Justin Trudeau’s Monday night speech in Toronto certainly has a lot of people talking, and it’s not just the trolls on Twitter! His attempt to reclaim “liberty” for the Liberals instead of the Conservatives, who like to talk a lot about freedom (particularly from taxes and big nanny state governments) is certainly going to cause a reaction, and did it ever. Jason Kenney, not surprisingly, was not a fan and railed about “politically correct Liberals” not thinking critically about Muslim women wearing niqabs. Michael Den Tandt sees the speech as trying to create a narrative framework for the Liberals going forward, and notes it gained from the timing of things like Chris Alexander conflating the hijab and the niqab, Jason Kenney’s Twitter Machine misadventures, or John Williamson’s racist statement about “whities” and brown people. (The NDP, conversely, are going on about how Trudeau can talk liberty when he plans to vote for C-51, which they see as a threat to liberty). Terry Milewski sees this as another shot fired in a nascent culture war about the niqab, and notes that just as Trudeau compared the current climate against Muslims with the anti-Semitism during the 1940s, while Stephen Blaney turned around and invoked the Holocaust to defend C-51. Aaron Wherry looks at the speech in contrast to the Federal Court ruling on the niqab in citizenship ceremonies, and the subsequent debates about religion and feminism that the Conservatives and Liberals are having.
Tag Archives: Diane Finley
QP: Questions on combat and friendly fire
Tuesday in the Commons, and all of the leaders were present, making it a question of whether everyone would be tiptoeing around the friendly fire question again. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking why Kurdish forces weren’t aware of the presence of Canadian troops on the front lines. Stephen Harper responded that it was not a combat situation but friendly fire, and that the spoke with the Iraqi prime minister about it, while investigations were ongoing. Mulcair pointed out that previous friendly fire deaths on a training mission were counted as combat deaths, and why not this incident. Harper noted that there are risks but they were not expecting to come under fire, and noted that it was better we fight them over there than over here. Mulcair tried to insist in a pair of questions why Canadian soldiers were on the front line, which wasn’t was voted on in Parliament, and Harper retorted that Parliament voted for it because it was the right thing to do. Mulcair repeated words that Harper said prior to the vote to prove his point, but Harper claimed there were “falsehoods” in that question and noted that the forces were acting according to their guidelines. Justin Trudeau was up next, and noted some of Jason Kenney’s many Twitter gaffes of late — including when he tweeted about the death of Nathan Cirillo — and wondered if he had been repremanded. Harper insisted that Kenney had taken over a difficult portfolio, and was doing well. Trudeau retorted about the recent statements by Chris Alexander and John Williamson dividing Canadians when they should be dealing with the economy — and when would the budget be tabled. Harper noted that Trudeau was playing games of his own with division. Trudeau repeated the question in French, and Harper went after him for pandering to the “anti-woman” culture that gives rise to the niqab.
Roundup: No end in sight to protests
While Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence continues to insist that the GG and PM meet with all of the chiefs, here is a reminder of the role that the GG played at the last Crown-First Nations gathering – basically the introductory speech, and then left. In other words, not at the table for the working portion, nor should he ever be. Meanwhile, the PMO says that they’ll be following up with National Chief Shawn Atleo on a follow-up meeting in the coming weeks, and have no intention of calling another big meeting with the GG. Apparently this means that the protests will continue. And the fact that NDP MP Charlie Angus is buying into Spence’s constitutional relativism and encouraging the GG’s participation in order to “draw down the rhetoric” is not only disheartening, it’s constitutionally irresponsible. I guess the “democratic” in New Democratic Party means that Responsible Government can be tossed away on a whim, and that we are subject to the whims of an activist monarch. Because that’s what he’s encouraging.