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)

Comments (9)