Tag Archives: Pierre Poilievre

Roundup: “Canada First” is mostly just Poilievre’s greatest “hits”

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre had his “Canada First” rally on Flag Day, Saturday, and in front of a crowd of about 800 in the smallest room in the Rogers Convention Centre in Ottawa, laid out his new vision of Canada, being the attempted pivot from just an “axe the tax” slogan, to the aforementioned “Canada First.” (Full speech transcript here). And aside from some newer talking points about retaliatory tariffs if Trump goes ahead, he nevertheless was incoherent even in his performative toughness. In saying that America has two options—a trade war, or an even deeper trade relationship with Canada, in the very same breath, he castigated the Liberals for “forcing” dependency on the American market for entirely bullshit reasons, with some revisionist history about the ghosts of energy project proposals past. Like, what? You say you want an even deeper relationship, but the Liberals were bad because they couldn’t force businesses and industry to divest from that market? What?

From there, it went into his greatest hits of stupid talking points, like his refrain about how we have the most land but aren’t building houses on it—as though we’re building residential subdivisions on the Canadian Shield or the Arctic tundra. He claimed he was right about everything, from the carbon levy to the capital gains changes (he wasn’t), and then played the victim about how nobody believed him but he was proven right. (He wasn’t). He went on some bullshit about pipeline projects that was, again, revisionist history, and then went on a tangent about the Canadian Pacific Railway and how Liberals wouldn’t get it done today. “Would some squeaky, keep-it-in-the-ground liberal cabinet minister like Guilbeault have chained himself to a tree to stop it?” My dude, do you know how many people died to make it happen? The dispossession of land, the immigrants coming over as indentured labour, those indentured immigrants blowing themselves up to create passageways through mountains? Seriously? Meanwhile, his promise to rapidly approve projects won’t actually get them built, and neither will bribing local First Nations with the promise of a greater share of royalties, and his vision of a west-east pipeline won’t change the economics.

https://twiiter.com/andrew_leach/status/1890058822175347027

There as more reheated nonsense about how he’s going to miraculously abolish interprovincial trade barriers with a magic wand. He promised to militarize the border, which is a Very Bad Thing. There was more rehashed tough-on-crime nonsense with repeated promises to repeal laws that have nothing to do with what he claims they do. He repeated his promise from last-week to unilaterally build a base in Iqaluit, with no input from the Inuit. And then it was the usual culture war bullshit, with the absolutely risible claims about how the Liberals “divide people by race, religion, gender, vaccine status.” No, they acknowledge that differences exist, that it’s not all middle-aged straight white men as the “neutral” and “norm.”

While centre-right pundits swooned at the notion that Poilievre was laying out a vision, he wasn’t really saying anything more than he’s been saying for the last two years, and all of it was vacuous noise. He was still playing it incredibly safe to avoid pissing off the MAGA supporters he’s trying to court so that they don’t go back to voting for Maxime Bernier, no matter how performatively tough he was about Trump’s threats, because he still had to mediate them with claiming that Trump was still right about the border and fentanyl (which he’s not). Apparently, nobody has actually paid attention to anything he’s said over those two years, but just instead paid attention to his churlish tone. (Oh, and I am also looking very askance at CBC for their credulously repeating everything he said without actually challenging any of it. That’s not journalism, guys, even if you’re stuck on the weekend shift).

https://bsky.app/profile/lindsaytedds.bsky.social/post/3licue34m6c2h

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine downed 33 out of 70 Russian drones overnight Friday, and an overnight drone attack on Saturday damaged a thermal power plant in Mykolaiv, leaving 100,000 people without power in subzero temperatures. Russian troops have also intensified their attacks toward Pokrovsk. Elsewhere, the ammunition acquisition programme on Ukraine’s behalf has delivered 1.6 million shells to date and is carrying on, while Emmanuel Macron is hosting an emergency European summit on Ukraine in the wake of JD Vance’s attack on liberal democracy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unilateral Arctic plans and foreign aid churlishness

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre called a press conference from Iqaluit, yesterday, where he announced his Arctic policy ideas, which include finally building an air force base in the region, doubling the number of Canadian Rangers, and building two more heavy icebreakers, but for the Royal Canadian Navy and not the Coast Guard. Oh, and that he was going to pay for it all by gutting foreign aid. Set aside the fact that the plans for an Arctic base have long been in the works with slow progress, but does the Navy even want icebreaker capability? They didn’t want the slushbreakers—sorry, Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships that the Harper government decided they needed, and here is another Conservative who wants to impose capabilities that they have not asked for, because reasons. Nevertheless, this whole thing set off the premier of Nunavut, who noted there was zero consultation on these policies, and pointed to actual sovereignty-affirming things that governments should be doing for the north that aren’t this kind of performative flexing.

As for Poilievre’s disdain for foreign aid, it’s one-part monkey-see-monkey-do with MAGA and Elon Musk dismantling USAID, but it’s juvenile, provincial, and ignores that foreign aid is soft power that also does thinks like not let Russia and China swoop in and start winning hearts and minds in those countries, which is what Trump opened the door to, and which Poilievre seems keen to follow, justified by a number of lies about the recipients of that aid based on the fact that UNRWA may have had a handful of compromised employees. He doesn’t care about the realities of this aid spending and the projection of soft power, because those recipients can’t vote for him, and he’s playing into tired populist tropes about “taking care of people at home,” even though they actually don’t care about vulnerable people at home, and just want a tax cut instead of actually helping anyone. And again, Poilievre doesn’t care.

If anything, Canada should actually be living up to its previous pledges about increased funding for foreign assistance, particularly because the dismantling of USAID is going to affect programmes that Canada was partnering with them on, and they provided much of the “thought leadership” in the space. Children are going to die of malnutrition, and preventable illness, HIV infections are going to skyrocket, and again, Poilievre doesn’t care because those people can’t vote for him. What a bleak, cursèd timeline we live in right now.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Ukrainian drone attack damaged an industrial facility—possibly an oil refinery—in Russia’s Saratov region. The US’ “freeze” of aid money means that organisations helping investigate Russian war crimes can’t pay staff or continue their work—Trump and Musk just doing Putin’s bidding.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1888916130254725208

Continue reading →

Roundup: Baylis brings back boneheaded ideas

Posted on by

Yesterday, no-hope Liberal leadership candidate Frank Baylis offered his ideas about how to make politics better, and…*sighs, pinches bridge of nose* It’s so bad, you guys. Back when he was an MP, Baylis had proposed a motion to change the Standing Orders to do a bunch of dumb things that he felt would improve things for MPs, but then didn’t show up for the debate on his own motion, so it died on the Order Paper, fortunately. But I see that he’s back at it again.

I cannot stress enough how stupid of an idea term limits are in a system like ours, because you actually need to have institutional memory in politics, and you can’t build that up in ten-year increments. You just can’t. That’s one of the reasons why the Senate tends to be more valuable in that capacity (which has been curtailed thanks to Trudeau kicking Liberal senators from his own caucus and only appointing independents), but you need experienced MPs in your caucus. Term limits make that impossible, especially for ten years. Canada already has a problem with a higher-than-normal rate of turnover for MPs as compared to other similar democracies, and making the churn worse doesn’t help. Baylis kept justifying this by saying “I’m a professional engineer” when questioned about this on Power & Politics, which doesn’t actually give him any special insight.

His idea of letting the Speaker choose who gets to speak and not party leaders is partially sound, but only in particular circumstances. I get that he wants to eliminate speaking lists, which I do agree with, particularly for Question Period, but it’s not as much of a problem as the rules around speaking times, and how we structure debates. Of course, he then screws up that decent idea with the boneheaded notion of petitions to trigger debates. Parliament is not supposed to be about empty take-note debates. Debates should have a purpose—speaking to motions or legislation that actually do something, rather than speaking for speaking’s sake. That’s all that this idea does.

Finally, Baylis wants a second chamber like they have in Westminster and Canberra, but again, this is ill-thought-out. We already don’t have enough MPs to fully staff all committees (particularly without having parliamentary secretaries as voting members), and to keep debate going in the Chamber, and now you want to add a second chamber? He says this would “speed up decision-making and end legislative gridlock,” but it absolutely wouldn’t because that’s not what those chambers do in the UK or Australia. They are largely used for non-votable debates, and giving speeches or statements. That kind of thing may be of more use in the UK where there are 650 MPs who can’t make members’ statements with much frequency, but it doesn’t affect the pace of legislation at all. It’s so stupid that he didn’t even bother to read up on his own gods damned proposals, but hey, he’s a “businessman” and an “engineer,” so why bother to actually learn how politics works? Honestly.

Meanwhile, speaking of his other no-hope candidate…

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians claim to have repelled an offensive in the Kursk region. Ukraine received some more F-16 fighters from the Netherlands, and Mirage jets from France. Eight Ukrainian children who had been seized from their families were returned home.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cautious optimism on trade barriers

Posted on by

Anita Anand told reporters yesterday that she is making progress with provinces when it comes to eliminating interprovincial trade barriers, which sounds great. In fact, she claims that some of those barriers could be “wiped away” in the next thirty days. It would be great news if that’s true, but I have my doubts because these barriers are incredibly difficult to harmonise around the country, and they’re mostly differing regulations, which are perfectly valid exercise of provincial powers. They’re extremely difficult to harmonize because sometimes they differ for a reason. Kevin Milligan explains in this thread if you click through. (He also throws cold water on the notion that we could or should join the EU).

I have to say that I am very curious regarding the method by which Anand is securing these changes, because I have heard no chatter about provinces being willing to surrender some of their provincial sovereignty in order to eliminate some of these barriers. I have also heard nothing about any kind of common regulatory body that could make determinations and that the provinces would adhere to, because they’ve all eschewed a common securities regulator, which should be low-hanging fruit for regulatory harmonisation, and yet… That would seem to imply that they have been establishing some sort of framework around mutual recognition of standards or credentials, but as of yet we have no real details.

The other note of caution I would make is that even if these barriers were reduced or eliminated, it would take time to reorient supply chains east-to-west rather than north-to-south, so there would be no immediate cushioning effect from any Trump tariffs. People will need to have realistic expectations about what this will achieve, particularly in the short-to-medium term.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine is blaming an explosion at a draft office in Khmelnytskyi region that killed one person and wounded several others as a series of Russian spies orchestrating attacks. 150 Ukrainian POWs were returned in a prisoner swap with Russia. Here are some of the details about how Ukrainians captured two North Korean soldiers fighting in Kursk region. Ukrainians are also noting a marked improvement in the accuracy of North Korean missiles fired at Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sad skits to demand Parliament’s summoning

Posted on by

With the “reprieve” now granted, the Conservatives are back to demanding that Parliament be summoned, for…reasons. They have not actually spelled out what they need to legislate, because there are no actual proposals on the table, and you don’t need legislation for retaliatory tariffs (which are currently on hold). There may be a need to give new powers to CBSA around export controls, but we’re not there yet. Nevertheless, pretty much every Conservative MP put out some kind of tweet demanding Parliament be summoned, because it’s all about social media. MP Michael Barrett went up to the West Block to shoot a shitpost video where he tried to open the main doors to the House of Commons, but they were locked, so that he could perform for the camera, but the pièce de résistance here is that those doors are normally open when the House isn’t sitting, and closed when they are, which means that he had to get security to close the doors for him so that he could perform his little skit for the cameras. Just ridiculous.

The thing that nobody is really denying is that their only plan is to have Parliament summoned so that they can immediately call for a non-confidence vote, and the poll numbers are moving away from their previous landslide position because Trudeau is on his way out, and most of his likely successors are also moving away from the carbon levy (which is stupid and self-defeating, but I’m not a strategic genius). Poilievre is hoping to still capitalise on the anger against Trudeau while he can, because the longer it goes, the less the election is going to be about Trudeau or the carbon levy, and it will be more about who can deal with Trump, and Poilievre is far less favourable in many eyes on that front, hence his desperation to go now.

That leaves it up to Jagmeet Singh to determine if any proposals to counter Trump threats would pass, or if the country goes straight to an election and be even less ability to respond to any of Trump’s threats, and he continues to play performatively tough, insisting he’ll pass any measures introduced before the beginning of March, but he’s still voting non-confidence at the end, which…makes no sense, other than he’s still playacting like a tough guy. I would ask why everything needs to be so stupid, but we’re in a cursèd timeline.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile strike killed five and wounded over 55 in the town of Izium in the Kharkiv region. As well, drone strikes hit a railway depot in Dnipropetrovsk region. Ukrainian drones sparked another fire at an oil refinery, this time in The Krasnodar region. Frozen US aid means that funds to support people evacuated from front-line settlements may be in serious jeopardy.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1886757333042098399

Continue reading →

Roundup: A thirty-day reprieve—maybe

Posted on by

In the wake of the weekend of anger and betrayal, one of Trump’s economic advisors went on television to insist that we mistakenly believed this to be a trade war when it’s a drug war. You know, except for all of the talk from Trump about trade deficits, and using economic warfare to force annexation, and the fact that he pardoned the guy who founded a big drug trafficking site on the dark web. Trump himself was talking about “51st state” as this very line was being delivered, along with the new whinge that American banks can’t operate in Canada (which they can in various capacities and some of them already are, but they need to adhere to Canadian banking regulations). Yeah, totally about the drug war. And yes, a number of Vichy Canadians also swallowed this bullshit line of reasoning.

While Scott Moe called for de-escalation, we got word that Mexico had reached a reprieve in exchange for ten thousand troops along their border (when they already have fifteen thousand), so while we waited for Trump to have his call with Justin Trudeau, what did Pierre Poilievre demand, as he stated that while the tariffs were unjustified, that Trump was nevertheless right about the border? Troops along our border, along with adoption of his handwavey slogan-plan (of which I will have more in a full column later). Because militarizing our border for the first time since before Confederation is really the solution here. (Scott Moe also suggested putting CBSA under the military, because the man is a gods damned idiot). Never mind that Poilievre has consistently lied about the border, claiming that Trudeau “weakened” it, and that it took Trump to get us to take it seriously, all of which is false. He nevertheless is giving Trump all the more ammunition he needs, and giving succour to the Vichy Canadians who desperately want to believe Trump.

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3lhccxlwz3c2j

https://bsky.app/profile/plagasse.bsky.social/post/3lhc5z2pvlk27

Finally, Trudeau had his call with Trump, and we also got our thirty-day reprieve on the promise of what we were already doing, plus another couple hundred thousand dollars for dealing with organised crime (which yes, is needed), and appointing a “fentanyl czar,” which can get into the sea. We don’t have “czars” in our system of government. Yes, this is empty theatre, and whatever minister or deputy minister is given this title won’t make that much difference, but nevertheless, the precedent becomes set, and future governments are going to start appointing more “czars” to ape Americanisms, which is the very last thing we need.

While plenty of Americans mocked that Trump just got played by Canada and Mexico, I’m not really convinced. None of this was done in good faith, and Trump has given so many different reasons for why we deserved to be punished that no one reason can ever be sufficient. The tariff threat hasn’t gone away, and the “reprieve” will be threatened continually every time he thinks of some new shakedown, and it won’t stop. This was only the opening salvo, and while it exposed the positions of some of the players, we’re a long way even seeing the finish line. Buckle up.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian troops in Pokrovsk are losing ground as Russians have begun switching up tactics as they try to take the strategic city, while Ukraine’s logistics are in peril. Ukrainian drone strikes have triggered more fires at oil refineries in Russia. Trump says he wants Ukraine to supply the US with rare earth elements as “equalization” for future aid, because everything is a shakedown. The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission reports an alarming rise in Russians executing captured Ukrainian soldiers.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Touching off a trade war

Posted on by

On Saturday afternoon, it happened—under false pretenses, Donald Trump signed the executive order to put tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China (25 percent on all imports except oil and gas, which is at ten percent) coming into effect on Tuesday, with the likelihood it will rise later, and threatening that it will go up further if we retaliate. Because how dare we exercise our sovereignty.

By late evening, prime minister Justin Trudeau gave a speech, spent part of it “speaking directly to Americans” (which was not covered live on any US news stations, but did get play on Sunday), and outlined the first tranche of retaliatory tariffs, with further non-tariff measures to come into place in about twenty-one days. (The Logic has a roundup of Canadian reaction here).

Some Americans seemed confused by the response, including the New York Times, which pretty much brings us back to that Onion headline.

More troubling were the Vichy Canadians, who continue to blame Justin Trudeau for this state of affairs, including tech bros in this country, such as Canada’s Specialest Tech Bro, Tobi Lütke, who not only blamed Canada for fighting back, but bought all of Trump’s bullshit excuses. It was never about the border, or fentanyl, or NATO spending, or even trade deficits. This is about Trump wanting to use tariffs to give more billionaire tax cuts (which the tech bros in the US are all salivating over), and to assert his dominance, no matter how much it costs him internationally.

And then there was Pierre Poilievre, and while he was not explicitly being a Vichy Canadian, it didn’t help that he was still incapable of articulating an actual response other than yet another slogan (“Canada First!”), demanding things that won’t actually help (a tax cut will only help the rich, and the killing the carbon levy early will do absolutely nothing about the shocks from the tariffs, and the capital gains stopping changes only allow the wealthy to continue to engage in tax arbitrage), that require magic (internal trade barriers cannot be brought down with the snap of a finger—they’re differing regulatory standards that can’t be harmonized with the stroke of a pen), and he’s continuing to give credence to Trump’s lie that the border is a problem, because he’s been trying to claim that Trudeau “weakened” them, which has always been a lie. And while he and Conservatives cry that Parliament needs to be summoned immediately, the only reason to do so is for performance art (gotta get those clips for their socials), and for him to bring down the government at his first opportunity, because he refuses to say he will actually let any package the government brings forward, whenever that happens, pass.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1886158003272925684

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/1886172330394636539

And then, of course, a gods damned CBC journalist made it all the worse in Poilievre’s press conference by phrasing “supporting government measures” as “stepping aside,” and Poilievre and company used that to play victim, and demand the CBC be defunded, yet again. What an absolutely stupid own-goal, and so many journalists keep making them with Poilievre.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drone and missile attacks on Saturday killed fifteen, mostly in Poltava. Ukrainian drone attacks targeted more Russian energy facilities, and sparked fires at an oil refinery in Volgograd. And Ukrainian officials are unimpressed with the American “negotiation” position of ensuring that elections are held in Ukraine after a ceasefire, given that it does nothing to deter Putin.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Carney’s boneheaded “green incentives”

Posted on by

Liberal leadership hopeful Mark Carney revealed his plan to replace the consumer carbon levy yesterday, and it’s a handwavey bunch of “green incentives” for things like improving your home insulation, furnace, appliances, or buying an electric vehicle. This would be offset by maintaining or increasing the industrial carbon pricing system, along with carbon border adjustments. Carney claimed that the current system isn’t working, which is false, because emissions have been driven down, and then shrugs and says it’s “too divisive,” which is the Liberals’ own gods damned faults for being such incompetent communicators about how the levy works, the rebates (remember when they thought that calling them “climate action incentives” was a genius idea?), and how reducing one’s own carbon footprint maximises those rebates. The government was absolutely incapable of communicating any of it, and Pierre Poilievre swooped in and filled the space with lies and disinformation.

I find Carney’s plan absolutely infuriating for a number of reasons. One of them is that this imparts a false narrative that carbon emissions reductions can happen for free for consumers. Even if there is no consumer-facing price, industrial emitters will pass along costs, and people won’t get a rebate for those higher costs, which hurts lower-income households harder. Everyone fawning over Carney’s economic credentials should be smacking themselves upside the head because of this fiction he is trying to perpetrate and just how economically illiterate it actually is.

Meanwhile, how much of an “incentive” can it really be for one-time purchases? You can only really re-insulate your house once, or buy a new furnace once every twenty years. There is no price disincentive to increased carbon use, and there is no ongoing reward for a low-carbon lifestyle, which the rebates provide. Again, very few people actually understand this because the government steadfastly refused to actually communicate how the levy and rebates actually work, how to maximise them, and how it rewards ongoing low-carbon behaviour. They hoped that legacy media and would communicate that (they absolutely will not), and it was basically up to five economists on Twitter, which is useless to ninety-five percent of the population. So now the people who have done the work to reduce their carbon footprint will now be punished, and people will take advantage of those one-time purchases for what? The pat on the back that they can give themselves? Everyone involved here needs to take a long, hard look at some of their life choices, but then again, if they had any modicum of self-reflection, they likely wouldn’t be in politics. What an absolute disaster.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones injured four in Odessa, damaging a hospital and grain warehouse, while a missile attack seriously damaged a historic centre in the same city. Russian forces are also tightening their approach to Pokrovsk, which is a key logistics hub in the region. Ukrainian forces destroyed a Russian command post in the Kursk region, and are also reporting that they haven’t seen any North Korean troops in the area for three weeks. Ukrainian drones also damaged an oil refinery in Russia’s Volgograd region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Foreign interference commission final report released

Posted on by

Justice Marie-Josée Hogue released the final report of the Foreign Interference public inquiry yesterday, and there really weren’t too many surprises involved. While there have been attempts at foreign interference, it hasn’t affected the outcomes of any elections, and that our institutions have held up rather well—though not perfectly. Government has been too slow to respond in many cases, and we don’t have enough transparency around national security issues, nor is there a culture of national security in government to make these issues a priority. There has been progress, but we’re not there yet. In many respects, this report proves that David Johnston’s report was right, and we’ve spent a year-and-a-half duplicating efforts because opposition party leaders decided it was more fun to smear Johnston than take him seriously.

One of the most significant aspects was a repudiation of the NSICOP report that claimed there were parliamentarians that were somehow compromised, and Hogue went through how the intelligence didn’t actually say that, and how NSICOP’s characterisation torqued what had been alleged—and frankly, much of the news reporting torqued further because they didn’t bother to read the context in that report. Hogue also noted that much of the reporting that drove this moral panic and the subsequent inquiry was wrong, though she didn’t necessarily blame the journalists because they only had so much to go on. (Nevertheless, this should be a warning about just how absolutely credulous some of those reporters have been on this file since the beginning, and why they failed to adequately question the motives of those doing the leaking).

A couple of other notables—Hogue noted that transnational repression is probably a bigger threat, but her mandate didn’t give her the latitude to explore that, so that remains a big flag for this or the next government to address. Even more to the point, she flagged disinformation as the most existential threat to our democracy, and called for a dedicated federal watchdog to monitor and intercept foreign meddling that uses social media platforms and “AI” tools like deep-fakes. She also recommended developing digital and media literacy among Canadians, which feels a bit like a “perfect world” wish, or at least something that we may be able to impart onto the next generation but I worry that the current one may be lost in that regard.

For more, here’s a thread from Stephanie Carvin who went through the report:

In the wake of this, Pierre Poilievre has let it be known that he’s not going to take that CSIS threat reduction briefing after all, because he can’t talk about what it says, so he is once again relying on the false notion that this, or any other security clearance, is somehow going to “gag” him. It won’t, but it would mean he has to be responsible with his commentary, which he does not want to do. He wants to be bombastic, and to lie at every opportunity, and so he will keep refusing a clearance or briefings, because he only cares about “owning the Libs,” not national security or the good of the country.

Ukraine Dispatch

Overnight Russian air attacks wounded eight and damaged residential buildings around Ukraine on Monday night. Ukrainian drones are targeting power and oil facilities in the west and northwestern regions of Russia.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Piercing Lantsman’s kayfabe

Posted on by

Because everything is so stupid, Conservative Twitter got itself all hot and bothered over the weekend because Nathaniel Erskine-Smith had the temerity to break the kayfabe when the Melissa Lantsman was engaging in performative outrage.

Context: This was an event Erskine-Smith held in his riding for Mark Carney, and Lantsman stood outside to say ludicrously stupid things, and Erskine-Smith, who was standing right there, made a good-natured objection, and did so in a way where Lantsman broke—her performative outrage cracked, she smiled and basically admitted it was all bullshit, and then tried to carry on to finish the performance, got her talking points backwards, but she finished the scene. Conservatives, however, were incensed that the fakery was exposed, so they edited the clip, invented the charge that Erskine-Smith was a creep because he touched her shoulder and shook her hand—the most regular things in politics—and *gasp!* suggested they get a drink like a good-natured colleague would. This would not stand.

What’s particularly hilarious about this is that this is just more Conservative cry-bullying (which I have been on the receiving end of), where they pretend to be the wronged party in order to have someone “cancelled,” while they bemoan and wail about so-called “cancel culture” (which has never actually cancelled anyone, especially in a country where the National Post gives them column inches the very next day). Meanwhile, if they think that women like Lantsman are that fragile, perhaps they should start insisting that women not be accompanied outdoors without a male relative escorting them, or that they should start wearing burkas so as not to attract unwanted attention—you know, like the Taliban would say.

It’s all so fake, and this is what they want our political discourse to be.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukraine downed 50 out of 72 Russian drones launched overnight Saturday. President Zelenskyy replaced the commander of the eastern forces for the third time in a year, as Russia continues to encroach on strategic settlements.

Continue reading →