Tag Archive: Liberal Party of Canada

My latest: debate? What debate?

— 10.07.2019 12:33 PM

Here’s the thing about Monday’s leader’s debate, Canada.

You won’t be watching it.

Well, let’s amend that. Sun readers are a scrappy, elbows-up lot, who dig politics and a good scrap. Sun readers are likelier to be watching the debate. They like debates.

But most everyone else? They won’t be.

Everyone else will be watching Shark Tank (which this election kind of is) or Wheel of Fortune (which this election isn’t). Or, they’ll be binge-watching old episodes of Arrested Development (which neatly describes most of our federal political leaders).

Increasingly, voters simply don’t watch leader’s debates in Canada. For example, Maclean’s magazine put together a debate in 2015, but it had fewer than 40% of the viewers who took in the 2011 English-language debate. And Maclean’s actually counted people who only watched part of that debate, not all of it.

Master Chef got way more viewers.

Last time around, there was a Globe and Mail debate, too, and it was absolutely awful to watch. YouTube later found only about 400,000 Canadians did so. That’s in a country, in 2015, with 36 million people in it. Ipsos later did a poll and found only about 20% of Canadians watched the first couple debates in 2015.

There’s been one debate in 2019 that Justin Trudeau has deigned to attend. It was entirely in French.

Around 1.2 million Quebecers allegedly took in the TVA leader’s debate, in which Andrew Scheer, Jagmeet Singh and the separatist leader, Yves-Francois Blanchet, also participated. In a province with more than six million eligible voters, 1.2 million viewers isn’t anything to brag about, although TVA did.

Oh, and in English Canada — in English — nobody got to watch the French debate when it was happening. Because it was entirely in French. To get a sense of what happened, the vast majority of Canadians needed to check out the media after the fact (Widely-held consensus: the separatist guy won, hands down).

As someone who owns a public opinion firm — Daisy Data, at your service! — I can relate one empirical statistical fact: a dwindling number of voters watch debates from gavel to gavel. They may in take part of a debate, sure. But not all of it.

What voters do, instead, is watch the news media’s coverage of a debate. They’ll see a clip of a fiery exchange on TV, or they’ll hear a so-called defining moment on the radio heading into work, or they’ll read expert commentary in the pages of the Sun and hopefully nowhere else.

But they don’t watch all of the debate.

I’ve prepared prime ministers and premiers for debates, and I now know I did it all wrong. I assumed, as did my debate-prep colleagues, that everyone else watched the debates as closely as we did. That was a flawed assumption.

It also explains how Justin Trudeau was seen as a winner in the 2015 debates, even against two superior debaters — Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair. Trudeau’s strategy in 2015 was a lot like what he did in his celebrated boxing match with Patrick Brazeau: he waited in his corner for an opening, then he’d go in with a flurry of punches.

He didn’t try to dominate all of the matches — he just did what he needed to do to get clipped on TV, then he’d sprinkle the results all over social media.

It worked, because he knew that Canadians were more likely to see clips of a debate than all of a debate.

That’s what he’s going to do on Monday night, too. In an era of shrinking debate audiences, it works. Will the other leaders let him get away with it in 2019 like they did in 2015? Tune in and see.

Or, join everyone else, and go watch Shark Tank.

— Sun columnist Warren Kinsella will be providing debate commentary on Bell Media radio on Monday night


Comments (25)

My latest: why isn’t Andrew Scheer way ahead?

— 10.04.2019 09:48 AM

So, Andrew.

You don’t mind if I call you Andrew, do you? It’s better than what I sometimes used to call you, which was Blandy Andy.

I stopped calling you that because you figured out a way to make the bland thing work, like Brampton Bill Davis did. You embraced your inner ordinariness.

You starting hanging out in hockey rinks and you commenced rubbing Timbits all over your torso – which, unlike Prime Minister Blackface, you have never exposed to a grateful nation. You became the Canadian Everyman, and you made it work for you.

The pocketbook stuff, too. That was good, too. You and Hamish concluded, rightly, that voters regard everyone in politics as an unindicted co-conspirators, so you stopped hollering all the time that Justin is a crook. You just kept talking about how hard it is for regular folks to get by, and left the scandalmongering to the media. That was smart.

And the polls bore fruit, sort of. Ipsos says you’re ahead, and you have been for the entirety of the campaign. Nanos says you’re tied with Trudeau for best choice for Prime Minister, which is way better than you’ve been in the past.

But. But, Andrew, seriously?

Why haven’t 110 per cent of respondents declared you their favoured choice for Prime Minister? Why isn’t your party a kabillion points ahead of the Liberals? Why, Andrew, why?

Because that’s the question everyone is asking themselves, Andrew. Hell, that’s the question members of the Liberal caucus are asking themselves – many of whom had purchased political funeral insurance, and now they’re wondering if they can convert it to another kind of policy at the insurance brokerage where you used to fetch coffee and answer the phone.

By any reasonable standard, Andrew, Justin Trudeau leads the most corrupt – the most casually evil – government in Canadian history. It is shiftless; it is reckless; it is soulless. It is a mess.

And they could still win, Andrew. They could still beat you. How can this be?

A scan of Trudeau’s press clippings reads like a grand jury indictment.

• In LavScam, he obstructed justice when he tried, repeatedly, to stop the criminal corruption trial of a Québec-based donor to his party.
• He violated conflict of interest laws when he accepted freebies during a junket to the Aga Khan’s private island.
• He lied about electoral reform, and balancing the budget, and improving relations with the provinces and the world.
• He made us an international laughingstock with his Griswolds Vacation India trip, and enraged the world’s largest democracy – our ally and Commonwealth partner.
• And, most recently, he admitted he repeatedly mocked black people by wearing blackface and jumping around like an ape – and he admitted that there’s more of it out there in the ether, but he doesn’t know how much, because he was wasted a lot of the time.

After all that, Andrew – after all that scandal, more of which this newspaper has been investigating for weeks, stay tuned to this bat-channel, everyone – why aren’t you way ahead? Why aren’t you creaming Chewbacca Socks?

Why, to cite just two examples from the past 24 hours, did you attract fewer people at a Brampton rally than Justin Trudeau’s Portuguese Water Dog, Kenzie, gets during a stroll through the park?

Why can’t you put an end to the interminable questions about your CV, and simply joke that you’re so boring, you’re the only guy in Canada who brags about being an insurance broker?

None of it makes sense, Andrew. None of it. You should be playing Fortnite with Hamish about now, getting ready to move into wherever we put Prime Ministers these days.

Instead, you’re fighting to get a decent lead. Instead, your caucus are whispering about the next leader.

It’s crazy, Andrew. But one thing isn’t crazy at all:

You’ve got three weeks left to win this thing.

And if you don’t, you’ll forever be remembered as the guy who couldn’t beat Prime Minister Blackface.


Comments (63)

Random, contextless links about #elxn43 and #cdnpoli and punk rock

— 10.01.2019 06:53 AM

So.  First day of October.  Here’s bits and pieces, this and that:




Comments (33)

Trump and Trudeau: brothers of another mother

— 09.27.2019 06:44 AM

Trump and Trudeau: They’re not that different, really.

Sons of millionaires. Never had to worry about a hydro bill, never needed to fret about a mortgage payment. Never experienced the pocketbook terror that is everyday existence for lesser mortals.

Bodyguards, maids, chauffeurs, private jets: These were the emblems of the lives that Trudeau and Trump led and lead. They breathed the same rarefied air as other millionaires and billionaires. They got invited to all the right parties. We in the media hung on their every utterance, stupidly believing that being born rich renders someone worth listening to.

No military service for either. No involvement in government before they both somehow seized the top job. No known ideas or policies. But models, yes. Lots.

And famous. Trump became famous for The Apprentice, and for his expert manipulation of New York City’s viciously competitive media. He’s the assignment editor for all journalists, and he bragged about it in his various ghosted books. Said he in The Art of the Deal: “Most reporters, I find, have very little interest in exploring the substance of a detailed proposal for a development. They look instead for the sensational angle.”

Trudeau gets that, too. He became famous because of the sensational eulogy he gave to his father — the one that his pal, Gerald Butts, told everyone that he wrote — and he became even more famous when he sensationally beat up an indigenous man.

He actually bragged about that. Trudeau actually crowed that he consciously targeted an indigenous man for a public beating. Said Trudeau to Rolling Stone: “I wanted someone who would be a good foil, and we stumbled upon the scrappy, tough-guy senator from an indigenous community. He fit the bill. I saw it as the right kind of narrative, the right story to tell.”

So: Rich, privileged, famous. There’s a reason why Trump and Trudeau have mostly gotten along so well: They both are charter members of the lucky sperm club.

But there is one characteristic that they share above all others. There is one thing, in government and out, that makes them brothers of another mother.

They believe the rules don’t apply to them.

This week, Trump reminded us of that. This week, we learned that he really, truly had called the newly minted president of Ukraine, and requested, seven times, that Ukraine investigate a U.S. citizen, one Joe Biden. Conservatives may not regard that as a “high crime,” but it sure as hell is at least a “misdemeanour” — and, therefore, an impeachable offence.

And how did we get the evidence that Democrats are now relying upon to impeach Trump? Well, they got it from Trump himself. He provided his political executioners with the rope they needed to fashion a noose.

Because he doesn’t think the law should apply to him.

Ditto Trudeau. He can brag about beating up someone who is indigenous (Patrick Brazeau), he can try and destroy an indigenous woman who refused to break the law for him (Jody Wilson-Raybould), he can wear racist blackface to mock others (black Canadians) — and then brazenly claim he isn’t racist.

(Oh, and he and his cabal can come up with a racist name for NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, too. More on that in my next column.)

Trudeau can do all those racist things, and then insist he believes in tolerance and diversity. Which is standard operating procedure for someone who believes the rules don’t apply to him.

Only one thing differentiates the two leaders right now: Donald Trump is facing impeachment for his sins, and Justin Trudeau isn’t.

Shame, that.


Comments (34)

My latest: the speech Justin Trudeau should have given, but won’t

— 09.24.2019 07:17 AM

My fellow Liberals, my fellow Canadians.

Last week, I spoke about the scandal that has hit my campaign. I didn’t do it right, so I’m now going to try again.

First things first: over and over, I used the wrong pronoun. I talked about how “we,” as a country, need to do better. How “we” need to be less racist.

I got that wrong. I shouldn’t have said “we.” I should have said “I.” Because I – not we – was the one who smeared stuff all over my face and my body and mocked black people.

It was I – not we – who was racist. Me. Repeatedly – as a high school student in Montreal, and then as a teacher of high school students in Vancouver.

When I was thirty years old. When I was a man, not a boy. When I was supposed to know better.

In the video that came out, everyone focussed on the blackface-style racism, and they should have. But they missed something, maybe because the video was grainy.

In it, I’m wearing a T-shirt with bananas on the front. I’ve stuffed something down the front of my jeans. And I jump around like an ape.

I did all of that to communicate something that I’m amazed so many of you missed. I did it to suggest that blacks are apes. Which was the worst kind of racism.

Oh, in case you are wondering if I did blackface more than those three times, the answer is yes: I did. I repeatedly, and gleefully, acted like a racist. I can’t remember every detail because I was wasted.

The people who work for me have all forgiven me, of course. What do you expect? When the boss asks people for forgiveness, they will always give it.

But I must say that Liberal MPs of colour – Navdeep Bains, Omar Alghabra, Greg Fergus – surprised even me with how speedily they pronounced me without sin. I think we all know that if Andrew Scheer had done blackface on Halloween at the age of five, Navdeep, Omar and Greg would be convening a Human Rights Tribunal right now to have Scheer thrown in a gulag in Nunavut for the rest his life.

Because black face is racist. What I did was racist. I wanted to communicate that black people are worthy of mockery. That they are apes. That they belong in cages. That’s as racist as it gets.

Now, last week, I tried to excuse away my racism by saying I was a child of privilege. That I had grown up with a “blind spot” about such things. But we all know that’s a lie.

Growing up rich, and going to the best schools – being a child of privilege – doesn’t excuse my racism. In fact, it’s the reverse: it makes my racism all the more wrong. I, growing up in the house of the man who gave Canada a Charter of Rights, should have known better.

Anyway, words are cheap. I apologize for stuff all the time, to the point where the apologies have no meaning anymore. All that matters is actions, not words.

So, I will now do what I should’ve done last week. I intend to resign the office of the Prime Minister soon after the election, win or lose. And, by the way, I’m amazed I could still win it. That says a lot more about Canadians that it does about me, frankly.

So, there you go. I need time to get away and learn to be a better Dad, a better husband, a better man. I can’t do that as Prime Minister of Canada.

Because words can’t excuse what I did.

Because what I did was racist.

Thank you.


Comments (24)

My latest: in a campaign about nothing positive, don’t give them something negative

— 09.23.2019 09:18 AM

The land is strong.

Sound familiar? Remember that?

The old-timers do. It was an actual slogan that was deployed in the 1972 federal election campaign. Didn’t work out too well.

In yesterday walks tomorrow, they say, and that is certainly true when one compares 1972 to 2019. The similarities are striking.

• In 1972, a Trudeau led the Liberal Party, as in 2019.
• It was a Liberal majority government seeking another majority, as now.
• Back in 1972, as in 2019, the Conservatives were led by a kind of boring, bland guy who everyone underestimated.
• The Liberals’ 1972 slogan, “the land is strong,” sucked. So does the Liberals’ 2019 slogan, “Choose Forward.” It’s ungrammatical and uninspiring.

But the Justin Trudeau folks are wedded to their crummy slogan, just like Justin’s Dad was to his. Everywhere Trudeau the Younger goes, he robotically repeats the “choose forward” mantra, and no one knows exactly what it means.

That’s never a good idea, politically but it’s potential lethal when a scandal hits – like the blackface scandal. When you have no positive message, it makes it easier for a negative message to take its place. And blackface has.

Is an election won or lost on a slogan? Of course not. But a good one should give voters a pithy idea about what is on offer. Like, you know, “Melts in your mouth, not in your hands.” Or: “Just Do It.” Or: “The Quicker Picker Upper.”

The big problem with “choose forward” is that it actually reminds voters about Justin Trudeau’s biggest problem. Which isn’t LavScam, or the Aga Khan, or Gropegate.

It’s that he hasn’t done what he said he was going to do. And he hasn’t done much at all, really.

Let’s crack open the history book again.

From 1968 to 1972, when his Dad was Prime Minister and enjoying a strong parliamentary majority, lots of things were done: the Just Society, universal health care, regional development, parliamentary reform, bilingualism, multiculturalism, pro-NATOism, multilateralism, staring down separatism and terrorism.

When you examine the elder Trudeau’s first majority term – and whether you respected him or not, and this writer really did – it is remarkable how much was accomplished in a relatively short period of time.
But, despite all that, Pierre Trudeau was still reduced to a minority in 1972.

His son, meanwhile, doesn’t have much to brag about, legislatively. Legalization of cannabis, and … that’s it.

History will not remember Justin Trudeau for lots of important legislative achievements, because there haven’t been any. It’s been a lot of social media sizzle, but not much policy steak.

Broken promises and voter disappointments: they’re not predicaments unknown to incumbent governments, true.
But, if there’s enough of them, they’re why those governments get defeated.

And, at this point, Justin Trudeau isn’t known for any achievements at all. He’s known for being a racist, and wearing blackface.

Pierre Trudeau wasn’t defeated in 1972. But, despite a lot of legislative achievements, he almost was. He, the Northern Magus, lost his Parliamentary majority to the efforts of Bob Stanfield – who, like Andrew Scheer, was regularly mocked and maligned.

“Choose Forward” strongly implies that what preceded it wasn’t all that great. In Justin Trudeau’s case, he wants us to think of mean old Stephen Harper when we think about that past.

But what if voters start thinking about the more-recent past – and what, if anything, Justin Trudeau has achieved?

He hasn’t achieved much. There’s a reason why Justin Trudeau is less popular than Donald Trump, you know.

The land is strong? When compared to something like “choose forward,” the 1972 Liberal campaign slogan is practically a detailed 100-page policy platform.

Canadians are going to “choose,” alright.

Based upon his paltry, puny legislative record – based on his racist blackface stunts – Justin Trudeau may deeply regret asking Canadians to do so.


Comments (43)

My latest: Justin Trudeau likens black people to apes. Don’t let him get away with that.

— 09.19.2019 09:30 AM

An ape?

The video is grainy. It’s blurry, and it’s hard to make out who is in it.

But we don’t have to guess. The Liberal Party of Canada has confirmed to Global News – which released the video on Thursday morning – that it depicts Justin Trudeau, the leader of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister of Canada.

Acting like an ape.

In the video, he’s covered (again) in blackface. He really worked at it, too: he made certain to smear dark make-up on his face, neck, ears, arms. Even his legs. We can see through the holes in his jeans that he did that.

There are three photographs, now, of Trudeau in blackface. One from his high school days in Montreal, and two from a party at the high school he taught at in Vancouver. With his hand on an unidentified young woman’s chest.

He was about thirty in that last photo. He was someone who taught kids – who was supposed to be setting an example for kids.

But we digress. Back to the video.

In the video, Justin Trudeau is seen for only a few fleeting seconds. There’s no sound. But it is unmistakable what the future Prime Minister of Canada and his pals are doing.

Trudeau’s acting like an ape. Sticking out his tongue, waving around his arms, shuffling around like a simian would, in a zoo or a jungle or something.

I showed the video to my shocked colleagues when they came into the office. Two of them are card-carrying Liberals. They agree with me: Justin Trudeau was in blackface, acting like an ape.

Now, why would he do that?

Brent Staples is a member of the editorial board of the New York Times. Around the time Roseanne Barr called an advisor to Barack Obama the progeny of an ape, Staples wrote an extensive study about that. About how racists like to depict black people as apes.

Like Justin Trudeau did.

Here’s Staples: “[It’s] one of the oldest and most profoundly racist slanders in American history…This depiction — promoted by slave traders, historians and practitioners of “scientific” racism — was used to justify slavery, lynching and the creation of the Jim Crow state…[It’s] the ape caricature.”

Throwing bananas at black public figures. Making noises like apes at public events. Calling Michelle Obama “an ape in heels.” It’s all aimed at one simple, incontrovertible message: that black people are animals. That they are less than whites. That they belong in cages.

At this point – and with the Trudeau in blackface leading newscasts around the planet – the evidence cannot be rebutted: the Prime Minister of Canada, as man and not just a boy, traded in the foulest racist stereotypes. He thought it was funny. He thought he could get away with it.

So, that’s him: he’s the scum of the Earth. He doesn’t deserve to be elected dogcatcher, let alone a Prime Minister of a G7 country.

Oddly, the issue isn’t him. It’s now the members of the Liberal Party. It’s us.

Will Liberal MPs now publicly condemn their “leader,” as I counselled two distressed Grit MPs to do this morning? They must.

And, Canadians, too, have a decision to make. Will we let him get away with it? Trudeau and his loathsome coterie are laying low, clearly believing this all will blow over in time. And it might, you know.

It is up to us – Canadians – to say: not good enough. Not on. Not this time.

Justin Trudeau – the goddamned Prime Minister of Canada – is on a video, this morning, joking that black people are, you know, apes.

This man is unfit. We, Canadians, must line up on October 21 and reject him and his ways.

We must.


Comments (102)

My latest: this isn’t the face of a Prime Minister

— 09.18.2019 07:42 PM

Blackface.

I’ve been writing about, and researching – and opposing – racism for more than thirty years. And make no mistake: blackface isn’t funny.

It’s racist.

Ask Megyn Kelly. A year ago, the former Fox News star was filming a segment about Halloween costumes and “political correctness.” Someone asked whether it was acceptable for a white person to smear black makeup all over their face and pretend to be black.

Here’s what Kelly said: “But what is racist? Because you do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface on Halloween… Back when I was a kid that was OK, as long as you were dressing up as, like, a character.”

There was a massive backlash. Kelly apologized. But her show was cancelled not long afterwards.

Just this year, Alabama’s governor, Kay Ivey, faced demands that she resign because audio of a skit emerged from when she was in college – even though the person in blackface was her then-fiance. Not her.

Ivey still apologized.

Also this year: upscale fashion brand Gucci fired its global head of diversity because he hadn’t stopped a “balaclava jumper” from going on sale. The jumper featured an image that resembled blackface.

In Canada, we’ve experienced blackface backlash, too. Theatre impresario Robert Lepage faced protests when one of his plays apparently contained scenes that recalled blackface. Some University of Montreal students wore blackface to “pay tribute” to champion runner Usain Bolt. The university was forced to apologize for that.

So why is blackface so controversial? Why is what Justin Trudeau has done so wrong?

Because blackface is literally about white people caricaturing black people. It recalls the era when blacks were referred to as “darkies” and “coons.” It was something popularized in minstrel shows to suggest that blacks were inferior to whites. That they were stupider. That they were deserving of derision and mockery.

David Leonard, a professor at Washington State University, and an expert on the manifestations of racism, says this: “It’s an assertion of power and control. It allows a society to routinely and historically imagine African Americans as not fully human. It serves to rationalize violence and segregation.”

Is Justin Trudeau racist?

Well, his appalling treatment of a proud indigenous woman, Jody Wilson-Raybould, didn’t exactly suggest Trudeau was nearly as tolerant as he regularly claims to be. When asked about Donald Trump’s suggestion that four Democratic politicians “go back” to the “crime infested places” they came from, Justin Trudeau refused to say Trump’s racist statements were in fact racist.

Said Trudeau: “Canadians and indeed people around the world know exactly what I think about those particular comments.”

Do we really?

After Canadians have looked at that shocking photo of the Liberal prime minister mocking and denigrating black people – after the embarrassment and shame he has now brought on Canada internationally – it’s hard to know exactly what Justin Trudeau was thinking. Or if he thinks at all.

At the end of this shocking revelation, we are left with one thought: this is not the face of a prime minister.

Like Megyn Kelly, Justin Trudeau’s little show needs to be cancelled, once and for all.

Warren Kinsella is a Sun columnist and author of five award-winning books on racism.


Comments (27)