It was my early theory that the PMO et al, in the days leading to convoy, were likely spent contemplating a replay of United We Roll, in the Winter of 2019. Remembered mostly by the former Clerk, at the House of Commons committee hearing on SNC, referencing it in his preamble ‘fear for safety’ plea which became prominent story, and helpful story for the government.
So their comms ethic of ‘never let a perfectly good crisis go to waste’ had them noodling overtime on how to turn the convoy into a political win. Rather than, say, governing. Checking on public safety officials across the federal family on what to expect and how they were preparing took a backseat. Early signs on the scale of trouble intended by the protesters were left to the hired help.
No one should be surprised by any of this. It’s pretty much the unseriousness of statecraft in Ottawa. Even DM types have grown accustomed to servicing only the constant and exclusively political considerations of their masters.
Some pundits and media say it’s like ‘watching the sausage get made’. From my time there, this is hot dog bordering on dog food making. And not the good hot dog or dog food brands.
Testimony isn’t over yet. But to date, best I can tell, no official has cited ‘legislative intent’ in describing their advice/decision to invoke the Act. And more specifically, their take on the ‘test’. Put another way, how did the Parliament of the day arrive at the test. It should have been their first and primary guide. But nowadays, I gather, you just get a legal opinion you can work with and whistle the rest of the way.
I think this shows that literally nobody in the government was actually concerned about "threats or acts of serious violence" - a necessary criterion for legally invoking the EA.
It also shows that they couldn't care less about any actual inconvenience to actual Ottawa residents. Zexi Li and her friends were only ever, at best, props in the government's stage play.
The only thing that mattered at all to the government was whether the convoy would erode their public support.
Thanks to a slavish media, they got better results on that score than, in any decent world, they deserved.
That was one good thing that came of the occupation and noise, Ms. Li and many of her neighbours became friends.
Are you truly so selfish that you consider them props? They live there. Convoy did not.
So you couldn’t get your fill of slavish media from the Rebel, or True North whatever, or substacks or all the repetitive tweets and trucker FB pages and Pat King’s videos that screamed “FREEDUM” (and other things) over and over?
Mark, the convoy was it’s own bad press and it’s messages where worse than anything out of the PMO.
Zexi Li is a goddamn hero. While City of Ottawa lawyers were too scared to act, this lady stood up and put her name and face to an injunction that got immediate, meaningful results for the tens of thousands of downtown residents, workers and business owners whose lives were turned upside down by the illegal occupation. To this day, she continues to be subjected to racist, misogynist abuse from nameless cowards on the internet (convoy supporters all), including violent threats. She is nobody's prop. You, on the other hand, certainly sound like one.
I guess you didn't watch any of her POEC testimony. Such absurd hyperventilating has rarely been seen. (Although I wasn't strongly opposed to the injunction, since it removed the only quasi-legitimate complaint people had about the protest and acknowledged that the protest was peaceful, lawful, and safe).
"Absurd hyperventilating" is a great description of the convoy and their many, many grievances against Trudeau, the federal government, God, their unfulfilled life aspirations, medical science, masks, hospitals, schools, service workers, etc. etc.
And that's what it boils down to. You, like so many others, think that it was ok to force millions of Canadians to undergo a medical treatment they didn't want.
Or you claim that banning them from employment, EI, university or college, transplants, or leaving the country, unless they obey, isn't really "forcing" them.
‘Not only did the government of Canada have trouble clearing roads and highways during the February mess, it seems to have forgotten how to deliver the mail.’ This is the content I’m here for.
As always, Paul, the Trudeaucrats and their staffers live down to my expectations. No, truthfully, today they are below my expectations.
Again, as always, thank you for your stellar work. Finding this "stuff" [I dare not use the proper descriptive or your censors might rebel] is a lot of work but very important.
Just imagine the marketing brain powers that came up with “fringe minority with unacceptable views”. (I’ll bet the email exchanges and text messages of that rotten stunt will never see the light of day).
Similar to the wreckage in Nova Scotia, managing the PR angle is THE issue. It’s hardly any wonder that an intelligence report about Chinese meddling in 11 election races has been deep sixed...they haven’t figured out how to capitalize on it yet.
Darcy, I always appreciate and respect where you're coming from.
I suffered a brain injury at birth that has done all kinds of stuff to my health, including my immune system. My health is such that if I got COVID, I would die, full stop.
I hope you agree that if someone were out there thinking, "Well, if I go around unvaccinated, George is likelier to catch COVID and die, but I'm okay with that guy dying, to hell with him," that would be an "unacceptable view". I'd certainly feel that way about someone endangering your health and safety - say, a drunk driver.
Where it gets murkier, of course, is that that is not what anyone is thinking. They're thinking what a drunk driver thinks - "Well, I'm invincible. I know best - certainly the two minutes of Googling I've done about 'the jab' makes me more qualified than Anthony Fauci. If George doesn't want to die, HE should take extra precautions." Which I do, by the way. I would also call that view "unacceptable" - and, again, I'd say the same if it were your life on the line rather than mine.
There are a lot of people out there who see it how you do. But there are millions and millions for whom calling these folks a "fringe minority with unacceptable views" isn't a "rotten stunt", or even a particularly inflammatory version of the facts on the ground. This comment board has taught me not to underestimate how many folks there are on your side of the debate, but for those on my side, the PM was absolutely right.
On the day those 10,000 rolled in to protest vaccines:
10,500 got vaccinated for the first time;
37,577 got to full vaccination;
4342 were already on to their first booster shot;
During the three weeks of the protest (basically, Jan 30-Feb 22), two point five MILLION vaccine doses went into Canadian shoulders. Some 186,000 first doses; 640,000 seconds; and 1.7 million boosters...
Politicians always note it takes far more commitment to protest than to just vote, but it takes some commitment to get a vaccination, too, since most people feel off or even bad for a day.
Even if you inflate the 10,000 to 25,000, as an estimate for all the people with no time to go to Ottawa, showed up to Calgary and other local protests instead, the jab-enthusiasts of those three weeks outnumbered the jab-haters by 100:1.
That's pretty fringe. The population is heavily in your corner, George, and in an area where its the statistics that count, not the anecdotes, having >90% of us on side really helps.
Thanks, Roy. You're someone else here whose comments I tend to appreciate. I tend to get emotional about this issue because, as I've said, I'm at high risk. I know nobody actually wakes up in the morning intending to endanger me or other medically at-risk people---everybody is doing the best they can with the information they have. And the government *could* have managed the convoy situation in a way that was more respectful of the well-intentioned protesters. But I just sometimes like to remind people in places like this, where people tend to be right-leaning but respectful and open to other viewpoints, that some of us actually agree with certain elements of what the PM says and does.
Don't flatter yourself. It took zero commitment to get the jab. And a tremendous amount of commitment and courage (misguided or not - that's a matter of opinion) to refuse it.
We are at the mercy of Mr. Wells to tolerate our presence on his Substack, so in the spirit of a respectful rebuttal I will say this:
Justin Trudeau would have no idea what the views of the Convoy were at that point in time. They hadn’t arrived in Ottawa yet. So his intel was whatever CBC happened to air and the reports being forwarded from the various players in the intelligence community.
Further to that, I respectfully disagree with the premise that the leader of our country can “other” Canadians by deliberately disavowing their message of concern, even if the message is critical of him and his government. Leaders lead all Canadians in good times and bad. A little research on “othering” tactics shows that once the public conditions itself that a portion of the population is undesirable, a slippery slope of demonizing awaits.
I think one pitfall that I fall into, as someone who doesn't generally cotton to "the convoy", is a pitfall you fall into in this comment: the convoy was not a monolith. I'm sure there were plenty of people in there who had genuine concerns about public health mandates. There were also people involved who wanted to overthrow the government, in some cases violently (see Paul's previous post about the guy who wanted to shoot Jim Watson---who wants to shoot Jim Watson?)
I share some measure of your concern about "othering" Canadians. I particularly dislike some of the "no true Scotsman" stuff I see from some supporters of this government, suggesting that the convoy was a matter of foreign interference and that it was somehow un-Canadian. The convoy was Canadian. Its participants were Canadian. Disagreeing with the prime minister doesn't make your views un-Canadian. But *absolutely* a prime minister can think that some segment of people are wrong-headed or are doing bad things. Every prime minister has thought that of someone (you may recall that Stephen Harper was not a big fan of the twenty million Canadians to his left, for example).
I'm sorry for your health condition, but that in no way gives you the right to force an unwanted medical treatment on me for your own benefit. (Leaving aside the fact that it doesn't benefit you in any way, as we knew perfectly well in July 2021).
I'm glad to see from the comments here that many people believe that the government should follow the law, rather than feeling, as you so clearly do, that anything goes as long as you gain from it personally.
Thanks for your sympathy, as far as it goes. As you may remember, you and I don't always disagree entirely, and I bet neither of us is as unreasonable as we might perceive the other to be. On which note: of course I believe the government should be bound by the rule of law (while also amending laws or introducing new laws in response to emerging circumstances - which is literally what every government does all of the time). Of course I don't feel that "anything goes as long as (I) gain from it personally" - unless you define "anything" as "doing what 90% of Canadians agree needs to be done" and "gain from it personally" as "not dying". And, on my end, of course I know you're not actively trying to put my life in danger, and that you're sincere in your belief that you're not even passively putting my life in danger. I'm not the boogeyman. Neither are you. We just disagree.
To be clear - and I know you won't like this distinction, but I think it's an important one - I absolutely do not think an unwanted medical treatment should be forced on you under any circumstances. Absolutely not. Thankfully, no one I'm aware of, even on the most absolute fringes of my side of this argument, has proposed such a thing. No one is coming to your house,, strapping you down, and forcing a vaccine into your arm, and if they ever do, I'll be the first guy renting a truck and driving it to Ottawa in protest. The government is simply saying - as it does of drunk drivers, as it does of murderers - that if you're not socially responsible enough to govern your actions so as to protect others from harm, that some of your privileges may be curtailed.
I understand a core crux of our disagreement is that you believe the vaccine doesn't have the positive effects I believe it to have. I respect that that's your view.
We're not going to change each others' minds, or anyone else's, so I'm not going to argue with you any further - hard as it may be to believe, I do wish you the best and have appreciated the opportunity to learn more about your perspective, but I think we're simply too different to have much of a meaningful dialogue.
The OPP lawyer confronted Mendocino during his testimony to reveal that the day after the Ambassador bridge was cleared and in spite of the apparent imminent danger to all of Canada Mendocino wanted to visit the Ambassador bridge for a photo-op. The OPP stopped him. Bill Blair was the chief of police in Toronto during the G20 and allowed Black Bloc vandals to smash store windows and burn police cars on Saturday. On Sunday he had his officers round up and arrest innocent people under the guise of doing something. That is Bill Blair. The head of CSIS originally told Trudeau there was no threat to national security and warned him invoking the EA could inflame the situation. The government arranged a private meeting with the Commission so on Nov 5 the head of CSIS attended that meeting and he changed his testimony to say he actually told Trudeau to invoke the EA. because he had been given a legal opinion (courtesy David Lametti) that there was a national
security threat???. Brenda Lucki attended the Feb 13/22 cabinet meeting and knew there was finally a signed off plan to start police action. She said she didn't reveal that information to the cabinet meeting because she wasn't asked to speak????? The government knew about the plan. She said she told Mendocino earlier. This is just more government game playing to suit their narrative. We have seen it time and time again They wanted a U.S. Jan 6, didn't get it. The EA would enact harm on the protestors who dared stand up to Trudeau.
Just think. what the situation would be now if Trudeau had never mandated vaccines which he originally said he would not do.
Almost beyond satire, so thank you for finding some humor here.
I liked this bit:
“Thanks. I had an initial chat with my boss and he’s supportive but wants to wait a day or two. There’s a danger that if we come down too hard they might push out the crazies.”
Their major anxiety was that there would not be enough extremists in the mix to support their narrative...
This is the consistent, enduring, and irrefutable theme from the convoy-cum-protest-cum-occupation, all three orders of government and their main players -- elected and politico hacks alike -- along with their respective police forces (serving and protecting themselves at the leadership echelon?), a disproportionate if not consuming focus on "narratives", "communications opportunities", and an illuminating yet infuriating abdication of leadership to simply do the right thing as evidenced by their exchanges over email, texts, and WhatsApp chat groups. During this whole episode of our history, we were (and remain so) poorly served and governed by our inferiors ... we need an Emergencies Act to freeze many political careers and consequent powers to vacate a host of Cabinet seats. And Steve Kelly's post below is full or more merit and experience than I have, I commend it to all for full reading.
We all have the luxury of hindsight and it shows in the comments clearly. It would be good to remember that there was less than a week to respond to the convoy and until they actually arrived no one knew what they would do, in Ottawa or anywhere else. So having aha moments over emails is simply silly. Some of us simply regurgitate the same sorry old complaints or hurt feelings and odd comparisons with issues that have nothing to do with the Inquiry. There is the continuing disdain for the people of Ottawa who normally take protests in stride and the snide comments about one of only two residents who spoke at the Inquiry which concerns me.
Never do I hear why the “truckers” didn’t protest earlier. The mandate was announced in mid-October, coming into effect in mid-January. Yeah, there is Halloween and Remembrance Day (right, very important to the convoy crowd) and then Xmas and New Year’s parties. I’ve watched most of the Inquiry. I really like the transcripts. But all of Freedom Corp. said it just came together so fast all on its own. No one even talked about it back in Oct. or Nov. ’21. So how important was it really?
Branden “from Alberta” Miller, with the unfortunate comb-over, seems to have lost his way now that he’s got the actual pols in front of him. I missed his antics by about half an hour yesterday (I’m 3 hrs over) and at first I didn’t notice anything amiss. There seemed to be more people in the main room’s audience than there had been lately. Soon I get a little pop-up that took me to the day’s news and Miller’s interview, outside and angry. But as the judge said, “It’s not about you.” I am glad he was allowed back in. The emails and texts are interesting. That’s not the right word. Intriguing, fascinating? I don’t understand why anyone would expect staffers (or minions) or Mayors or Ministers to text and email any differently than anyone else. Especially when they don’t expect to have it read out to an audience. Holier than tho is rampant, isn’t it?
So no one is getting “othered”. Amusing to hear this word from someone who cheerfully tosses “snowflake,” “woke”, “triggered” and the like. It’s a shame though, I remember when “fringe” was cool.
Blair has always creeped me out. I’d expect nothing better from him really. The rest so far seem competent and I for one was thrilled that the EA worked so well.
Political staffers no matter the party, especially the one working in communication, are there to create political spins from any possible situations. They are the original trolls.
My wife and I are living in the most populated Montréal Cotes-des-Neiges Notre-Dame-De-Grâce burrow in Montréal. We have contributed to elect Project Montréal for the last 2 elections, and we were not unhappy that E. Montgomery was no longer representing Project Montréal last year. We heard a lot about the Ottawa staffer and the cultural clash that took place with the people working for the burrow. Our federal electoral county is Mont-Royal, often referred as “petite municipalité cossue”, that used to be represented by P.E. Trudeau. Justin Trudeau is our current next-door deputy in the much lower income Park-Extension. As well described by Mr. Wells and as most urban citizens, we Montrealer’s are mainly progressive and we tend to believe that Liberals are the less bad bet for us to be represented at the federal level.
With regard to the Ottawa trucker events, both my wife and I were wondering why this controversial law was not called earlier, especially when it became evident that D. Ford conservative leader would not do anything about it and that Ottawa city looked so much overwhelmed. By Contrast our conservative F. Legault leader was very much visible to keep the Québec city trucker’s rally within limits. On the other end, I personally prefer police showing more restraint than less, excessive police force is too often observed elsewhere in the world during large protests.
I believe that many french speaking quebecers are not as much desperate for individual rights that it seems to be for our English speaking neighbours here in Montréal and all over the world were english is the main language. Our France roots are very much alive, we are bringing a different point of view in general, in my opinion more for the better than for the worse.
In any case I would like to add this for Paul: all your letters (I am not paying 😊) are very much appreciated and I hope that you will be allowed to take a well-deserved vacation soon !
One of the things I particularly liked about the convoy during my time there on the second weekend was the large number of unilingual French-speaking Quebecers there, with whom we shared cake (baked by my daughter) and many a hug (no hot tubbing, though).
My experience of Canada has often been one of two solitudes, but that weekend it was truly one of unity, joie de vivre, and liberté.
I'm not fully following your argument here, Paul. Comms has always been and will always be a core part of both politics and government. Should Bill Blair have actually done something to help Ric McIver? Absolutely. But it's also Bill Blair's staff's job to make sure that Canadians know what's going on, lest they, say, start mistaking a white-supremacist-led terrorist attack for a "peaceful protest". I share your wish that the government had handled this situation more swiftly, but they also needed to communicate with us.
Just heard the E. Spaulding invu-- so good, thanks. Her genius got sadly watered down playing with the NAC orchestra IMHO but I'm all the more keen to see her in a small ensemble, or the opera project, ASAP.
I actually think she was responsible for some of how that concert didn't work, but I don't hold it against her. You try new stuff or you get in a rut. Glad you liked the interview
As if the Trudeau Liberals invented annoying, comms-obsessed political staffers, lol. And as if His Majesty's Loyal Opposition doesn't have the exact same stable of eager young boys and girls in short pants, trying to frame the issues and events of the day in a way that makes their bosses look great and the other side look terrible. For example, the narrative that if Trudeau wasn't such a snobby Laurentian elite he could have just gone down to Wellington and heard folks out on their plan to overthrow the Canadian government in favour of a cabal of Mary Simon, a bunch of Senators, and some random convoy chuckleheads, and everything would have been fine, but instead he had to run crying for the EA just like his dad. And give them credit, this narrative is so compelling that even Mr. Wells bought it :) But seriously, as annoying as staffers can be, they actually serve a useful role in our democratic system: they give their ministerial bosses advice on the political ramifications of how they exercise their public offices, so that our non-partisan public service doesn't have to sully itself with such tawdy affairs. These things might look crass in the harsh light of a public inquiry, but they're normal. If Wells isn't careful he's going to end up like Coyne, forever being shocked and appalled that politics is so political.
It was my early theory that the PMO et al, in the days leading to convoy, were likely spent contemplating a replay of United We Roll, in the Winter of 2019. Remembered mostly by the former Clerk, at the House of Commons committee hearing on SNC, referencing it in his preamble ‘fear for safety’ plea which became prominent story, and helpful story for the government.
So their comms ethic of ‘never let a perfectly good crisis go to waste’ had them noodling overtime on how to turn the convoy into a political win. Rather than, say, governing. Checking on public safety officials across the federal family on what to expect and how they were preparing took a backseat. Early signs on the scale of trouble intended by the protesters were left to the hired help.
No one should be surprised by any of this. It’s pretty much the unseriousness of statecraft in Ottawa. Even DM types have grown accustomed to servicing only the constant and exclusively political considerations of their masters.
Some pundits and media say it’s like ‘watching the sausage get made’. From my time there, this is hot dog bordering on dog food making. And not the good hot dog or dog food brands.
Testimony isn’t over yet. But to date, best I can tell, no official has cited ‘legislative intent’ in describing their advice/decision to invoke the Act. And more specifically, their take on the ‘test’. Put another way, how did the Parliament of the day arrive at the test. It should have been their first and primary guide. But nowadays, I gather, you just get a legal opinion you can work with and whistle the rest of the way.
I think this shows that literally nobody in the government was actually concerned about "threats or acts of serious violence" - a necessary criterion for legally invoking the EA.
It also shows that they couldn't care less about any actual inconvenience to actual Ottawa residents. Zexi Li and her friends were only ever, at best, props in the government's stage play.
The only thing that mattered at all to the government was whether the convoy would erode their public support.
Thanks to a slavish media, they got better results on that score than, in any decent world, they deserved.
That was one good thing that came of the occupation and noise, Ms. Li and many of her neighbours became friends.
Are you truly so selfish that you consider them props? They live there. Convoy did not.
So you couldn’t get your fill of slavish media from the Rebel, or True North whatever, or substacks or all the repetitive tweets and trucker FB pages and Pat King’s videos that screamed “FREEDUM” (and other things) over and over?
Mark, the convoy was it’s own bad press and it’s messages where worse than anything out of the PMO.
Zexi Li is a goddamn hero. While City of Ottawa lawyers were too scared to act, this lady stood up and put her name and face to an injunction that got immediate, meaningful results for the tens of thousands of downtown residents, workers and business owners whose lives were turned upside down by the illegal occupation. To this day, she continues to be subjected to racist, misogynist abuse from nameless cowards on the internet (convoy supporters all), including violent threats. She is nobody's prop. You, on the other hand, certainly sound like one.
I guess you didn't watch any of her POEC testimony. Such absurd hyperventilating has rarely been seen. (Although I wasn't strongly opposed to the injunction, since it removed the only quasi-legitimate complaint people had about the protest and acknowledged that the protest was peaceful, lawful, and safe).
"Absurd hyperventilating" is a great description of the convoy and their many, many grievances against Trudeau, the federal government, God, their unfulfilled life aspirations, medical science, masks, hospitals, schools, service workers, etc. etc.
And that's what it boils down to. You, like so many others, think that it was ok to force millions of Canadians to undergo a medical treatment they didn't want.
Or you claim that banning them from employment, EI, university or college, transplants, or leaving the country, unless they obey, isn't really "forcing" them.
Just breath into a paper bag, you'll be fine :)
‘Not only did the government of Canada have trouble clearing roads and highways during the February mess, it seems to have forgotten how to deliver the mail.’ This is the content I’m here for.
This whole mess has me shaking my head. No wonder so many of us ‘have difficulties trusting the narrative’ out of Ottawa.
As always, Paul, the Trudeaucrats and their staffers live down to my expectations. No, truthfully, today they are below my expectations.
Again, as always, thank you for your stellar work. Finding this "stuff" [I dare not use the proper descriptive or your censors might rebel] is a lot of work but very important.
It started out bad, and quickly tapered off.
Just imagine the marketing brain powers that came up with “fringe minority with unacceptable views”. (I’ll bet the email exchanges and text messages of that rotten stunt will never see the light of day).
Similar to the wreckage in Nova Scotia, managing the PR angle is THE issue. It’s hardly any wonder that an intelligence report about Chinese meddling in 11 election races has been deep sixed...they haven’t figured out how to capitalize on it yet.
Darcy, I always appreciate and respect where you're coming from.
I suffered a brain injury at birth that has done all kinds of stuff to my health, including my immune system. My health is such that if I got COVID, I would die, full stop.
I hope you agree that if someone were out there thinking, "Well, if I go around unvaccinated, George is likelier to catch COVID and die, but I'm okay with that guy dying, to hell with him," that would be an "unacceptable view". I'd certainly feel that way about someone endangering your health and safety - say, a drunk driver.
Where it gets murkier, of course, is that that is not what anyone is thinking. They're thinking what a drunk driver thinks - "Well, I'm invincible. I know best - certainly the two minutes of Googling I've done about 'the jab' makes me more qualified than Anthony Fauci. If George doesn't want to die, HE should take extra precautions." Which I do, by the way. I would also call that view "unacceptable" - and, again, I'd say the same if it were your life on the line rather than mine.
There are a lot of people out there who see it how you do. But there are millions and millions for whom calling these folks a "fringe minority with unacceptable views" isn't a "rotten stunt", or even a particularly inflammatory version of the facts on the ground. This comment board has taught me not to underestimate how many folks there are on your side of the debate, but for those on my side, the PM was absolutely right.
From: http://brander.ca/cccc#fringe
On the day those 10,000 rolled in to protest vaccines:
10,500 got vaccinated for the first time;
37,577 got to full vaccination;
4342 were already on to their first booster shot;
During the three weeks of the protest (basically, Jan 30-Feb 22), two point five MILLION vaccine doses went into Canadian shoulders. Some 186,000 first doses; 640,000 seconds; and 1.7 million boosters...
Politicians always note it takes far more commitment to protest than to just vote, but it takes some commitment to get a vaccination, too, since most people feel off or even bad for a day.
Even if you inflate the 10,000 to 25,000, as an estimate for all the people with no time to go to Ottawa, showed up to Calgary and other local protests instead, the jab-enthusiasts of those three weeks outnumbered the jab-haters by 100:1.
That's pretty fringe. The population is heavily in your corner, George, and in an area where its the statistics that count, not the anecdotes, having >90% of us on side really helps.
Thanks, Roy. You're someone else here whose comments I tend to appreciate. I tend to get emotional about this issue because, as I've said, I'm at high risk. I know nobody actually wakes up in the morning intending to endanger me or other medically at-risk people---everybody is doing the best they can with the information they have. And the government *could* have managed the convoy situation in a way that was more respectful of the well-intentioned protesters. But I just sometimes like to remind people in places like this, where people tend to be right-leaning but respectful and open to other viewpoints, that some of us actually agree with certain elements of what the PM says and does.
Don't flatter yourself. It took zero commitment to get the jab. And a tremendous amount of commitment and courage (misguided or not - that's a matter of opinion) to refuse it.
I’m going to steal your lovely stats for future use. I’m not a numbers person but I do appreciate them.
We are at the mercy of Mr. Wells to tolerate our presence on his Substack, so in the spirit of a respectful rebuttal I will say this:
Justin Trudeau would have no idea what the views of the Convoy were at that point in time. They hadn’t arrived in Ottawa yet. So his intel was whatever CBC happened to air and the reports being forwarded from the various players in the intelligence community.
Further to that, I respectfully disagree with the premise that the leader of our country can “other” Canadians by deliberately disavowing their message of concern, even if the message is critical of him and his government. Leaders lead all Canadians in good times and bad. A little research on “othering” tactics shows that once the public conditions itself that a portion of the population is undesirable, a slippery slope of demonizing awaits.
I think one pitfall that I fall into, as someone who doesn't generally cotton to "the convoy", is a pitfall you fall into in this comment: the convoy was not a monolith. I'm sure there were plenty of people in there who had genuine concerns about public health mandates. There were also people involved who wanted to overthrow the government, in some cases violently (see Paul's previous post about the guy who wanted to shoot Jim Watson---who wants to shoot Jim Watson?)
I share some measure of your concern about "othering" Canadians. I particularly dislike some of the "no true Scotsman" stuff I see from some supporters of this government, suggesting that the convoy was a matter of foreign interference and that it was somehow un-Canadian. The convoy was Canadian. Its participants were Canadian. Disagreeing with the prime minister doesn't make your views un-Canadian. But *absolutely* a prime minister can think that some segment of people are wrong-headed or are doing bad things. Every prime minister has thought that of someone (you may recall that Stephen Harper was not a big fan of the twenty million Canadians to his left, for example).
I'm sorry for your health condition, but that in no way gives you the right to force an unwanted medical treatment on me for your own benefit. (Leaving aside the fact that it doesn't benefit you in any way, as we knew perfectly well in July 2021).
I'm glad to see from the comments here that many people believe that the government should follow the law, rather than feeling, as you so clearly do, that anything goes as long as you gain from it personally.
I thought you told us you were vaxxed, at least 2 jabs but you were saying no to any boosters?
Are you feeling like a martyr? I hear there is a medical treatment for that.
Thanks for your sympathy, as far as it goes. As you may remember, you and I don't always disagree entirely, and I bet neither of us is as unreasonable as we might perceive the other to be. On which note: of course I believe the government should be bound by the rule of law (while also amending laws or introducing new laws in response to emerging circumstances - which is literally what every government does all of the time). Of course I don't feel that "anything goes as long as (I) gain from it personally" - unless you define "anything" as "doing what 90% of Canadians agree needs to be done" and "gain from it personally" as "not dying". And, on my end, of course I know you're not actively trying to put my life in danger, and that you're sincere in your belief that you're not even passively putting my life in danger. I'm not the boogeyman. Neither are you. We just disagree.
To be clear - and I know you won't like this distinction, but I think it's an important one - I absolutely do not think an unwanted medical treatment should be forced on you under any circumstances. Absolutely not. Thankfully, no one I'm aware of, even on the most absolute fringes of my side of this argument, has proposed such a thing. No one is coming to your house,, strapping you down, and forcing a vaccine into your arm, and if they ever do, I'll be the first guy renting a truck and driving it to Ottawa in protest. The government is simply saying - as it does of drunk drivers, as it does of murderers - that if you're not socially responsible enough to govern your actions so as to protect others from harm, that some of your privileges may be curtailed.
I understand a core crux of our disagreement is that you believe the vaccine doesn't have the positive effects I believe it to have. I respect that that's your view.
Harming people who disobey by curtailing their freedom of movement is forcing them.
We're not going to change each others' minds, or anyone else's, so I'm not going to argue with you any further - hard as it may be to believe, I do wish you the best and have appreciated the opportunity to learn more about your perspective, but I think we're simply too different to have much of a meaningful dialogue.
It isn't real until it leaks. Now they are starting to think about how to message in response to Chinese meddling.
The OPP lawyer confronted Mendocino during his testimony to reveal that the day after the Ambassador bridge was cleared and in spite of the apparent imminent danger to all of Canada Mendocino wanted to visit the Ambassador bridge for a photo-op. The OPP stopped him. Bill Blair was the chief of police in Toronto during the G20 and allowed Black Bloc vandals to smash store windows and burn police cars on Saturday. On Sunday he had his officers round up and arrest innocent people under the guise of doing something. That is Bill Blair. The head of CSIS originally told Trudeau there was no threat to national security and warned him invoking the EA could inflame the situation. The government arranged a private meeting with the Commission so on Nov 5 the head of CSIS attended that meeting and he changed his testimony to say he actually told Trudeau to invoke the EA. because he had been given a legal opinion (courtesy David Lametti) that there was a national
security threat???. Brenda Lucki attended the Feb 13/22 cabinet meeting and knew there was finally a signed off plan to start police action. She said she didn't reveal that information to the cabinet meeting because she wasn't asked to speak????? The government knew about the plan. She said she told Mendocino earlier. This is just more government game playing to suit their narrative. We have seen it time and time again They wanted a U.S. Jan 6, didn't get it. The EA would enact harm on the protestors who dared stand up to Trudeau.
Just think. what the situation would be now if Trudeau had never mandated vaccines which he originally said he would not do.
Almost beyond satire, so thank you for finding some humor here.
I liked this bit:
“Thanks. I had an initial chat with my boss and he’s supportive but wants to wait a day or two. There’s a danger that if we come down too hard they might push out the crazies.”
Their major anxiety was that there would not be enough extremists in the mix to support their narrative...
This is the consistent, enduring, and irrefutable theme from the convoy-cum-protest-cum-occupation, all three orders of government and their main players -- elected and politico hacks alike -- along with their respective police forces (serving and protecting themselves at the leadership echelon?), a disproportionate if not consuming focus on "narratives", "communications opportunities", and an illuminating yet infuriating abdication of leadership to simply do the right thing as evidenced by their exchanges over email, texts, and WhatsApp chat groups. During this whole episode of our history, we were (and remain so) poorly served and governed by our inferiors ... we need an Emergencies Act to freeze many political careers and consequent powers to vacate a host of Cabinet seats. And Steve Kelly's post below is full or more merit and experience than I have, I commend it to all for full reading.
We all have the luxury of hindsight and it shows in the comments clearly. It would be good to remember that there was less than a week to respond to the convoy and until they actually arrived no one knew what they would do, in Ottawa or anywhere else. So having aha moments over emails is simply silly. Some of us simply regurgitate the same sorry old complaints or hurt feelings and odd comparisons with issues that have nothing to do with the Inquiry. There is the continuing disdain for the people of Ottawa who normally take protests in stride and the snide comments about one of only two residents who spoke at the Inquiry which concerns me.
Never do I hear why the “truckers” didn’t protest earlier. The mandate was announced in mid-October, coming into effect in mid-January. Yeah, there is Halloween and Remembrance Day (right, very important to the convoy crowd) and then Xmas and New Year’s parties. I’ve watched most of the Inquiry. I really like the transcripts. But all of Freedom Corp. said it just came together so fast all on its own. No one even talked about it back in Oct. or Nov. ’21. So how important was it really?
Branden “from Alberta” Miller, with the unfortunate comb-over, seems to have lost his way now that he’s got the actual pols in front of him. I missed his antics by about half an hour yesterday (I’m 3 hrs over) and at first I didn’t notice anything amiss. There seemed to be more people in the main room’s audience than there had been lately. Soon I get a little pop-up that took me to the day’s news and Miller’s interview, outside and angry. But as the judge said, “It’s not about you.” I am glad he was allowed back in. The emails and texts are interesting. That’s not the right word. Intriguing, fascinating? I don’t understand why anyone would expect staffers (or minions) or Mayors or Ministers to text and email any differently than anyone else. Especially when they don’t expect to have it read out to an audience. Holier than tho is rampant, isn’t it?
So no one is getting “othered”. Amusing to hear this word from someone who cheerfully tosses “snowflake,” “woke”, “triggered” and the like. It’s a shame though, I remember when “fringe” was cool.
Blair has always creeped me out. I’d expect nothing better from him really. The rest so far seem competent and I for one was thrilled that the EA worked so well.
Political staffers no matter the party, especially the one working in communication, are there to create political spins from any possible situations. They are the original trolls.
My wife and I are living in the most populated Montréal Cotes-des-Neiges Notre-Dame-De-Grâce burrow in Montréal. We have contributed to elect Project Montréal for the last 2 elections, and we were not unhappy that E. Montgomery was no longer representing Project Montréal last year. We heard a lot about the Ottawa staffer and the cultural clash that took place with the people working for the burrow. Our federal electoral county is Mont-Royal, often referred as “petite municipalité cossue”, that used to be represented by P.E. Trudeau. Justin Trudeau is our current next-door deputy in the much lower income Park-Extension. As well described by Mr. Wells and as most urban citizens, we Montrealer’s are mainly progressive and we tend to believe that Liberals are the less bad bet for us to be represented at the federal level.
With regard to the Ottawa trucker events, both my wife and I were wondering why this controversial law was not called earlier, especially when it became evident that D. Ford conservative leader would not do anything about it and that Ottawa city looked so much overwhelmed. By Contrast our conservative F. Legault leader was very much visible to keep the Québec city trucker’s rally within limits. On the other end, I personally prefer police showing more restraint than less, excessive police force is too often observed elsewhere in the world during large protests.
I believe that many french speaking quebecers are not as much desperate for individual rights that it seems to be for our English speaking neighbours here in Montréal and all over the world were english is the main language. Our France roots are very much alive, we are bringing a different point of view in general, in my opinion more for the better than for the worse.
In any case I would like to add this for Paul: all your letters (I am not paying 😊) are very much appreciated and I hope that you will be allowed to take a well-deserved vacation soon !
One of the things I particularly liked about the convoy during my time there on the second weekend was the large number of unilingual French-speaking Quebecers there, with whom we shared cake (baked by my daughter) and many a hug (no hot tubbing, though).
My experience of Canada has often been one of two solitudes, but that weekend it was truly one of unity, joie de vivre, and liberté.
I'm not fully following your argument here, Paul. Comms has always been and will always be a core part of both politics and government. Should Bill Blair have actually done something to help Ric McIver? Absolutely. But it's also Bill Blair's staff's job to make sure that Canadians know what's going on, lest they, say, start mistaking a white-supremacist-led terrorist attack for a "peaceful protest". I share your wish that the government had handled this situation more swiftly, but they also needed to communicate with us.
Just heard the E. Spaulding invu-- so good, thanks. Her genius got sadly watered down playing with the NAC orchestra IMHO but I'm all the more keen to see her in a small ensemble, or the opera project, ASAP.
I actually think she was responsible for some of how that concert didn't work, but I don't hold it against her. You try new stuff or you get in a rut. Glad you liked the interview
Hmm, interesting. Not the best value for ticket $ ever but you're right, artists gotta artist and there's no deliverology for that (either).
As if the Trudeau Liberals invented annoying, comms-obsessed political staffers, lol. And as if His Majesty's Loyal Opposition doesn't have the exact same stable of eager young boys and girls in short pants, trying to frame the issues and events of the day in a way that makes their bosses look great and the other side look terrible. For example, the narrative that if Trudeau wasn't such a snobby Laurentian elite he could have just gone down to Wellington and heard folks out on their plan to overthrow the Canadian government in favour of a cabal of Mary Simon, a bunch of Senators, and some random convoy chuckleheads, and everything would have been fine, but instead he had to run crying for the EA just like his dad. And give them credit, this narrative is so compelling that even Mr. Wells bought it :) But seriously, as annoying as staffers can be, they actually serve a useful role in our democratic system: they give their ministerial bosses advice on the political ramifications of how they exercise their public offices, so that our non-partisan public service doesn't have to sully itself with such tawdy affairs. These things might look crass in the harsh light of a public inquiry, but they're normal. If Wells isn't careful he's going to end up like Coyne, forever being shocked and appalled that politics is so political.
Thank you Paul!