Need we?

Actions speak louder than words, or so the old proverb goes. But words can ring loud enough.

Trudeau is no man of action — he is a man of words. He twists words. Not well, perhaps, but well enough. We see this every time Trudeau lathers his followers in tired speaking points. At first glance, it might seem that words like diversity, equity, and inclusion form the basis of his vocabulary, but first glances are deceiving.

No, Trudeau speaks in demands, a poor habit that I imagine he picked up as a child. Considering the spoiled brat that he remains, it is not hard to imagine him as a young boy arguing with his mother about how much he needs a candy bar. And she probably bought him one, every time.

The reason I say that is because it is hard to find a situation where Trudeau isn’t telling everyone about all the things that we need to do or the things we must do. Spoiled children make for the ultimate control freaks.

We received another dose of Trudeau’s pompous demands after an angry man told Freeland to “get the fuck out of [Alberta]”. Trudeau made it clear what other leaders must do:

Justin Trudeau @JustinTrudeau

Threats, violence, and intimidation are always unacceptable. As leaders, we need to call it out. We need to take a united stance against it. And we need to work together to put an end to it.

Now, I personally do not think yelling at a politician in a hotel lobby is a useful exercise, but I can understand why the man in question did so. Freeland is the woman who happily participated in freezing people’s bank accounts and ruining people’s lives. She has the full backing of the federal government and completely lacks morals. The man is angry, frustrated. He has clearly taken years of abuse from this government and his only forum is his voice.

Freeland and Trudeau, on the other hand, are happy to use our tax dollars to have a press conference about how awful the man is for daring to show disdain for his political representatives in the only forum at his disposal. Is that so heinous? Let’s not pretend if he didn’t yell and, instead, tried to approach Freeland in order to have an honest conversation it would end with a productive result. She would wrinkle her nose and walk away. Liberal politicians don’t answer to the people. Not in Alberta.

But, apparently, Trudeau does think the man’s words were heinous. And he thinks that those words deserves condemnation. Actually, no, that’s wrong, he demands condemnation.

And why wouldn’t he demand it? Canada’s so-called opposition will comply to his demands. They almost¹ always do. By habit, the Conservative Party of Canada lets Trudeau lead the conversation despite the fact that his is a moral stance where the morality of the situation does not matter.

Yet, even as they trip over each other to condemn this individual, the Conservatives will gain nothing from the condemnation. They only stand to lose by letting Trudeau take the high ground. In their attempt to be virtuous, they are dividing much of their base who have good reasons to be angry at Trudeau after years of divisive, hateful rhetoric.

At the risk of playing whataboutism, when was the last time Trudeau condemned someone for a similar act? Never. He’d have to start with himself. But I suppose, only lay-people deserve condemnation?

The whole process is a trap for a weak opposition. The Liberals take an event, blow it way out of proportion to the point where the original event does not even resemble the accusation, then force their opposition to condemn the original event as if it is what they accuse it of being. Case in point: What, exactly, about a man telling Freeland to get the fuck out of Alberta from the other side of a hotel lobby was a threat or violence or even intimidation? Yet it will be condemned by Conservatives who fail to ever make the distinction.

This is the same shtick the Liberals used against the trucker convoy when a single, mysterious swastika was found outside the hotel that the RCMP happened to be staying in. They used that event to paint the entire protest as some kind of neo-Nazi gathering. In turn, the weak opposition that was O’Toole’s Conservatives lost their will to fight despite the totalitarian acts that the convoy was protesting in the first place.

In a sense, the Conservatives in Canada have traditionally been akin to Vorotyntsev meeting the Kadet’s in Solzhenitsyn’s Red Wheel:

“They were all overpoweringly certain that they were right, yet they needed these exchanges to reinforce their certainty. Only Vorotyntsev, who was ignorant of such matters, hung back, and couldn't get out a single word of any importance. He merely tried to follow. He nonetheless felt that he was being sucked into their shared certainty. Yes, oh yes! He was learning to see as they saw, and now he knew that he had long known some of these things beyond doubt.”

Or, to put it another way, they have continually lost the narrative, allowing themselves to be sucked into Trudeau’s realm of moral righteousness, however lacking in morality and righteousness he may be.

Unfortunately, we are wholly lacking in leadership in Canada. If there were any leaders out there, they would recognize that we do not need to condemn a man for being angry. If there were any leaders out there, the man being condemned might not be so angry in the first place.

1. Unironically, the only person who does not appear to be condemning this incident is the front-runner in the Conservative leadership race. It’s almost like people are tired of wet noodle Conservatives?