It's called 'second thought' virtue signalling: Churchill during the protest; Gandhi, the morning after.
Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau takes part in a press conference on Parliament Hill in Ottawa February 17, 2023. REUTERS/Blair Gable
The report in my opinion was a pure dud. It danced around with equivalencies — police forces were unprepared, there was a lack of coordination between agencies, the media was stocked with alarming stories that proved empty or false, Mr. Trudeau was provocative, the truckers were loud ... and on and on, it was a tango of "on the one hand, but then on the other hand."
It concluded with an almost outrageous reflection that reasonable people could come to a different conclusion than the author of the report. In other words the justice was saying, while I have determined the invocation of the gravest legislation on the Canadian statute books was "justified," others, of decent judgment and intellect, looking at the same facts, reviewing the same material, could quite reasonably conclude it wasn't.
Fine language for a book review ("there are some beautiful passages, but the plot is weak"), or a product assessment ("air fryers are convenient, but with some foods, roasts particularly, you really need the oven"): it was not the hard, clear, precise terms of a legal inquiry into an invasion of the civil liberties of an entire country.
Much was wrong with this imitation of an inquiry. Why was it, in the first place, a one-person show. Surely an event without parallel in the years since the War Measures Act — that at least had something of a real emergency, kidnapping, murder of a cabinet minister, to respond to — should have had at least three commissioners (or more) of unimpeachable credentials and noted for their wisdom to unravel the strange events of the convoy protest.
Assuming emergency powers to put a halt to what was — far in the main — a legitimate, grounded protest against a top-down mandate — in a democracy — warranted a deeper and broader interrogation than what Justice Rouleau was able to offer. And, come to a definitive conclusion on the central questions, of which there were only two: was it national and was it, really, an emergency in the full sense of either high-powered word?
It was neither. First, there never was a national emergency. There was a tie-up in a part of Ottawa, inconvenience and noise disturbance were its two outstanding characteristics. There was no arson, no burning of buildings, no credible threats of violence, no storming of the Commons — none of these elements.
And no other city in the wide once Dominion was in any serious way affected, at all. It did not disturb life in Winnipeg or in Bonavista. Of our near 40 million citizens, apart from being tired from the relentless shallow (and sometimes false coverage of it) from some media — it was just another trying event during the dreary covid interlude.
Most Canadians sensibly went to sleep at night with no worries of waking in the morning to hear the government was gone, rebels in camouflage in the Senate chambers, the country on the brink of a fascist takeover.
Justice Rouleau did not demonstrate in any way otherwise. It was a big problem for one city — Ottawa. It was not a national crisis, a national emergency, calling for the full power of the state to crush it. It needed, as a solution, to clear Wellington streets of some trucks, to end the sounding of horns — you may call that a "national" emergency if you choose, but only if you have no idea of real emergencies troubling real states in past and present times.
Comment: Ottawa is the seat of political power, it also happens to be the destination for citizens to take their grievances, as is their right. Their grievances happened to be unprecedented and speak for themselves. The politicians, however had other plans, other specious mandates that did and do not include simple listening and talking, no, they seem to be incapable of that these days.
It was hyped however, by portions of the press and by the Singh-Trudeau coalition, as both. The prime minister wantonly and with passion — in French and English — uttered the most provocative, inflated and angry descriptions of the protesters. All remember them, remember too the tone of exasperation and dismissal with which they were delivered. The protesters were racist, misogynist, not to be tolerated, a "fringe," and his partner Jagmeet Singh levelled (and even after the Inquiry) more madly hysterical accusations, about government takeover and insurrection, about dark funding from interfering right-wing Americans, and the approach of fascism.
Comment: Scratch a progressive virtue signaling fool, find a fascist.
The prime minister, it has to be noted, after Justice Rouleau gave the "justified" verdict, confessed he may have overstated matters, he wishes now he "had phrased it differently" made the point he wasn't really talking about all the protesters just a "small subset." Well if it was just a "small subset" there goes the whole national emergency, and also his wicked refusal to even speak to some of the protesters, or have some of his cabinet do it for him.
Too cute by much more than a half. The angry and utterly divisive rhetoric was very useful politically before and during the protest; it contributed mightily to the atmospherics of a 'national emergency,' allowed him to give a performance of the stern and decisive leader in a moment of great storm (and he very evidently loved the role), those words of his swelled apprehension in the populace, and thus were good "prep work" for when he did call in the legislative guillotine.
He got the full political benefit from talking the way he did, and if you view the news clips, French and English, you see a man unshackled by any doubt or hesitation in the things he is saying, a man bravely uttering what "needs to be said."
And, having got the pass from Justice Rouleau, now Trudeau reverts to — in essence — "I didn't really mean what I then so powerfully said." So now he can revert to being the soft Trudeau. And pick up new and different political points for the "bravery" of admitting he was wrong. It's called "second thought" virtue signalling: Churchill during the protest; Gandhi, the morning after.
And what of the Chinese interference. Well it is something of a feature of this governments' moments of test or scandal. If it's a scandal — Mary Ng giving contracts worth thousands to a long term friend - another scandal takes it place. Ms Ng days after the revelation is in the Caribbean, unbowed and untroubled. It was just another conflict of interest. Scandal follows scandal so frequently in this administration that one devours the other, before the first is even nearly digested. The Rouleau report drowns the Chinese election interference story, and the election interference yarn drowns the tepid Rouleau report.
The country isn't broken, but this government surely is. It staggers along from one sorry frolic to another, mismanages the most basic services, strips Parliament of its basic function with a coalition of convenience.
National Post
'' It was just another conflict of interest . Scandal follows scandal so frequently in this administration that one devours the other, before the first is even nearly digested .''
Come on Rex, you are talking about the Liberals here. They could be called the Corruption Inc. Party.