Classification aside, it’s absorbing, jarring and raw.”
Toronto Star: “Warren Kinsella is known mostly as a political operative and pundit, but he also has estimable punk-rock credentials (as punk historian and as bass player in SFH, which bills itself as Canada’s best-loved geriatric punk band). This YA novel is loosely based on real-life events, and concerns the murder of two teenagers in 1979 in Portland, Ore., then the epicentre of the punk scene. It will be of interest to anyone interested in punk culture — not just the music, but the fanzines, art and writing of the period.”
Booklist: “Kinsella’s book explodes off the page from the start…a dark and engrossing tale of punk-rock heroes fighting for justice.”