The Liberals and the #SummerOfScandals

Its a slow news day

This summer has taught us all a lot abut politics. Oh wait, that was another summer. This summer has taught us that even during the slowest political news seasons, there is still a lot that can go wrong.

First we learned Justin Trudeau, has difficulty keeping his shirt on when he’s not in Ottawa. While this itself was received in good spirits, there is an inevitable comparison to be drawn with a politician who was endlessly mocked for doing the same.

(Shirtless leader of Canada Trudeau)

(Shirtless leader of Russia Vladimir Putin) 

I have no doubt that shirtless selfies will do more to hurt Trudeau’s credibility in the long run, but at the time they happened, there wasn’t much else in the way of scandals, leaving Liberal supporters to pop boners unabated country wide.

That was quick to change however. ( The lack of scandal not the boners)

Shortly after we  found out two things about Minster of Health Jane Phillipot. Firstly that Jane is probably the epitome of Liberal entitlement - spending ludicrous amounts on a car service owned by a Liberal supporter who worked for her campaign. Secondly we learned that Jane can’t tell a car from a limousine as her story changed practically daily after the story broke.

After that we had Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna spending more than most spend on there wedding photographer with a $6000 budget line for photographs taken while she was representing Canada at the Paris climate change talks.

What began to emerge after that was even more crazy spending from Liberal bureaucrats in Pairs. It became revealed that three individuals spent a total of $12,000 on food over 16 days in paris. The worst offender being Max Guenette, a senior communications bureaucrat in McKenna's department. Over his time in Paris he spent some $4,599 for food alone. This works out to about $288 a day

So what’s the conclusion to all this? Well maybe its a slow time for political news, maybe the honeymoon with the Liberals is over.

I’d prefer to believe however, that this crop of Liberals is just as entitled as all those who came before them. That’s why I’m choosing to ignore the possibility or reasonable explanations, and instead dub this the #SummerOfScandals.

Lets get this trending people!

Edit : Someone pointed out to me that I completely forgot Hunter Tootoo being kicked out of Cabinet after boning one of his staffers sorry folks but its hard to keep track of all the scandals !

BREAKING: in what seemed like a cheap Valedictory speech, Obama builds Canada’s ego…

The President also confirmed Canadian’s farts smell better than any other nation’s

This could have been the headline from after president Barack Obama addressed parliament yesterday. 

Like a single guy at last call, Obama was determined to make sure the person (or people) he was talking to, felt like the prettiest belle at the ball. He did this with the typical rhetoric about friendship and trade, following this up with Beavertail anecdotes, and plenty of jokes staggered carefully through the speech. 

Was Obama trying to pump Canadian MPs up before summer break by telling them what they want to hear? Yes. In my opinion because he's a lame duck, with limited desire to say anything more than generic positive pluralist values, this is what he's left with. That and inform Canadians we had the best smelling farts in the world. Thats the only explanation in my mind for how the PM was acting. With the amount of times during the stream of Mr. Obamas speech that Justin smiled and knowingly nodded while slightly lowering and tilting his head, and then putting on an expression most reserve for inhaling the odour of their own gaseous bowel releases. 

Obviously i’m being a bit stupid here, but the point i’m trying to make is, why the hype if this whole speech was going to be fluff? Presidents don’t address the house that often, it is a big deal. When they do, its usually to set up policy for future leaders, or for themselves if they are at the beginning of their terms. 

This was not the case, Obama is a lame duck, and his speech was more a stand up act that also happened to espouse liberal, pluralist values at the same time. 

In their last days in office, presidents have some power to make activist moves. They can pardon individuals, finalize executive orders, in Obamas case try and slip in one last liberal Supreme Court Justice. Obama has a plethora of issues he could dress in his remaining days. He could take a last stand for freedom and privacy issues for instance, and pardon Edward Snowden. He could have mentioned in his speech some regrets on his administrations toxic and contradictory stance on Marijuana, and compliment Canada’s clear move to bring some sense to international drug policy. 

Instead he made jokes about hockey, Beavertails, greying hair his brother in law, burning the White House in 1812, and basically anything else that would pander well. He also called PM Trudeau, "Justin Trudeau" once, and simply “Justin” four times. A move a former leader was criticized for during the last election cycle.

The core of Obama’s speech; some comments about  UN and NATO commitments, with the soon to be famous line “The world needs more Canada” was about as progressive as he was going to get. It was all obvious pandering though. For instance after compliments the Liberals for raising the pride flag, and Complimenting himself for making the White House a rainbow:

“The colours of the rainbow flag have flown on Parliament Hill. They have lit up the White House. That is a testament to our progress, but also the work that remains to ensure true equality for our fellow citizens who are Lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered.” - Macleans speech transcript  

He  then went on to say: 

“I have a bias on these issues, but — but our work won’t be finished until all women in our country are truly equal, paid equally, treated equally, given the same opportunities as men; when our girls have the same opportunities as our boys. That’s who we need to be.” - Macleans speech transcript

So you’ve just said you want to make progress on LGBTQ issues, but you only want our “girls, and boys” to have the same opportunities?

What i’m digging at is the obvious pander. Whether or not Obama cares about these issues is irrelevant. As even the Liberal minded CBC put it “Obama tells us what we want to hear, and Canadians love him for it” . He knew he had to give a shout out to Gay Lesbian Bi and Trans people, but in the very language of the next sentence we see the gap in how far you can pander to a Liberal democratic audience. 

To mix up trans rights issues and equal pay for women, dilutes the power of both issues because in making a giant even diagram of issues, you lose people opposed to the new addition. Trans people have said there is a wage gap for them as well, why isn’t this issue brought up when discussing equal pay? 

Because it doesn’t sell. Because this whole display, from the Trudeau twins nodding along and smelling their own farts (why was the PM’s wife on the floor anyway, is she gunning for an office?), to Obama giving obvious support to Hilary, and making some carefully ambiguous Trump disses. Watching the speech was a waste of time, and I guess that makes writing about it worse. However, I had to sit through the nonsensical fart sniffing pander that occurred, and now, if you’ve reached this part of the article, and you’re a Liberal staffer who had to check this because of a google alert (likely how I achieve readership) then i’ve paid you back. 

If you’re not affected by my obviously specific burn, then I only hope you’re as annoyed as I am over the pander filled waste of a speech, by a lame duck president. 

Funding the PM’s partner is not progressive

Spending taxpayer money to fund an office achieved by virtue of marriage is pretty dam regressive 

The idea of awarding someone sole control to hire employees, qualifying them to spend taxpayer money, simply because of their martial status, is simply put, ridiculous. Its 2016 after all, and who someone marries should not directly effect their employment. I certainly consider myself a feminist, though not a well qualified one, but I believe that using up a woman as a political tool, simply because she choose to marry someone reeks of patriarchy. Yes, I know, the PM’s partner could  be a man, but since that doesn’t seem immediately likely, I think  Giving them an entire office to hire and run again, simply because of their choice in partner, is something that if done in a private or crown corporation would be called nepotism. Creating such an office just so your spouse doesn’t have to pay out of pocket to support their fame, might be looked upon as embezzlement. 

Isn't fair and democratic supposed to be the theme for the Trudeau Liberals? After all the Liberals have called to reform the senate, Trudeau famously made Canada's upper house "non-partisan, and for years Justin and the Liberals campaigned against the lack of democracy in Canada's un-elected body. Why then are Justin Trudeau and The Liberals now fighting to create a well funded office, thats not based in any Canadian political convention making far more undemocratic than any current office on the Hill.

When Bill Clinton was running for President in 1992 he made many references to “his policy-minded lawyer minded wife”, by this point the office of the First Lady had long been established, if only unofficially. However most first ladies from the 80’s and 90’s had staffs upwards of twenty people. Tt was a given that whomever was married to Bill, would be in the political eye. Bill joked during election campaign that voters “would get two for the price of one”, implying his wife, experienced in politics would help with Presidential issues. Hilary moved her office to the West Wing as opposed to the more traditional East Wing, she was polled an unprecedented amount by varying american posters, giving plenty of data for her to work with. She used her position to continue a career in politics, that we are now in 2016, seeing the culmination of with her Presidential run. With name, or brand recognition such an important factor in modern politics, the fact that her name has been solidly in the press for more two decades. It would be wholly ignorant to say that her position as first lady did not help eventual career in politics, but on the flip side it would be unlikely any pollster could gauge exactly how much of an effect it had. None the less, my point should be obvious by now. 

By funding the PM’s partner - giving them an office, a press secretary, and all the other trappings of a politician, without any sort of election or due process, gives a person simply by the virtue of their marriage, a rather impressive platform to launch a political career from. It would also seem that their is some undeniable evidence to suggest that a transition from such position to politics is viable. 

We don’t need a funded first lady, not only that but its anti democratic, and possibly an attack on feminism (as I said, i’m not qualified to fully asses this) but it could be a taxpayer funded way to launch a political career. Two Trudeaus does not make a dynasty, but if we fund the first lady of Canada its possible, if not probable that Sophie may inherit the throne. If that happens we won’t just have a political dynasty on our hands, we’ll have a monarchy. 

Why do the Liberals hate Intersex people ?

The problem with equal rights, acceptance, and the “me” generation 

Justin Trudeau made headlines again yesterday. In yet another example of the pandering we can expect from the Liberal government (who are so happy with themselves they must be smoking some of their supply) Mr. Trudeau announced he will proudly fly the pride flag on parliament hill in support of LGBTQ Canadians. While this seems like a supportive move (albeit while also obviously a pandering one) I have a couple problems. 

First, I take issue with the term equal. As no other sexuality has had their flag (do straight people have a flag? I kinda hope not…) fly, nor have the majority of minority groups, how is singling one group out as deserving of recognition equal ? It’s not, and its stupid to pretend it is, because equality in this sense doesn't exist. After all I, nor anyone else with a based opinion deny the suffering of communities of people who don’t share the homogenous qualities of society at the time through no choice of their own. People identifying as Gay, Lesbian and all the other terms have faced more persecution than those who don’t, this already bleeds the equality. What societies do to help these people is try to re do wrongs. Turn of the century police forces hired many immigrants, after several years prior denying them jobs. Universities were forced to hire people of colour through affirmative action to make up for excluding them systematically in the past. These actions by their explicit nature were not equal. They were meant to balance a relationship that was not equal. This basic principle is called equity - or the principal of being fair and impartial. So firstly, it’s stupid to say this move is to treat non straight Canadians as equal, it is by its singular nature not equal, it is attempting to be equitable by building up with special treatment, a group that was put down. Calling it equality is trying to make everyone feel better, but special treatment of a group,  is what is happening here, no matter how you call it equality. 

(One letter representing two groups?
hardly seems "equal")

My next problem is with the group itself. Well more accurately, i take issue with the “branding” of the group. When I first was in school the terminology we used was LGB, by the time i was graduating T (for trans!) had been added, to recognize the growing number of people born in the wrong gender. A few years later I saw people adding a Q to the acronym, at the time i was told this meant “Queer” which seemed redundant to me. After some recent research I found out it can also mean “questioning” for people who haven't made up their mind, and some acronyms include both (making it LGBTQQ). Ok so now we’re getting a little long, but even more recently while watching Veep they made a joke about not including “I” or intersex people into the acronym, which in my mind made the acronym now LGBTQQI , but apparently thats just stupid and what activists in the community prefer is LGBTI, oh no! Questioning people, and Queer people are now out in the cold. 

The point i’m trying to make here is that the acronym is becoming ridiculous. The reason people make abbreviations like acronyms in the first place is for ease of use, familiarity, and so forth. This is why organizations like NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) didn't keep adding letters every time a new continent became represented (for the record since Europe, The Middle East, and Eastern Europe are represented the acronym might be NAEMEEUTO if they tried to remain “equal”). Yes people might get offended, but its more important to forward to cause than it is to hold yourself back by being so internally divisive.  

This brings me to the title of this post and what I meant by it. By dropping the “I” from the acronym, PM Trudeau has sent the message that Intersex people aren’t included in this celebration. Or at least this is what I assume legions of easily offended people must be thinking. Ah, the “me” generation. When people hear about acceptance,they immediately think that their group, regardless of its size, age or any other metric, deserves to be on the same level as whatever other groups are considered “peers”

(One of only several stupid frames from a
very long comic)

Thats why you don’t have to search far to find individuals defending and arguing for recognition of their group.  Yeah thats a comic saying using the term “Neckbeard”  quote “Sends a message to autistic people that they’re unwelcome. Its ableist as hell!”  What ? Somehow because according to the research for this comic, neckbeard and autistic were both insults used to describe certain people, this conflates the two. Just because I call whoever wrote this comic a donkey-raping shit-eater, it does not imply the all those who rape donkeys also eat shit. I am saying that in this circumstances, to conflate the use of autism as an insult, with a separate insult that degrades someone for being fat lazy and unkept but isn't a actual medical disability means you must be the kind of sick fuck who both rapes donkeys and eats shit, but for what I assume are unrelated reasons. 

The “me” generation (also “social media generation” - for those not keeping track this is those born post generation “Y”) is insistent that every little ism important to a person, no matter how small, needs equal protection. That’s simply not true however. As our world as a whole becomes more and more accepting (Trudeau the first thought the pride flag was the flag of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast from what inside sources tell me) groups don’t need more and more protection, they need less. The more we recognize the same groups over and over who have suffered, the more this catches the ire of those who have not yet been recognized, or apologized to. To mover forward, and to be truly equitable to people would be to asses the struggle of groups today, give those still downtrodden the support they need to be at an equitable level as their countrymen. I don’t think PM Trudeau hates Intersex people, but I do think someone will say that in seriousness before this day is done.

Its because of this Liberal pandering I predict with great certainty, that much money and time will be wasted by this government, recognizing the recognized, apologizing to the apologized and generally confusing equity with equality. I predict with somewhat less certainty that Trudeau will apologize for forgetting Intersex, Twin Spirited, and Asexual people during yesterdays ceremony. 

Elbowgate...? It’s a little sad...

That our government functions with marginally more decorum than a model parliament

I can see why the Prime Minister got frustrated and decided to leave his chair during yesterdays session in the house of commons. After all, he was a school teacher and he’s probably used to dealing with unruly teenagers. 

(A heavy handed teacher and a presumably misbehaving MP)

When you’re a teacher you must maintain control of your class if you wish to get anything done. As you are the one in charge, and not a peer of the students, sometimes a heavier hand, (calmly but firmly moving a student back to their seat for example) can be useful. However the ability to use heavy handed techniques is justifiable because of the dynamic created in the student teacher relationship. The House of Commons is not a classroom, and the Prime minister is not supposed to be its teacher. The members are to be considered peers of each other, and decorum is supposed to be maintained at all times. This is why PM Trudeau’s actions are creating so much controversy, they are interpreted as disrespect as they do not reflect a peer to peer relationship. To act like you are so far above a peer that you, like a frustrated teacher or parent, grab someone by the arm and “guide” them to their seat, is a huge sign of disrespect. It shows that the PM does not view himself as a peer of other MPs. The only member who is tasked with keeping order is the speaker of the house, for any other member to attempt to regain order in the commons is usurpation of the speakers power. So not only does this action reflect the Prime Minister’s view of other members being less than his peers, but it also shows that he only has respect for the house and its officers when it suits him. Geoff Reagan is after all a liberal MP as well as being speaker, but PM Trudeau could not even show patience and allow him to regain control, he thought this was a job for the PM. I will look like a bigger man, and they children. 

Mr. Trudeau seems to have forgot a lot about how the house works though… You don’t get to pick and choose what decorum you like. During PM Harper’s tenure the Liberals were just as vocal and disrespectful towards the house. This is not unusual of an opposition and there’s good reason why. The number of seats a party holds is only a small part of who gets their message across in the house. For as long as I have studied politics it’s not the number of voices, but to volume of individual voices that makes the difference. Take Elizabeth May and the Green party, although holding less seats than any other party (so much less they weren’t in the formal debates this year) most Canadians probably have a good idea of what the Greens stand for. This is because Ms. May was vocal in her criticisms, vocal in her jabs, and along with the other parties broke with decorum enough to derail various conservative statements. Tactics like shouting remarks, banging desks and creating rabble are, as anyone familiar with the house knows, a hallmark of Canadian politics. Why is this allowed ? Simply because the actions that members were engaging yesterday were not out of the ordinary. This is essentially the way things have always been done in the house. While members are supposed to show respect, they are most often not respectful. Like many things in Canadian politics (Including the office of the Prime Minister) this is due to what’s called a ‘political convention’. Convention rules westminster style politics and the Canadian House of Commons. "This is done because its the way it has always been done" is a laymen's explanation for a political convention. This is often the justification for things in Canadian politics. Wanton free discussion during question period, loud banging on desks, general rabble rousing and lack of respect is a convention in the house of commons, this is a fact.

The real amusing thing about this controversy is how much the NDP appear to want to jump into the fray. No one can blame them, I suppose. When you have less seats than a city bus you better have a couple of loud voices if you want people to hear your message.

(City Bus with 55 seats compared to the NDP's 44)

Now, I have watched the video several times and yes, MP Ruth Ellen Brousseau appears to get elbowed by the PM. However much like a european soccer player, she herself seems to take a couple seconds to notice. Although the audio isn’t great it appears she turns to other seated NDP members and with a look with puzzlement of her face says “Did the PM just elbow me?” the members appear to nod and then like a player who’s coach has given them the signal, she removes the question mark from her statement and dives onto the ground clutching her leg. Er wait the analogy has gone to far, she actually just starts wailing “THE PM ELBOWED ME” over and over, when the NDP coach “notices” the foul on the play (i’m fairly sure I saw  Mulclair nodding with the group) he comes in to join the vocal tirade that has started. As I said earlier, when you don’t have a large number of voices, if you want to stay relevant as a political party you better increase the volume of the voices you still have, even if it means taking a dive every now and then so they have something to yell about.

Now part of the real problem as I alluded to in my second paragraph is the decorum of the house in general. Regardless of convention, if there is a vote tabled members should not be standing and talking, especially when the bell to return to seats is ringing, as it was in the video of the incident. Members should not be out of their sections, members should respect the speaker, they should address all questions to other members through him etc. These are the basics of what we are taught in school. However this is not the case. During my model parliament days around 2007, such actions as the NDP leader being kidnapped, the planting then finding of “drugs” in the oppositions desks, multiple members walking across the floor and switching parties (this was prior to the creation of the Belinda Stronach law) etc, this was closer to the decorum of the real house than we were taught. Compare this to other states though and again through the lens of relativism it doesn't seem so bad. When private land ownership rights were proposed in the newly declared Russian federation members of the communist party head butted and physically prevented the party proposing th bill from coming to the podium where all new bills must be introduced. More similarly and recently in several debates in British parliament, groups of MPs not aligned with the motion being read, took the the floor in large groups to prevent the motion. The speaker in these cases suspended parliament for about a quarter of an hour, where after tempers had cooled, debate returned to normal (except in one case from 1970 where two canisters of CS gas were released, that sitting was suspended for just under two hours).

So at the end of the day most people only have one question in regard to all this, “Who should i be mad at ?” In this case i would say the largest blame lies on the chair of speaker of the house. Geoff Regan could have suspended the house for a few minutes if MPs were truly causing a grave disorder, after all that precise language is used in births parliament and after all Canada’s is in nature similar to England's. However when was the last time a speaker did this in Canadian parliament ? I have no idea and couldn’t care to look it up, this is because it’s completely aside from Canadian conventions. So what was Speaker Reagan to do ? Next blame the office of the PM, as this is the office who appoints a speaker, becomes offended when no one listens to them, then switches to the opposition and pays no attention to the new speaker. 

(The shocked Member for Outremont)

Lastly to the NDP, look Mr. Mulclair, if you’re going to go, just go, your angry vitriol and banshee like screams of “SHAME” or “YOU’RE PATHETIC” you prove you can't even be level headed over an issue of decorum. 

It’s 2016 Mr. Mulclair, everyone including MP Brousseau, who was standing after the speaker instructed them to sit, broke the rules. The PM also broke the rules, by leaving his seat and manhandling another member, he did not break the rules by elbowing your MP, that was an accident as she appears to be standing directly behind the conservative whip either eavesdropping or simply loitering to block the vote. Either way they are both at fault. In situations like this one, where the top officials we have elected to represent us make us look like fools, there is no one not to be mad at. All members broke the rules of decorum, there is no “one broke it more than another” that’s ridiculous. Who should we be mad at ? The house of commons and all its constituent parts. You have failed us by making a mockery of the democracy we have entrusted you with. I am not currently a sitting MP however, so the House’s rules of decorum don’t apply to me. “FOR SHAME HOUSE OF COMMONS, YOU’RE PATHETIC, FOR SHAME” … hmm I still don’t feel any better.

Video of the incident - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxL2xolQQOk