Crowder Vs Maza? Free Speech Vs Censorship? Private Company Vs Public Utility? I don’t know anymore.

M v C

 

Watch a Mary Ham break down the situation surrounding Carlos Maza and Steven Crowder (4:56):

Watch Phillip Defranco covering the situation:

Watch Tim Pool’s report on the situation:

Watch Tim Pool follow up on of the adpocalypse:

Watch Lauren Chen cover the situation:

Watch Joe Rogan’s reaction to the situation:

CNN business interviews Maza over situation:

Watch 1791 profile Carlos Maza:

Watch 1791 follow up with “The Aftermath”:

Watch Glenn Beck’s reaction to the situation:

Watch Glenn Beck interview Steven Crowder:

Watch Jimmy Dore react to the situation:

Watch David Pakman break down the situation:

Watch Secular Talk break down the situation:

Watch Sargon of Akkad react to the situation:

Watch the Quartering react to the situation:

Watch Ben Shapiro cover the situation:

Watch Steven Crowder in his own words, “I’m not sorry”:

 

It may be Steven’s right to say whatever he wants but let’s not kid ourselves, there is speech that you just can’t defend. Using the word “fag” on a t-shirt you sell as merch, that’s not a hill worth dying on. Nor is it something I would want to support or sympathize with. He’s used the word fag regularly like in events held with Milo. Youtubers are more than just commentators, they’re role models to their audience. But when you look at what crowder actually says about Maza it’s always in the context of rebuttal.

He’s never said anything remotely close to anything like “this is the problem with the gays” or “people like Maza” or “he’s like this because he’s gay”. No. It’s always been an attack on Maza himself as an individual. And I’m sorry but when you create political commentary content where you’re whole shtick is criticising others, it’s just plain fair game that others are going to react to what you say. What is Maza actually asking for here? And by going after youtube Maza is demonstrating the very mob behaviour and targeting that he claims youtube enables in others. Critics have been parodying each other forever. Crowder denounces all forms of doxing and online bullying. This is not just to formally cover his ass, he knows and makes clear that is is exactly what people like Maza want so they can claim that sweet, sweet victimhood and it plays right into their narrative. Online bullying is never ok and never helps anyone. Crowder understands this and always denounces it. The responsibility of creators for their followers is another conversation.

When he exaggerates Maza’s excentricisms, is that homophobia? If you’re someone I don’t like, I might call you a cock sucker. If you were gay but I didn’t know, would I be a homophobe? If I did know you were gay and still called you that, would I be a homophobe? If you subscribe to intersectional doctrine then yes, as a CIS, white male I have no right to criticise anyone above me on the hierarchy. And my insult will be found to be discrimination of some kind. If it’s directed at a gay man, it’s homophobic. If it’s directed at a woman it’s misogynist. If it’s aimed at a “person of colour” then it’s racist. And if it doesn’t comfortably meet the definition of racism then we’ll just call it coded language to dog whistle white supremacy.
In the context of intersectionality, CIS white males will inevitably be found to be guilty and tainted and problematic because that is the status of my identity group. Despite the fact that when I’m using such language, I’m never thinking about the act itself. Nor am I using it to bring about visuals of such acts being performed by the people such comments are targeting. I’m probably just using that language because I think it’ll offend you. And if I’m using that language I probably want to offend you. I’m just intending to piss you off, nothing more, nothing less. But thoughts, actions and the intention around them are irrelevant. If you are not a member of the protected class then you will face the consequences of your actions and cited as an example of things like “genocide”. That all being said… did I have to call the person a cock sucker in the first place? Probably not.
This leads me to an email I sent to Steven Crowder about 2 years ago. I had just created a youtube account to investigate this whole youtube thing after the Trump election and crowder was one of the first channels I discovered. After so long following him closely I felt the need to email him a critique. I wrote to him that I felt he was wrong to use words like Faggot. Even if it is in talking to Milo Yiannopoulos through mutual respect. I don’t recall him ever using the word Nigger but he’s always engaged in real spicy language. I told Crowder that he may have every right to say absolutely whatever he wants but the reality is having an audience makes him a role model as much as he is a comedian or commentator. And his advocacy for conservative values and free speech is noble. But his careless use of spicy language really just makes him look like a bully and that he only wants free speech to be an asshole.
I believe in absolute freedom of expression but free speech doesn’t mean freedom against consequence. However this regulation should always be socially enforced and not legislated into law. The government regulation of speech will always be a gross conflict of interest. If you’re not scared of a liberal telling you what’s acceptable to say or do, try having a conservative telling you what you can say or do. This is not the role of government. Public discourse is best left up to the public. And the amendments we currently have on free speech is already borderline too much but fair enough. Defamation, incitement of violence, etc. Fair enough. People will get in line with their tribes based on what’s socially acceptable to say. This plays out every day as we all self censor over controversial issues.
So I warned Crowder that if he insisted on using, what I have been calling, “indefensible speech” then one day he would be targeted and his arguments would be reduced to  holding him to account for this spicy language. Using words like Faggot isn’t a hill worth dying on. And freedom of individual expression is far too important to be taken down by such shallow defenses. These are words that are so morally powerful they bind and blind people and recruit free speech opposition quicker than any advocacy argument could ever back them off that cliff. And here we are today, Crowder being accused of hate speech. Not because of his “change my mind” segments or his one-on-one interviews or his comedic sketches or his collaborations. It’s over the word fag.
He can be as ‘not sorry’ as he wants, the damage is already done. Not from his base but to his credibility to those sitting on the fence. The more he frames things as “us versus them” and the more he appeals to tribalism the more he contributes to polarization. And that’s why Crowder is in the wrong with this issue. I can play devils advocate for Crowder in this situation and I believe Maza is also wrong and also disingenuous but that doesn’t mean Crowder is right. They’re both wrong for their own reasons. These issues need to be contended with responsibly and with the seriousness they deserve. Crowder is not doing this and no amount of “some of my best friends are fags” style defense will ever make him right.
He’s making money and gaining subs despite his demonetization so if money is the only measure of success then sure, he’s winning. I only see an empty victory. Is Crowder a comedian? Not in the traditional sense of a comedian but if Stephen Colbert, Fallon and Kimmel pass as comedians then Crowder does as well. But their partisanship doesn’t grant them the kind of pass I would grant people like Kevin Hart or Bill Burr, etc. Crowders show is clearly intended to be a political commentary dressed up with entertaining sketches and bits to make it more palatable. That does not exempt him of scrutiny nor has he ever shied away from challenges. Provocation is part of his style and that is aimed at shock value and intended to challenge you. This is also not a defense for indefensible speech.
When I engage in road rage on the highway I don’t stop and think rationally of what the most appropriate wording of outrage would be to use so that I don’t offend my perpetrator. Instead of “dumb bitch” I use “silly goose” and instead of “mother fucker” I say “non-gender-conforming parental guardian consentual fornicator”. Look, I’m not equating delivering a speech to the world to the same standard as road rage but sometimes an emotional reaction can result in impulsive inappropriateness. And as Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
My point is Crowder doesn’t like Maza. Why would he give a shit about Maza’s feelings? Sure, you’re a content creator and you shouldn’t appeal to outrage. And in an ideal world we would all be polite to one another. But Maza does the exact same thing by demonizing those he criticizes. Maza’s advocating for one identity group being a protected class over another identity group. Again, it always comes down to socialism with these guys. Political correctness is just fascism with manners. If social media wants to start promoting some content while censoring other content then how does this not make them a publisher? News media relies on all social media for their reporting now, it’s cited as a publisher source constantly. But everytime they favour one voice over another they are actively in conflict with constitutional rights. You guys want to end discrimination? Then there can be NO protected category of ppl over other ppl. period. Every time any protected class is favoured, all those outside the protected class are discriminated against.

Now as for Maza. All I can say is the guy isn’t real journalism, it’s the exact activist based narrative propaganda that he himself is so critical of. Crowder isn’t fooling anyone by using the word “Figs” instead of “Fags” on his shirt. Maza isn’t fooling anyone by advocating for acosting people with milkshakes isn’t an incitement for violence. I’ll tell you right now if you ever threw a milkshake at me I’d beat the ever living fuck out of you. I have my own hateful conduct policy. Kill me or regret it. So he violates actual laws but you’ll never see it enforced because society is adhering to this social justice rhetoric around protected classes.

I can appreciate that he may call himself a gay wonk and that doesn’t automatically exempt others from scrutiny for engaging him with the same language. I believe the word Nigger is reprehensible and should never be used. However I don’t care when I hear it in a song or in the context of news and the like. But the main point here is that Maza has entered the public domain to target and criticize others. This is his career. He gets paid to do this. This puts him squarely smack dab in the middle of the marketplace of ideas. His ideas and opinions are just as up for scrutiny as those he targets. He, himself, engages in the same demonizing language he’s critical over Crowder using.

He thinks he’s right based on his race and sexual orientation and Crowder is inherently wrong as a measure of his race and sexual orientation. Maza is wrong. He claims Youtube doesn’t care about it’s LGBTQ creators. This is a lie and his calls for protest are all simply aimed at damaging youtube and the creators on their platform. He even admits himself this isn’t really about Crowder. And he chose to do all of this at the same time of a vox walkout and during pride month. It’s calculated, manipulative and disingenuous. His proclamation of victimhood is, in my opinion, purely aimed at harming others. The mainstream hit pieces that have followed reinforce my feeling that this is just another attempt to reclaim lost ground against alternative media.

 

He’s doing it for the clicks clap

He’s doing it for the clicks clap

He’s doing it for the clicks clap

 

 

Watch Philly D cover new main stream media hit pieces:

Watch Tim Pool’s coverage of Media hit piece:

Watch The Quartering react to the media hit piece:

Watch 1791 cover the media hit piece:

Watch Secular Talk cover the media hit piece:

Watch Ben Shapiro’s coverage of the media hit piece:

 

So in closing, I need to ask. What exactly are we talking about here? Is this just a fight between Crowder and Maza? Well neither knows each other personally and it’s pretty clear that both parties have their own personal agendas behind their faux feud. So this really isn’t a conflict between these two. Is this a conversation about censorship? Maza makes clear that it’s not enough to demonetize creators channels, citing websites like patreon. Youtube has nothing to do with Patreon. Is it not enough to censor a creator? Must there be a collaborative effort to destroy the lives of those we deem ‘problematic’? Youtube can change it’s policies every hour if they want, I don’t think that’s what the issue is really about.

I think this all comes down to the big question of what is social media? Is it a private company that is allowed to ‘hire’ and ‘fire’ anyone they deem harmful to their brand? Is it a publication that produces us with news? Well all mainstream media has no problem citing social media for anecdotes in their work. All media utilize social media for their content to reach far beyond the municipal boundaries of their broadcast. Is social media really just a company that aims at only making money?

Well if social media wants to continue to regulate content then it increasingly fulfills the role of publisher as it guides our attention and calculates it’s recommendations. Maybe a better question is what is social media to us? Internet in general is now considered a basic human right as more people do their banking, communications and coordination through their smart devices or computers. Trying to live without a phone or access to internet truly does present very real barriers to thriving in a society that demands instantaneous communication.

Here are a few other good questions. If you cannot network, plan, promote, advertize or advocate on social media, how does that impact your professional and/or social life? Would you suffer damages by being barred from utilizing social media? What advantages would others have over you if you were not allowed access to social media while running for political office? While others have access to it but you don’t. How would that impact the election of your riding? Better yet, could you ever become president/prime minister without a presence on social media? I don’t think you could run a competitive campaign without some degree of social media activity.

How significant is our online avatar? Is our online presence as significant as our physical self in real life? If you disappeared from social media, would it have a measurable impact on your real life friendships? Could that lead to falling out with certain friends? Your profile, your avatar, your page, your library. Are these personalized home pages shares? Does holding a personal account/home page equate to holding a share within the company if it’s profitability is derived from your account/content? Is there an argument there that your account is a form of equity? Canadian government ruled that points accumulated on reward cards like air miles is a form of equity that is owned by the card holder, not air miles. This after Air Miles attempted to retroactively apply an adjustment to terms and conditions around accumulated points. Government ruled that unconstitutional. They ruled that digital equity could be property. Does my participation on social media produce equity that I should be entitled to?

Are these companies monopolies? What relationship do we have with social media? Is it addictive? Could it be so intrinsic to our functionality that social media can become a symbiotic relationship with us? It may be true that social media are private companies. This also means they are unelected officials regulating the centre of public discourse. So what responsibilities do these companies have in the symbiotic relationship their products have with our lives? Are these platforms an open forum? I don’t have the answers but I think after seeing just how far you can flesh out the significance of social media it tends to feel more like a public utility than merely a private platform. Perhaps how it functions goes beyond it’s intended design. But if it meets the definition of a public utility then we cannot ignore the conversation around civil rights. And if access to these platforms is a civil right then it’s pretty clear the conversation around regulation is far from over and far more complex than it seems.

 

 

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth”

– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Apparently beheading the premier isn’t hate.

queens park 2

This week there was yet another protest outside Queen’s park because #fuckford. It will forever be the conservative burden to inherit deficits in the billions, make the unpopular decisions necessary to balance the budget. Then they inevitably find themselves dethroned by tax and spend liberals who go back to running up deficits. We have created a culture in our politics where funding is commensurate with compassion. And unless we’re spending money on it, we don’t care about it.

By the way, ignore the marxist flag donning the hammer and sickle. Marxism is a conservative conspiracy. It doesn’t exist on the left or in academia or anywhere. The marxist lie is a conservative straw man. It’s probably photoshopped, right? PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE IRON CURTAIN!

queens park 1

If teachers experience cuts, the PC government must hate teachers. If healthcare experiences cuts, the PC government must hate doctors and nurses. If cut taxes then this must only mean the PC government loves evil corporations. Are we really making the case that government has been 100% efficient and there is no room at all for cuts of any kind? Are we really arguing that while the rest of us in the private world have to endure the fluctuating risk the economy threatens us with every day, those who work for the government, whose payroll exists off of the taxes we pay, should never have to worry about their job security? Are we really arguing that there is NO wiggle room for innovation  to find efficiencies in government at any level?

What’s been really bothering me since the election is to see the change in Andrea Horwath. The language she’s been espousing has been increasingly unparliamentary and she now has taken a position to simply oppose anything and everything proposed by this conservative government. The latest example was her absolute opposition to free dental care for seniors. I believe Horwath is now in part responsible for an increase in vitriolic anti-government activism we’re seeing unfold.

TVO featured “Ontario’s new political landscape” where a panel reacted to the election results where Brittany Andrew-Amofah of the broadbent institute literally said, “what happened last night was a false majority that can only be produced under a first-past-the-post system.” Keep in mind that the conservatives took 76 seats out of the total 134 seat legislature, the NDP won 40, the Liberals 7 and the Green 1. To form majority a party only needs 63 seats. With 76 seats awarded to Doug Ford’s PC government, I have no problem speculating that even if we had used a different method besides first-past-the-post we likely still would’ve seen a conservative majority.

What Brittany is really saying that unless they have a political party who promotes their ideologies then that government will be illegitimate in their eyes. In the panel discussion Steve Paikin asks Brittany, “Are you prepared to give this guy a chance or do you see job one right now as defeating him?” This was Brittany’s response:

I see job one right now as amplifying the need for progressive movement within our province and also discussing what will potentially be at stake. So the search for efficiencies is a very scary search. Where are we going to be cutting from? Where are the efficiencies going to be coming from? And I think that needs, that deserves interrogation and hasn’t been interrogated enough. When we talk about efficiencies are we talking about social services? Are we talking about the money that is being given to our shelter system?

Steve: Well you do know he’s got a pharma care plan. It might not be as good as the other two parties but he’s got something. He’s got a childcare plan. You may not like it as much as the other two parties but he’s got one. He’s got a mental health spending plan as well. He’s got a transit plan. It may not be –

Steve’s interrupted by Brittany, “as in depth as it probably should be.”

“Or might be,” Steve continues, “but he’s got something to say about these things. Does that help you at all?”

Brittany, “no, because this party has been focussed on talking about efficiencies and talking about cleaning up what’s happening at Queen’s Park. Yes, Wynne has gone wrong and maybe several different areas when it comes to hydro, when it came to a number of different issues but there are a lot of progressive gains that need to continue to be made and that needs to be built upon from when Wynne had left. So I think that’s a risk here and if we’re focussing solely on his (she then performs air quotes) “search for efficiencies” then I don’t know how true those statements are.

Let me remind you that the recording of this episode took place the day after election day. This is her reaction to the conservatives the DAY after election day. What we see here isn’t a realistic critique of job performance or policy legislation, this is her simply disqualifying the new majority government as elected by the people due to nothing more than their political identity. This is what hyper partisanship looks like. She sits there and equates budget cuts to punishment and uses it to fear monger that this government will use their power to punish the weak and marginalized. It’s not a political analysis, it’s a post-modern style deconstruction framed around intersectional narratives. Notice her inability to acknowledge minority group support for Doug Ford and Ford Nation? Because it’s counter narrative, which could never be true, so it’s obviously just lies. Conservative Rhetoric. Misinformation. Fake news. Far-right conspiracies. etc, etc, etc.

This was the rhetoric coming out of those left of the political spectrum the day after election day. The NDP put forth more radical candidates than ever before. Like Laura Kimiker who ran in my riding of Mississauga Center was a self described Marxist and called Poppies war glorification. I’ve greatly respected Andrea Horwath throughout her role as opposition throughout my lifetime watching provincial politics. She’s a veteran in the game and I truly believe she sincerely advocates for truly vulnerable people and for opening opportunities to everyone. However she’s seen how greatly her party benefited from a more populist, radical campaign message and she’s changed her tune to appeal to exactly this populism.

That’s why Andrea Horwath today has no problem openly calling Doug Ford a ‘dictator’. Which if it came from a conservative, would be called a dog whistle promoting violence and hate. So what is it when it’s done on the left? Oh, NOW it’s just free speech. Horwath has the freedom to express any view she wants. And I’m equally allowed to call her a silly fucken hack for choosing to do so. I believe the more she shifts towards the social radical marxist types, the more she will dispossess the grass roots supporters of the parties who just wanted better health care, not a marxist reform. My prediction is once the party is nothing but radicals then this will simply disqualify them and I think we will see more surge in Green support as an alternative to what has been the alternative for decades. I think Green will replace the NDP.

Horwath

She’s had no problem throwing out slurs, parliamentary disruptions, calls to activism and yet she refuses to take responsibility for how discourse has been changing around Queens park. If you only pay attention to the mainstream news outlets, CTV, CBC, Macleans, etc, you’d believe that the only reason conservatives are surging in support around the country is believe of Facebook fake news and white supremacy. When in reality we’ve seen, in my opinion, more openly hateful protests against conservatives than anyone else.

doug ford 1

The following images were taken from the office of MPP Laurie Scott’s office upon amending the minimum wage bill.

Labour Minister Laurie Scott 3Labour Minister Laurie Scott 1Labour Minister Laurie Scott 2doug ford 2

 

Several months ago truckers from around the country rallied and drove to Ottawa to show their support for pipelines. They donned yellow vests inspired by french protests against their carbon taxes. They felt Trudeau has turned his back on Albertans and waste billions of dollars and Saudi Oil rather than cycling it back to the Canadian economy. There were online forums where these people organized and shared talking points. Apparently some have shared anti-immigrant sentiments. Faith Goldy and Rebel Media also attended the protest. The media took these details and slandered the entire protest as one of promoting hate and violence. The convoy was portrayed as just a group of white supremacists. The usual slurs aimed at disqualifying dissent and aimed at banning wrongthink.

united we roll

The only point I’m making here is simply this. Populism is increasing as polarization increases. This is not just happening among conservatives but also with liberals. If not more. We all need to hold ourselves accountable at the individual level. But this is just another example of the media’s bias against conservatives. Conservatives simply show up to peacefully protest and they’re labelled racists. But if you’re protesting conservatives, that’s just your civil right. Despite how inappropriate your conduct is.

Like, what exactly are they trying to say here? If you question social justice initiatives you disqualify yourself from public discourse? Well, that seems to be the case from what I’m seeing media wide. You watch how the media treats Scheer or Ford versus how they treat Trudeau and Horwath and it’s easy to see. If you have anything to say about Trudeau’s #welcometoCanada? Guess what, you’re a nazi. Bring a guillotine to Queens Park and behead an effigy of Doug Ford? That’s just you’re civil right.

Do these people have a right to call for the death of politicians? Actually no, that’s incitement of violence. Murder and policy critique are two very different things. If I followed the same logic that the social justice leftists follow then Andrea Horwath would be a Marxist for having posed for pictures with a group who had Marxists among them. However I don’t follow social justice logic so, no, I don’t think Andrea Horwath is a Marxist by association. But when she’s posing next to a skeleton and signs reading #fuckford then I simply have this to ask you. What if roles were reversed and it was Doug Ford protesting an NDP government by posing with skeletons and hashtags #fuckhorwath. All media everywhere would be reporting this as a KKK rally. So if it would be inappropriate to one party, it should be equally condemned on the other front.

queens park 3

But what we’re seeing here isn’t any effort to consider any of that. Even if this conservative government for some reason matched the same policies as the previous liberals and their government mirrored one another, you would still see vitriolic protests. There is nothing this government can do to appease the angry social justice mob. It’s not about the cuts or the budget. It’s about capitalism and hatred. Hatred for everyone who disagrees with the social justice narrative. Feminist narratives of empowering women fall short when conservative female MPPs need to hire security over death threats. It is literally and metaphorically a call for the death of our political system and a call to complete reform to socialism. And while the conservatives come under constant attack on all fronts, they’re tasked with saving this province from itself. Remember this in 3 years when we’re back at the ballot box.

Even Slavoj Zizek himself thinks that political correctness is exactly what perpetuates prejudice and racism. So put that in your Marxist Vape Pens and smoke it 500 metres away from any public entryway.

 

 

“one needs to be very precise not to fight racism in a way which ultimately reproduces, if not racism itself, at least the conditions of racism.” – Slavoj Zizek

At least you got a Mueller report

crime scene do not cross signage
Photo by kat wilcox on Pexels.com

We’ve been hearing a lot about the Mueller investigation in the news lately. Devastating a lot of democrats to find out that there will be no further indictments into the Russian collusion probe. I can’t help but sit back, looking at the state of affairs here in Canadian Politics in juxtaposition to our neighbours south of the border screeching in satisfaction and think to myself, “at least you’re lucky enough to have the checks and balances in place to even have the investigation take place at all.”

Here in Canada, apparently when a majority government doesn’t want the public to know about something they can just use and abuse their majority power to shut down all attempts to bring about an investigation. And it begs the question, does our majority government have too much power? What exactly is going on with the SNC-Lavalin situation? Is it a scandal? Is it out right corruption? Bribery? A violation of ethics? And apparently according to most media, why should any of us really even care? Well, let’s review what’s been going on and attempt to ask some of those tough questions.

The first breaking article from the Globe and Mail, “PMO pressed Wilson-Raybould to abandon prosecution of SNC-Lavalin; Trudeau denies his office ‘directed’ her,” was published on Feburary 7th. It’s now March 27th and we still have yet to hear the whole story from Jody Wilson-Raybould who was the initial whistleblower to the SNC-Lavalin controversy. At first the justice committee didn’t even feel the need to hear any testimony at all. They were satisfied with Trudeau’s initial rejection of the Globe and Mail article.

But as questions mounted and most mainstream outlets and opposition the Justice committee finally granted Wilson-Raybould the opportunity to sit before the Justice Committee and testify. Wilson-Raybould would not share her story with the media because she was concerned that due to solicitor-client privilege she could be disbarred if she were to disclose any details regarding the situation around the SNC-Lavalin deferred prosecution agreement. Given that her role at the time was as Attorney General of Canada.

Watch what is a deferred prosecution agreement and what does it mean?:

What does the Attorney General of Canada do?

Also known as “MOJAG” the Attorney General litigates on behalf of the Crown and serves as the chief legal advisor to the Government of Canada. Most prosecution functions of the Attorney General have been assigned to the Public Prosection Service of Canada. The Salary of the Attorney General is $255,300 per year (2017).

Finally on Feb 27 Jody Wilson-Raybould delivered a 37 minute testimony and then answered questions for about 2 hours afterwards. Wilson-Raybould tells the justice committee she came under “consistent and sustained” pressure — including veiled threats — from the PMO, the Privy Council Office and Morneau’s office to halt the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.

What were the key details of her testimony?

  • Wilson-Raybould was asked by the PMO to overrule the prosecution decision not to grant a DPA to SNC-Lavalin because of Canadian jobs and that there was an election coming up. Wilson-Raybould turned down the requests citing political reasons as an inappropriate reason to overrule the prosecution.
  • The “consistent and sustained pressure” she received from the PMO to overrule the the prosecutor’s decision went on over the course of 4 months by multiple MPs (and the PCO Michael Wernick who is supposed to be non-partisan)
  • Trudeau’s principal secretary, best friend, Gerald Butts (whom Trudeau has asserted speaks for him) told Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff at one point that there “is no solution here that doesn’t involve some interference.Gerald Butts then resigned on Feb 18 after the Globe and Mail article.
  • Then Trudeau’s Chief of staff Katie Telford tells Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff, “we don’t want to debate legalities any more.
  • After the cabinet shuffle the then deputy minister was given directives that the new Attorney General David Lametti was holding conversations with the PM emphasizing the priority of the SNC-Lavalin case.
  • During questions Wilson-Raybould was asked if she thought the pressure was illegal and she said, “no”. (important to note that the only thing she claimed was not illegal was whether or not SHE THOUGHT the PRESSURE PUT ON HER was ILLEGAL and that’s very important to remember given how frequently Liberals are now citing this question as a total exoneration of their conduct and justification to shut down the SNC-Lavalin probe.)

 

Long story short, After Wilson-Raybould determined that she would not grant SNC-Lavalin a DPA there was a cabinet shuffle where she was removed as attorney general and appointed the position of Minister of Veterans Affairs. This demotion was seen as a direct punishment for not giving in to the PMO insistence of granting SNC-Lavalin a DPA. This was at the heart of the interference allegation, since it was seen that the newly appointed Attorney General would now seek to pursue the DPA for SNC-Lavalin, the issue Wilson-Raybould has already made her decision on. The then deputy minister was given directives that the new Attorney General David Lametti was holding conversations with the PM emphasizing the priority of the SNC-Lavalin case.

The only problem with her testimony was that Trudeau had not completely lifted solicitor-client privilege and so there were holes in Wilson-Raybould’s testimony of details she could not disclose. Details like specifically what was discussed in closed door and official meetings. Essentially the meat and potatoes to her whistle blowing. Trudeau has slightly lifted privilege for her testimony which, as he continuously references, was unprecedented. The new Liberal buzzword. And the fact alone that this was unprecedented he now cites as his excuse to why he isn’t fully lifting solicitor-client privilege so Wilson-Raybould can fill in the gaps of her testimony. To justify shutting down the SNC probe over the simple reason for it being unprecedented is literally a political way of saying, “well this has never happened before so there’s no reason to start doing it now.” These are unprecedented times with unprecedented conduct so we need to hear the whole truth on whether this is a scandal or not.

Since Wilson-Raybould’s testimony we have heard from the PCO Michael Wernick twice and Gerald Butts who have all out-right refuted Wilson-Raybould’s claims. Trudeau himself has had every opportunity during every single development to comment to the situation himself. But Jody Wilson-Raybould has never been given the opportunity to return to rebuttal all the allegations now against her from all the other testimony nor has privilege been lifted for her to tell us the whole truth. And now the Liberals have shut down the entire probe and unless the opposition or someone can bring about new information then that’s where this whole thing dies. And that’s not right, this is an abuse of power over something that’s even attracted the attention of the OECD over suspicion of bribery.

The following is my paraphrasing of the Liberal narrative (with citations) since the globe and mail story broke to serve as a cliffnotes summary of the entire Jody Wilson-Raybould/SNC-Lavalin scandal:

  1. (Trudeau reacts to Globe and Mail article) Trudeau: there’s nothing to this and the globe and mail article is fake news. We didn’t direct anyone to do anything. wilson-raybould’s account of events are being misconstrued and misinterpreted and her seat on cabinet should speak for itself. Nanny-nanny-boo-boo, get rekt opposition. LOL.
  2. (Wilson-Raybould resigns from cabinet and lawyers up) Trudeau: well I’m very sad to see her go but I’m very confused and if she had any concerns then she should’ve brought this to my attention, which she never did. This whole thing is just really one big misunderstand.
  3. (then Butts resigns) Trudeau: Well it’s the respect Butts has for our institutions is the reason why he’s stepping down because he felt it would be best and he continues to have my full confidence and friendship and gratitude. It wasn’t Butts who failed us, it was all of us who fail him. And by us I really mean you. All of you.
  4. (After Wilson-Raybould’s testimony) Trudeau: Well this has been a tough last few weeks because of a few minor disagreements. But first let’s talk about all this great stuff we’re doing that’s really more important. like progressive reforms over criminal justice. Jody spoke today and she really was great and fantastic and her truth is just so beautiful. but I already told you, we didn’t direct shit. So we just agree to disagree. Her decision about SNC-Lavalin was hers alone to make, not mine. I’m no lawyer. So I disagree with everything she said. But hey, we got ourselves an ethic commissioner on the payroll, I’m more than happy to let this dude with no legal authority to look into whether or not anything criminal went down. More than happy to let that guy and that guy alone to look into this.
  5. (At a press conference to discuss a Lunar mission) Trudeau: There was a time when people used the stars to navigate, the sun to tell time and that’s just cool man. You see I brought my daughter with me? I’m doing my part guys! Girls in STEM! We all know science is better when we embrace feminism. Let’s talk science! Can’t we all just get along!? STOP ASKING ME QUESTIONS ABOUT SNC-LAVALIN!!!
  6. (then Jane Philpott resigns over lack of confidence in Trudeau) Trudeau: Well Philpott did great work and we appreciate it and will continue it. But this is just an example to how we embrace diverse opinions and points of view and Ms. Philpott is entitled to her truth and I’m entitled to my truth and we’ll continue to listen with open ears and open hearts and oh and by the way, did I mention climate change is really important?
  7. Wernick’s testimony: Jesus H double hockey sticks guys, there is just SO much partisanship going on here right now with all these questions that I really think come the election, we’re gonna see some assassination attempts. Everyone is just bullying us and that’s not fair! I didn’t do nothing wrong!
  8. Butt’s testimony: Jody’s fantastic and credible and did I mention fantastic? And she has her truth and in her truth she experiences things very truthfully. However in MY truth she’s a lying fucking bitch. And I’m also entitled to my truth.
  9. Trudeau: Well you know it’s my job to protect jobs so if protecting jobs makes me wrong, I don’t wanna be right, baby. That all just comes with the pressure of the job and I guess the pressure of such burdens was too much for Jody. She could’ve come to me but she didn’t and boy-o-boy I wish she had. Dialogue is crucial and it’s clear this was a case of an erosion of trust. My daddy and me have different governing styles but one thing we both really cared about was the principle of justice. Daddy always wanted a just society and those are the values he raised me on. So justice is something I’m really passionate the most about out of every one of us. Speaking of justice, did I mention that reconciliation and justice for our first nations people is what really matters here? Let’s talk about that.
  10. Wernick’s 2nd testimony: I HAVE SUBMITTED ALL MY FACEBOOK COMMENTS BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SO MEAN TO ME AND I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW ABOUT IT! SOCIAL MEDIA IS NOT A PLACE FOR NEGATIVE COMMENTS! HOW DARE YOU OR ANYONE ACCUSE ME OF PARTISANSHIP! I’VE BEEN A CAREER POLITICIAN SINCE PAUL MARTIN. I HAVE MADE GOOD FRIENDS IN MY CAREER, AND SOME OF THOSE FRIENDS NOW WORK AT SNC-LAVALIN AND HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO MY OFFICE WITH MY DIRECT EXTENSION TO REACH ME PERSONALLY AT ANY TIME! THEY EVEN INVITE ME TO ALL THEIR OFFICE GET TOGETHERS! WE’RE BASICALLY FAMILY! THEY MIGHT AS WELL JUST PUT ME ON THEIR PAYROLL!!! *oppositions’ jaws drop to the floor*
  11. (days later Wernick declares his retirement and effectively resigns from office) Wernick: YEAH WELL THE CONSERVATIVES ACCUSE ME OF NOT LIKING THEM, WELL GUESS WHAT I DON’T LIKE THEM EITHER! HOW DARE THEY ACCUSE ME OF PARTISANSHIP! THOSE DIRTY FUCKING CONSERVATIVE NEANDERTHALS!!!
  12. *Opposition tables an emergency meeting to call Wilson-Raybould back before the committee to speak with full solicitor-client privilege lifted* *Liberals use their majority power to immediately end the meeting before anyone can take a vote on the matter and then use their majority to finally end the SNC-Lavalin probe before presenting the new federal budget to the house and for the media to now report on the budget rather than SNC-Lavalin* Opposition:COVER UP!
  13. *Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes resigns the Liberal party and declares she will be running as an independent in the next election and also alleges mistreatment and hostility from the PM* Trudeau: Look, we’ve been over this. Her truth, my truth, blah blah blah, whatever she was a fucking bitch anyway.
  14. Liberals/Trudeau: Guys, look at our budget, see what I did there? Money for millenials, money for the seniors, money for all! I’m giving you all the money we’ve got! Actually, technically, I’m taking money from your children and grandchildren and giving that to you as well. Name 1 person you know who’s more generous than me. THAT’S RIGHT! YOU CAN’T! What’s that? Who? Who? Wilson-Raybould? Oh, shit, I remember her! Yeah, see, the thing is we COULD get more testimony and we COULD lift solicitor-client privilege BUT, BUT, BUUUUUUT, we’ve heard from so many different people and there’s just so much information out there and I mean, how many times do we expect Jody to talk afterall? I mean, I could lift privilege but that’s never been done before so… why would we do that now? She could always stand up in the house and talk for 60 seconds without privilege lifted. Man, oh, man, I really spoil her. She’s spoiled.
  15. Jane Philpott: ‘There’s much more to the story that needs to be told’

 

 

Why does any of this matter?

 

This situation IS important to follow and to know about. And it does make us ask a lot of tough questions:


1. Can the attorney general operate as a partisan MP?

Does the attorney general need to be completely detached from the government? If the government that ran on ethics and reform and transparency and progressivism in such a big way STILL allows corporate lobbyists to gain direct access to the PMO then we have a real problem. And so we need to figure out how to prevent future interference from happening. Simply replacing the government with another party won’t solve this problem. If interference CAN happen it inevitably WILL happen. That being said, I do believe that SNC-Lavalin has every right to donate to a party and lobby that party for favours. But I expect that party to operate within the boundaries of the law, not just create loop holes to create a system of rewarding those within the party’s inner circle and punish those who aren’t. and sure, there’s a lot of that that goes on at all levels of government but apathy is not the correct response to this behaviour. This is the kind of thing you’d expect to see in Russia with Putin. Not Canada.

We need reforms. and I believe the DPA remediation agreements reeks of just this. There may be a role for DPA if it prevents corporations from fucking around with their taxes but if it protects companies like SNC-Lavalin then it’s not right. BUT a court ruled that SNC wouldn’t qualify for a remediation agreement. So maybe the DPA itself isn’t the problem here. It’s a complex issue that’s going on here and I think the real issue now is that the cover up is becoming worse than the crime. We won’t get a chance to even find out what exactly went wrong here unless we can get the whole truth from Jody Wilson-Raybould. A person who I think, honestly, is a modern day hero for not letting partisanship interfere with her role as attorney general.

 

2. When is it appropriate to impose public/legal investigations on a majority government? (And how do we prevent opposition from abusing this process?)

With the Liberal majority government simply shutting down the scandal probe, there really are no sufficient checks and balances in place to hold the government accountable in moments of conflict like this. The only real option the opposition has here is to put forth a motion of non-confidence but I don’t even really know if anything would come of that and without any third party investigations it seems way overkill over something we are in the dark about. First Wilson-Raybould comes forth as a whistle blower. And the Liberals basically treated her as a rabble rouser, a fringe conspiracy theorist and there was nothing to see here. and if it wasn’t for the opposition and great work from almost exclusively the Globe and Mail, they would’ve just swept this under the rug.

Then Butts resigned, signalling just how big of a deal this could be if he was going to be a fall guy. considering how close he worked with Trudeau and how firmly Trudeau affirmed that Butts speaks for him. Then Jane Philpott resigned. Not some backbencher MP, the head of the treasury. directly denouncing the government and their handling of the situation. everything but out right cries of corruption. and we’re not supposed to listen to that? Everything that’s developed since Wilson-Raybould’s testimony has only further validated everything she’s come forth with and contradicted everything Trudeau has said. Except for the testimony of individuals who have resigned over the issue.

but after everything that has transpired Trudeau still refuses to lift privilege to allow Wilson-Raybould to give us the whole truth of what is at the heart of the reason for her whistle blowing. And when the opposition tried to table an emergency meeting to call for a second testimony they used their majority power to adjourn the meeting immediately. Just simply shut down all debate over the subject. If this is not a direct act of contempt for the operations of a democratic operations of our parliament then I do not know what is. And as easy as it is to dismiss howling conservatives proclaiming “cover up! cover up!” I just don’t see how at this stage in the game these actions would be defined any other way. I do believe that we are witnessing a direct attempt to cover something up that the majority government is using their power to keep in the dark. and although Wilson-Raybould said no one has broken the law, that doesn’t mean ethics violations are criminal acts and it’s the severity of the ethical violation that is the very reason why the OECD has come out stating it is concerned about this government’s actions. And if they suspect bribery then how the hell do we not demand answers?

 

3. What do Liberal voters do now with their vote?

If this liberal government is guilty of corruption, let’s just say, then what do liberal voters do come election time? This is why I wanted vote reform. I don’t know what that reform would look like. It’s hard. but majority of us vote against parties rather than for them. That’s what I’ll be doing in election time. I believe this government has broken most of it’s promises and crossed too many ethical lines and I think this government has polarized this country more than it’s united us. So I will be voting conservative to bring down the Liberal government. And then maybe in another 4 years I’ll find myself voting Liberal to bring down that Conservative government, assuming they win. Even if they don’t, at least to hopefully reduce them to a minority government to limit the powers they clearly have no problem abusing.

As much as Trudeau wants to label the conservative government as like the ghost of stephen harper, it really is a renewed party with fresh faces. The party fails an election and they hold new leadership races and others step down to make way for new candidates. And some of those new faces are really remarkable people who were clearly born to do this. Yes, they operate within the same conservative governing philosophy but this is as close to a new party as we get. The liberal party transformed several times before they finally took government. People forget that it was the NDP who were official opposition before the last election. And I think it’s perfectly fair that if a party fails to meet their major promises or crosses an ethical line that people choose to vote them out of power. And if that means trying out a reformed conservative party then so be it. If it means voting for the first time for the NDP, so be it. It sends a clear message to Liberals that, “no we are not happy with the direction you’ve gone. go back to the drawing board and bring something new to the table.” and that may very well lead to a stronger, better party. OR we see that the reformed conservative party has actually done a bang up job and we decide to grant them another 4 years to keep it up. Or NDP. We are the ultimate deciders when it comes to politicians term limits.

But that’s also part of the problem with the way we vote. I’m not actually voting against a party or for a party even though that’s the way my vote functions. I’m actually just voting on a local representative to be my MP. even though I’ll likely never meet them or have a conversation or any interaction with them. Or I may really like my MP and insist on voting for them, even if I hate the party leader and caucus members. But am I now meant to punish the MP I like best and vote for my second choice or third choice MP to be able to have my vote act as protest to the leader and caucus I oppose? Do I vote against my philosophical values and preferred governing style to vote against the actions of the party philosophically and governing style-wise I align with so I can punish their reprehensible behaviour? You can’t vote for the devil you know without then voting for the devil.

And I really believe we all do better when we are more focussed on our local municipalities than we are focussed on the country as a whole. I may be pro-choice without a religious upbringing but why should I care what a pro-life bible thumper in alberta thinks? That doesn’t affect my life or my community. So why should my vote impact alberta? why should alberta’s vote impact me? again, I don’t have the answers to these things but this is a big question that needs to be asked because it’s a really relevant one that affects us all.

Politicians and most of the commentators really aren’t asking these questions and having these conversations. To the media, this is all just a big game as if election time is just a new season of game of thrones. Politics actually isn’t sports. and to treat it so flippantly is to just to avoid actually trying to improve the country. Media has a responsibility to do more than merely react to news, they are supposed to be facilitating the debate around it so we can move forward together. not stand stagnant and indifferent and watch everything deteriorate around us. But I say let’s not respond to these things with apathy, let’s do our best to care and to value our vote as we value our own existence and our voices and roles in society to make it function and thrive. So however you vote, make sure you believe in it.

 

 

“Governments don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. That is against their interests. They want obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept it.”
– George Carlin

A Chronology of The SNC-Lavalin/Jody Wilson-Raybould Affair

climate action nowJustin Trudeau holding a Ford Nation rally, I mean, a press conference on climate change while the SNC-Lavalin situation unfolds, in a desperate attempt to change the conversation. You know, because it’s 2019.

Watch what you need to know about the SNC-Lavalin Scandal:

 

*Before going through the entire series of events throughout the scandal, CTV does a very good condensed summary of events that you can check out here*

 

Because there is so much here I won’t be offering my comment on the media I share. I will simply post events and reactions and leave my conclusions for later posts. This will clearly go into the election so I’m going to just treat this as a chronology which I will keep up to date. So feel free to revisit as time goes on to catch up on what’s new as I sift through all the clutter of clickbait and mainstream promotion which is causing a lot of fog and confusion around these important issues. Thanks!

The following is a sequence of events from the initial SNC-Lavalin charges in 2015 to our current day situation surrounding Jody Wilson-Raybould:

 

2015

Feb. 19

The RCMP lays corruption and fraud charges against Montreal-based engineering and construction firm SNC-Lavalin, over allegations it used bribery to get government business in Libya. SNC-Lavalin says the charges are without merit and stem from “alleged reprehensible deeds by former employees who left the company long ago.” A conviction would bar the company from bidding on Canadian government business, potentially devastating it.

The charges included:

A statement from the RCMP said it had charged SNC-Lavalin, SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc., and SNC-Lavalin International Inc. with offering $47.7 million in bribes to Libyan officials between 2001 and 2011.

It also charged the three companies with defrauding Libya of $129.8 million over the same time period. (CanadianLawyerMag.com)

Watch Global News video on the SNC/Libya connection:

Read Former SNC-Lavalin CEO pleads guilty in fraud case

 

Oct. 19 

The Liberals win a federal election, taking power from the Conservatives. Two weeks later, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau names Jody Wilson-Raybould minister of justice and attorney general of Canada. She is the first Indigenous person to hold the post, which combines duties as a politician (heading the Department of Justice) and a legal official (overseeing prosecutions).

Watch CBC coverage of the 2015 federal election:

2018

March 27

The Liberals table a budget bill that includes a change to the Criminal Code allowing “remediation agreements,” plea-bargain-like deals between prosecutors and accused corporations in which they can avoid criminal proceedings by making reparations for previous bad behaviour. SNC-Lavalin had lobbied for such a provision in Canadian law.

Watch Pierre Poilievre connect the remediation agreement within the budget bill to the Globe and Mail article alleging the PMO pressured the former Attorney General:

 

Spring

Although the bill has yet to pass, SNC-Lavalin contacts Public Prosecution Service lawyers to ensure they have all relevant information for a possible invitation to negotiate a remediation agreement. During the next three months, in response to requests from prosecutors, SNC-Lavalin provides detailed information it sees as making a strong case for an agreement.

 

Sept. 4

The prosecution service tells SNC-Lavalin in writing it will not invite the firm to negotiate a remediation agreement.

 

Sept. 17

Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould discuss the SNC-Lavalin file. As attorney general, Wilson-Raybould could overrule the prosecution service, directing it to negotiate an agreement with the company. Trudeau later says that Wilson-Raybould asked him if he planned to tell her what to do concerning the prosecution — a conversation that he says ended with him telling her any decision was hers alone.

 

Sept. 18

SNC-Lavalin representatives meet with Privy Council clerk Michael Wernick (Canada’s most senior civil servant) and Finance Minister Bill Morneau to discuss issues including “justice and law enforcement.”

michael wernick

 

Sept. 21

The remediation-agreement provisions come into legal force.

 

Oct. 9

The director of prosecutions confirms again in writing that she will not invite SNC-Lavalin to negotiate a remediation agreement, a decision the company challenges in Federal Court. That challenge is ongoing.

 

Oct. 10

SNC-Lavalin issues a news release saying it strongly disagrees with the director of prosecutions’ position and remains open and committed to negotiating a remediation agreement. SNC-Lavalin shares fall nearly 14 per cent, closing at $44.86 on the Toronto Stock Exchange. That’s the lowest close since March 2, 2016.

 

Oct. 11

SNC-Lavalin meets with Elder Marques, a senior adviser in the Prime Minister’s Office, to discuss “justice and law enforcement.”

Elder Marques

 

Nov. 5 and 19

SNC-Lavalin meets with Mathieu Bouchard, a senior adviser in the Prime Minister’s Office, to discuss “justice and law enforcement.”

Mathieu Bouchard

 

December

According to the Prime Minister’s Office, Wilson-Raybould raises the remediation case with Gerald Butts, the prime minister’s principal secretary, and he tells her to talk to Wernick, the Privy Council clerk.

Gerard Butts

2019

Jan. 14

Trudeau shuffles his cabinet after the resignation of Treasury Board president Scott Brison. Wilson-Raybould is moved from Justice to Veterans Affairs, widely seen as a demotion. David Lametti, a Montreal MP and former law professor, becomes justice minister. Wilson-Raybould posts a long letter outlining her record as justice minister and noting a great deal of work remains to be done toward reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples.

David Lametti

 

Feb. 7

Citing unnamed sources, the Globe and Mail newspaper reports that Trudeau’s aides attempted to press Wilson-Raybould, while attorney general, to intervene in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, and that exasperation with her lack of co-operation was one reason for shuffling her out of the justice portfolio. Trudeau denies any impropriety. Citing solicitor-client privilege, Wilson-Raybould refuses to speak about dealings she had on the case when she was attorney general.

Read PMO pressed Wilson-Raybould to abandon prosecution of SNC-Lavalin; Trudeau denies his office ‘directed’ her

Other related articles:

Watch question period in the house of commons:

Watch Brian Lilley cover Trudeau’s denial of justice interference:

Watch Trudeau react to the globe and mail article: 

Watch Evan Solomon featuring Robert Fife’s reaction to Trudeau’s accusation of the Globe and Mail article being false.

 

Feb. 11

Federal ethics commissioner Mario Dion says he’s beginning an investigation. At a public appearance in Vancouver, Trudeau says he’s spoken to Wilson-Raybould and confirmed with her that he said any decision on the SNC-Lavalin prosecution was entirely hers. Her continued presence in his cabinet speaks for itself, he says.

Mario Dion

 

Feb. 12

Wilson-Raybould resigns as veterans-affairs minister and says she’s hired former Supreme Court justice Thomas Cromwell to advise her on the limits of solicitor-client privilege. Trudeau says he’s surprised and disappointed that Wilson-Raybould has quit, and that if she felt undue pressure in her role as attorney general, she had a duty to report it to him.

Jody Wilson-Raybould’s resignation letter

Watch CBC cover Jody Wilson-Raybould’s resignation letter:

Watch why Jody Wilson-Raybould can’t talk:

Watch Can Trudeau waive solicitor-client privilege in SNC-Lavalin affair:

 

thomas cromwell

Watch Justin Trudeau react to Jody Wilson-Raybould’s resignation:

(OR) Watch Ezra Levant’s breakdown of Trudeau’s reaction:

Watch Don Martin’s reaction to Wilson-Raybould’s resignation:

 

Feb. 13

The House of Commons justice committee debates its own probe of the issue. Liberals use their majority to call one closed-door meeting and hear from senior officials (Lametti as justice minister, the top bureaucrat in his department, and the clerk of the Privy Council) who can talk about the tension between the minister of justice’s duties as a politician and his or her responsibilities as attorney general of Canada. The Liberals say this is a first step in a cautious investigation, but the opposition calls it a coverup. Behind the scenes liberals engaged in a ‘whisper’ smear campaign against Jody Wilson-Raybould. Although few media outlets report on this beyond Trudeau’s public apology for not doing more to prevent the high school-like bullying of Wilson-Raybould.

Watch Opposition leader Andrew Scheer referring to the closed-door meeting as proof of a cover up:

https://globalnews.ca/video/embed/4938923/

Watch CTV Don Martin’s The Last Word on Wilson-Raybould’s solicitor-client privilege:

Watch Justin Trudeau’s apology to Wilson-Raybould for not condemning the whisper campaign sooner:

https://webapps.9c9media.com/vidi-player/1.5.5/share/iframe.html?currentId=1616434&config=ctvnews/share.json&kruxId=ImoeZsch&rsid=ctvgmnews,ctvgmnewsglobalsuite&cid=%5B%7B%22contentId%22%3A1616434%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%5D

Read The Globe and Mail’s “The shameful mistreatment of Jody Wilson-Raybould on full display”

Read Global News report on ‘racist and sexist’ attacks on Judy Wilson-Raybould amid SNC-Lavalin affair

Read CBC Op-ed co-authored by academics condemning the whisper campaign against Wilson-Raybould by fellow Liberal MPs:

The co-authors on the CBC opinion piece “From star Liberal MP to difficult and incompetent? Really?”

Signed:

Joyce Green, professor of Political Science (University of Regina)
Gina Starblanket, assistant professor of Political Science (University of Calgary)
Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark, associate professor of Political Science (University of Victoria)
Renae Watchman, associate professor of English and Indigenous Studies (Mount Royal University)
Sarah Hunt, assistant professor of First Nations and Indigenous Studies, and Geography (University of British Columbia)
Lianne Marie Leda Charlie, instructor (Yukon College)
Christine O’Bonsawin, associate professor of History (University of Victoria)
waaseyaa’sin Christine Sy, assistant professor of Gender Studies (University of Victoria)
Jeff Corntassel, associate professor of Indigenous Studies (University of Victoria)
Patricia M. Barkaskas, instructor at Peter A. Allard School of Law  (University of British Columbia)
Dallas Hunt, lecturer in Native Studies (University of Manitoba)
Mary-Jane McCallum, professor of History (University of Winnipeg)
Damien Lee, assistant professor of Sociology (Ryerson University)
Chelsea Gabel, assistant professor of Social Sciences (McMaster University)
Tasha Hubbard, associate professor of Native Studies (University of Alberta)
Sarah Nickel, assistant professor of Indigenous Studies (University of Saskatchewan)
Robyn Bourgeois, assistant professor od Women’s and Gender Studies (Brock University)

Watch Conservatives demand apology from B.C. Liberal MP for sexist comment in response to Raybould’s testimony:

https://globalnews.ca/video/embed/5009723/

 

Feb. 15

Trudeau says Wilson-Raybould asked him in September whether he would direct her one way or another on the SNC-Lavalin question. He says he told her he would not.

Watch Trudeau speak to his accounts of events regarding Jody Wilson-Raybould and SNC-Lavalin:

 

Feb. 18

Butts resigns as Trudeau’s principal secretary. He denies any impropriety but says his continued presence in the Prime Minister’s Office has become a distraction.

Gerald Butts’ resignation letter

Watch who is Gerald Butts:

Watch Ministers react to the resignation of Gerald Butts:

Watch Scheer & Trudeau’s full exchange on Butts’ resignation:

Watch Thomas Mulcair react to Gerald Butts resignation:

Watch Wilson-Raybould’s father comment on Butts’ resignation:

Related:

 

Feb. 19

Wilson-Raybould stuns observers by attending a meeting of the very cabinet from which she had resigned a week earlier. Trudeau says she had asked to speak there and was invited to do so but cabinet confidentiality means nothing can be revealed about why or what was said. After the meeting, Wilson-Raybould says she is still talking to her lawyer about what she can and can’t say publicly.

Watch Power & Politics covering question period to Butts resignation and cabinet meeting with Wilson-Raybould despite her no longer being a member of the cabinet:

 

Feb. 20

Trudeau says that while an airing of the facts is needed, he is confident the examinations underway by the ethics commissioner and the justice committee will provide it. The Liberals use their House of Commons majority to defeat an opposition motion calling for a public inquiry into allegations the Prime Minister’s Office pressured Wilson-Raybould.

Watch City News cover liberals defeating the motion for a public inquiry:

 

Feb. 21

Wernick launches a vigorous defence of the government’s handling of the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, bluntly declaring allegations of political interference to be false and even defamatory. The Privy Council clerk also challenges Wilson-Raybould’s assertion that solicitor-client privilege prevents her from responding to allegations.

Watch the question period in house of commons held before Wernick’s testimony:

Watch the full testimony and questioning of Michael Wernick before the justice committee:

Watch Power and Politics analyze Wernick’s testimony before the justice committee with several panelists and commentators:

Watch CTV’s Question Period with Evan Solomon react to Wernick’s testimony:

 

Feb 22

Justin Trudeau travels to Nova Scotia to apologize for alleged racial profiling.

Watch CBC coverage of Trudeau speaking with two black Nova Scotians who claim they were racially profiled while visiting parliament hill:

Watch Don Martin’s Last Word on the SNC-Lavalin situation:

 

Feb. 25

Trudeau partly waives both solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality for his former attorney general, paving the way for Wilson-Raybould to tell her side of the SNC-Lavalin saga to the justice committee and ethics commissioner. The order specifically notes, however, that she cannot speak publicly about communication she had with Kathleen Roussel, the director of public prosecutions.

Watch CBC’s Vassy Kapelos breakdown the details surrounding Wilson-Raybould’s upcoming testimony before the justice committee:

 

Feb. 27

Wilson-Raybould tells the justice committee she came under “consistent and sustained” pressure — including veiled threats — from the PMO, the Privy Council Office and Morneau’s office to halt the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. Trudeau rejects her characterization of events. Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer calls on Trudeau to resign. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh calls for a public inquiry.

Read Wilson-Raybould alleges ‘consistent and sustained’ effort by Trudeau, officials to ‘politically interfere’ in SNC-Lavalin case

Watch question period in house of commons before Wilson-Raybould’s testimony:

Watch Jody Wilson-Raybould testify and take questions before the justice committee:

Watch Justin Trudeau react to Wilson-Raybould’s testimony:

Watch Andrew Scheer and Jagmeet Singh react to Wilson-Raybould’s testimony:

Watch Justice Committee members react to Jody Wilson-Raybould’s testimony:

Watch Power and Politics breakdown Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, featuring David McLaughlin (former chief of staff for David Mulroney), Irwin Cotler (former attorney general) and Peter MacKay (former attorney general):

Watch Evan Solomon table a panel discussion of Wilson-Raybould’s testimony:

Watch former judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond react to Wilson-Raybould testimony:

Watch Indigenous Services react to Wilson-Raybould’s testimony:

Watch Bob Fife commentary on the fallout of Wilson-Raybould’s testimony:

Watch Christie Blatchford react to Wilson-Raybould’s testimony:

Watch Jody Wilson-Raybould’s father react to her testimony:

Watch Don Martin’s Last Word on SNC-Lavalin and Trudeau’s broken brand:

 

Feb. 28

Butts asks to testify before the justice committee while Trudeau holds press conference to declare Canada will join the Lunar Gateway moon mission.

Watch Question Period in the House of Commons in wake of SNC-Lavalin affair:

Watch CBC cover Trudeau’s Lunar Gateway press conference:

Read Trudeau’s trusted former top adviser Gerald Butts to testify on SNC-Lavalin prosecution

 

March 1

Trudeau makes longtime MP Lawrence MacAulay his new veterans-affairs minister. Marie-Claude Bibeau replaces MacAulay as agriculture minister and Gender Equality Minister Maryam Monsef takes on the additional portfolio of international development. All three express support for Trudeau.

Watch question period:

 

March 3

Jody Wilson-Raybould declares she will run as Liberal in fall federal election for the Vancouver Granville riding.

Watch CBC coverage on Jody Wilson-Raybould’s decision to run as Liberal:

 

March 4

Philpott quits cabinet, saying she has lost confidence in the way the government has dealt with the ongoing affair and citing her obligation to defend the cabinet as long as she is a part of it. Trudeau names Carla Qualtrough interim Treasury Board president. While attending a climate change rally in Toronto amid the SNC-Lavalin scandal, Trudeau says the ongoing affair “has generated an important discussion” about how ministers, staff and officials conduct themselves. “Concerns of this nature,” he says, “must be taken very seriously and I can assure you that I am.”

Watch who is Jane Philpott?

Watch Trudeau’s reaction to Philpott’s resignation:

Watch Power Play speak with Bob Fife on Philpott’s resignation:

Watch Green party leader Elizabeth May react to Wilson-Raybould and Philpott:

Chrystia Freeland, 2018 diplomat of the year, reacts to Philpott resignation:

Listen to Newstalk1010 The Rush Round Table discussion over SNC-Lavalin

Listen to Evan Solomon breakdown the significance of Philpott’s resignation

Listen to Moore in the Morning Round Table discussion over SNC-Lavalin

Read Jane Philpott resigns from cabinet: Full statement

Read The Philpott earthquake

 

Watch Trudeau’s climate change press conference at the Danforth Music Hall in full:

 

March 5

Trudeau cancels a trip to Regina to hold emergency cabinet deliberation regarding SNC-Lavalin scandal. Rumours he is considering a message of contrition.

Watch CBC cover trip cancellation over SNC-Lavalin scandal:

Watch David Menzies take a pulse of the public reaction to the SNC-Lavalin scandal outside the Danforth Music hall:

Listen to Mark Towhey deem Jessica Prince hero of the week and Trudeau Stupid of the week

 

March 6

Butts tells the justice committee that Wilson-Raybould never complained about improper pressure to halt the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin until Trudeau decided to move her out of her coveted cabinet role as justice minister and attorney general. Wernick disputes parts of her testimony as well. Drouin provides more details about the timeline.

Watch Bob Fife (Globe and Mail) and Tonda MacCharles (The Toronto Star) speculate on Gerald Butts upcoming testimony:

Watch Power and Politics coverage of Butts’ full testimony and questioning complete with member reactions and commentator reaction:

Watch Andrew Scheer react to Butts’ testimony:

Watch former judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond react to Butts’ testimony: 

Watch Ezra Levant’s commentary on Butts’ testimony:

Watch Ezra Levant compare Trudeau’s Kokanee grope response to Butts’ testimony:

Listen to Newstalk1010’s Evan Solomon discuss Butts’ testimony with Peter MacKay

Listen to Barb Digiulio talk with Lisa Kinsella, political consultant, about Trudeau’s Feminist Brand

Watch Michael Wernick’s full second testimony before the Justice Committee:

Watch CTV’s Power Play panel discuss Wernick’s testimony in SNC-Lavalin scandal:

Watch CTV’s Power Play: The strategy session panel discuss Butts and Wernick testimony:

Watch Don Martin’s Last Word on the SNC-Lavalin situation:

Watch Andrew Lawton’s commentary of Wernick’s testimony:

Watch Andrew Coyne on why Trudeau should appear before the justice committee:

 

March 7

Justin Trudeau holds press conference on SNC-Lavalin situation.

Watch Trudeau’s press conference on the SNC-Lavalin scandal:

Watch Jagmeet Singh react to Trudeau’s press conference:

Watch Andrew Scheer react to Trudeau’s press conference:

Watch Power & Politics analyze Trudeau’s press conference:

Watch Ezra Levant’s commentary on Trudeau’s press conference:

Watch Power & Politics cover Trudeau’s apology for mistreatment of Inuit with tuberculosis:

Listen to Newstalk1010’s The Rush round table discuss the SNC-Lavalin Scandal

Read Trudeau speaks on SNC-Lavalin: A guide to what he said Thursday

Read The 2 minute crisis fix for Trudeau. You’re welcome.

Read Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould, before the fall

Read Michael Wernick’s SNC-Lavalin problem

Read Justin Trudeau’s sorry non-apology

 

March 8

The federal court rules against deferred prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.

Watch cpac coverage of federal court decision on SNC-Lavalin:

Watch cpac discuss SNC-Lavalin losing court bid to avoid criminal prosecution:

Watch Christie Blatchford commentary of the SNC-Lavalin scandal to date:

Listen to Newstalk1010 The Rush Round Table discuss the SNC-Lavalin Scandal

Listen to Newstalk1010 Spin Doctors discuss the SNC-Lavalin Scandal (part 1)

Listen to Newstalk1010 Spin Doctors discuss the SNC-Lavalin Scandal (part 2)

Read Wernick raised prospect of taking ‘public interest argument’ to director of Public Prosecutions in talks with SNC-Lavalin chief

Read Finally addressing SNC-Lavalin affair, Trudeau seems to be stuck in between old and new politics

Read Trudeau, government officials tried to use legal principle to justify political interference in SNC-Lavalin, former attorneys-general say

Read Recall Jody Wilson-Raybould, opposition MPs will urge after forcing emergency justice committee meeting

Read SNC-Lavalin CEO pushed for meeting with Trudeau over prosecution

Read On SNC-Lavalin, ‘every one of us owns a piece of the truth’

 

 

 

March 9

News breaks of Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes alleging that the Prime Minister met her with hostility when she informed him she would not be running for re-election. The PMO denies the allegation.

Celina Caesar-Chavannes

Celina Caesar-Chavannes 2

Watch CBC cover Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes allege mistreatment:

Watch Wendy Mesley discuss the 2 faces of Justin Trudeau and Caesar-Chavannes:

Read Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes cryptic message

 

March 10

Watch Andrew Scheer discuss the latest in the SNC-Lavalin affair:

Watch Evan Solomon hold a week in review panel discussion around the SNC scandal:

Watch Evan Solomon hold panel on calling back Jody Wilson-Raybould with privilege lifted:

 

March 12

In 1999, Canada signed on to a global anti-bribery convention overseen by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The OECD’s working group on bribery announced on March 11 that it is concerned by the SNC allegations and would monitor the outcome of the various investigations.

 

Watch Power & Politics discuss OECD ‘concerned’ about SNC-Lavalin affair:

Watch OECD chair Drago Kos discuss concerns regarding anti-bribery convention:

Read OECD says potential job losses not a reason to shelve SNC-Lavalin prosecution

Read OECD ‘concerned’ by allegations Trudeau interfered in SNC-Lavalin case

Read OECD anti-bribery officials ‘concerned’ by SNC-Lavalin affair, plan to ‘closely monitor’ case

Read OECD’s statement on SNC-Lavalin is only its second-ever about specific bribery allegations

Read The inconvenient reality: Economic interest has nothing to do with SNC-Lavalin getting a DPA

Read Andrew Scheer’s LavScam fumble

Read The world is watching, Justin Trudeau

Read Does Justin Trudeau know what he’s doing?

 

 

March 13

The Liberal-dominated House of Commons justice committee shut down opposition parties’ attempt on Wednesday to recall former attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould for further testimony about the pressure exerted on her to abandon the fraud and bribery prosecution of engineering and construction giant SNC-Lavalin Group Inc.

Half an hour into an emergency meeting of the justice committee, Liberal MPs used their majority to adjourn without holding a vote on whether to recall Ms. Wilson-Raybould, drawing cries of “shame,” “despicable” and “cover-up” from opposition MPs.

Watch Opposition proclaim “cover up” while Liberal majority shuts down emergency meeting:

Watch CBC table panel discussion around SNC-Lavalin situation:

Watch Power & Politics panel Liberals shut down an emergency meeting:

Watch CBC hold SNC-Lavalin Q&A:

Watch Andrew Scheer allege a Liberal cover up around the SNC-Lavalin scandal:

Watch MPs react to the Liberal shutdown of the emergency meeting:

Watch Andrew Lawton discuss the Liberal shutdown of the emergency meeting:

Watch David Menzies drive around Ottawa with the JailTrudeau.com truck and speak with the public about their approval on Trudeau:

Read Liberals quickly shut down debate on recalling Jody Wilson-Raybould to testify again

Read Bring back Gerry Butts

 

 

March 17

Watch highlights in question period regarding the budget:

 

March 18

Michael Wernick attends a swearing in ceremony at Rideau Hall in Ottawa on Friday, March 1, 2019. He announced plans to step down as clerk of the Privy Council less than a month later. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

Former deputy prime minister, justice minister and attorney general Anne McLellan has been tasked with examining the relationship between the Prime Minister’s Office and the dual role of justice minister and attorney general. She’s due to give Mr. Trudeau her findings by June 30.

wernick statement

Watch highlights from question period:

Watch Tom Mulcair react to Michael Wernick resignation:

Watch Adrian Batra and Lorrie Goldstein react to the cabinet shuffle:

Watch Power & Politics cover cabinet shuffle:

Watch Leo Knight discuss Anne McLellan appointment:

Watch Michelle Rempel discuss Anne McLellan appointment:

Watch CTV covering Michael wernick retirement:

Watch Tom Mulcair on his take over the Michael Wernick retirement:

Read Trudeau appoints Anne McLellan to advise PMO on the role of justice minister, attorney general in cabinet

Read Michael Wernick to quit before the next election: Full text of letter to PM

Read Scott Brison has retired from politics—but politics haven’t retired from him

 

 

March 19

Following five weeks and 13 hours of testimony, behind closed doors Tuesday, The Parliamentary Justice Committee has ended its study on the SNC-Lavalin issue without the further testimony from Jody Wilson-Raybould that opposition MPs had demanded. Citing that the committee has spent enough time on the matter and needs to move on. That the overall coverage on the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould situation was “unprecedented”. Although during the closed door meeting Liberals released confidential documents to media which were tweeted out to the public. Later on that day the Liberal government released their federal budget for 2019.

Watch Opposition halt the meeting to confront to confront the media about reporting on confidential documents:

https://webapps.9c9media.com/vidi-player/1.5.6/share/iframe.html?currentId=1639151&config=ctvnews/share.json&kruxId=ImoeZsch&rsid=ctvgmnews,ctvgmnewsglobalsuite&siteName=&cid=%5B%7B%22contentId%22%3A1640362%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639700%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639202%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639154%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639127%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639151%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%5D

Watch opposition discuss what went on behind closed-door meeting of the house justice committee:

https://webapps.9c9media.com/vidi-player/1.5.6/share/iframe.html?currentId=1639127&config=ctvnews/share.json&kruxId=ImoeZsch&rsid=ctvgmnews,ctvgmnewsglobalsuite&siteName=&cid=%5B%7B%22contentId%22%3A1640362%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639700%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639202%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639154%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639127%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639151%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%5D

Read Liberals drop SNC-Lavalin study at justice committee

Watch opposition accuse Liberals of silencing Jody Wilson-Raybould:

https://webapps.9c9media.com/vidi-player/1.5.6/share/iframe.html?currentId=1639154&config=ctvnews/share.json&kruxId=ImoeZsch&rsid=ctvgmnews,ctvgmnewsglobalsuite&siteName=&cid=%5B%7B%22contentId%22%3A1640362%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639700%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639202%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639154%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639127%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639151%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%5D

Watch Andrew Scheer react to the Liberal shutdown of the SNC-Lavalin probe:

https://webapps.9c9media.com/vidi-player/1.5.6/share/iframe.html?currentId=1639202&config=ctvnews/share.json&kruxId=ImoeZsch&rsid=ctvgmnews,ctvgmnewsglobalsuite&siteName=&cid=%5B%7B%22contentId%22%3A1640362%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639700%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639202%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639154%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639127%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639151%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%5D

Watch CTV news cover the ending of the SNC-Lavalin probe:

https://webapps.9c9media.com/vidi-player/1.5.6/share/iframe.html?currentId=1639700&config=ctvnews/share.json&kruxId=ImoeZsch&rsid=ctvgmnews,ctvgmnewsglobalsuite&siteName=&cid=%5B%7B%22contentId%22%3A1640362%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639700%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639202%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639154%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639127%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22contentId%22%3A1639151%2C%22ad%22%3A%7B%22adsite%22%3A%22ctv.ctvnews%22%2C%22adzone%22%3A%22embed%22%7D%7D%5D

 

Watch Federal budget speech 2019:

Watch Andrew Scheer react to the federal budget:

Watch Jagmeet Singh react to the federal budget:

Watch Adrian Batra and Lorrie Goldstein react to the new budget:

Watch CPAC cover Budget 2019:

Watch the True North initiative react to the federal budget:

Watch Financial Post breaking down the 2019 federal budget:

Watch Global News discuss federal budget:

Watch Conservatives shout down finance minister in house budget speech:

Watch Tom Mulcair react to the budget:

Read a federal budget from a government that has abandoned its poetic phase

Read Christie Blatchford: Liberals shut down SNC probe with dazzling duplicity

Read Trudeau will fail at making the SNC-Lavalin affair fade away. We will learn the truth

Read The Liberals just can’t quit the SNC-Lavalin scandal

Read Nothing to see here, says party desperately hiding something

 

March 20

MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes quits the Liberal Caucus.

Watch Don Martin discuss Mp Caesar-Chavannes resignation:

 

March 21

Macleans publishes an interview with Jane Philpott where she claims “there’s much more to the story that needs to be told”. Also MPs worked through the night to get through 257 separate confidence votes needed thanks to a Conservative filibuster 30-hour voting marathon in the House of Commons over the SNC-Lavalin affair introduced as a protest against the government shutting down its investigation into the SNC-Lavalin affair.

Read Maclean’s ‘There’s much more to the story that needs to be told’

Read Jane Philpott speaks: ‘An attempt to shut down the story’

Read Anne McLellan’s appointment: one more bumbling bid to bury the SNC-Lavalin affair

Read What Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott can actually say — and where

Watch Trudeau respond to questions on SNC-Lavalin:

Watch CBC coverage on Wilson-Raybould providing a written statement on the SNC-Lavalin issue:

Watch Power & Politics interview Justice committee chairman Anthony Housefather over written statement by Wilson-Raybould:

Watch Michelle Rempel and Jagmeet Singh on the shut down of the justice committee

Watch Don Martin’s Last Word on Jane Philpott:

Watch BNN Bloomberg interview SNC-Lavalin CEO Neil Bruce:

Watch CTV continued coverage and panel discussion of SNC-Lavalin:

Watch Power & Politics on what’s preventing Wilson-Raybould and Philpott from speaking in the commons:

Watch Christie Blatchford on Trudeau needs to let Wilson-Raybould and Philpott speak:

Read Trudeau calls SNC affair a ‘pretty serious difference of opinion’

Read Wilson-Raybould will table more evidence of political meddling in SNC-Lavalin affair

Read Anne McLellan says she’s keeping an open mind as she reviews role of attorney-general, justice minister

Read Politics Briefing: The SNC-Lavalin show goes on as Philpott speaks out

 

March 25

Opposition attempts to open new SNC-Lavalin probe with ethics committee and Liberals once again use their majority to vote down the motion. Jody Wilson-Raybould submits a written statement to the Justice Chair for further review in a plea to allow a second testimony and to reopen the SNC-Lavalin probe.

Watch CityNews report on Wilson-Raybould Submits documents to ethics committee:

https://toronto.citynews.ca/video/iframe/593482582001/SyxzIeNcgb/6018928659001

Watch ethics committee vote down new ethics probe into SNC-Lavalin:

Watch Andrew Scheer on Trudeau’s excuses over SNC-Lavalin “widely debunked”:

Watch SCC pick may have lead to tension between PM and Wilson-Raybould:

Watch Lisa Raitt demands investigation into SCC appointment leaks:

Watch CPAC discuss the Jane Philpott interview:

Watch CPAC discuss SNC-Lavalin scandal’s influence on the 2019 elections:

Watch Evan Solomon on Wilson-Raybould and Philpott should speak in parliament:

Watch Evan Solomon panel discussion on Philpott’s bombshell interview:

Watch opposition call argument against ethics committee probe a “red herring”:

Watch does Wilson-Raybould need an additional waiver to speak?:

Watch Power & Politics cover Liberal blocking of new SNC-Lavalin ethics probe:

Watch Power & Politics discuss ethics committee probe controversy:

 

March 28

Read the transcript of the secretly recorded call between Jody Wilson-Raybould and Michael Wernick

Watch Trudeau discuss “changing processes” in PMO:

Read: COMMENTARY: Justin Trudeau’s handling of the Jody Wilson-Raybould matter likely wouldn’t fly in the corporate world

 

April 2

In a bid to unite the Liberal Party ahead of the 2019 election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has ejected Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott from caucus for their public dissent over the government’s handling of the SNC-Lavalin affair.

Watch Trudeau announce he has kicked Wilson-Raybould and Philpott from party:

 

April 4

Watch Robert Fife on Wilson-Raybould’s demands: ‘What’s wrong with an apology?’:

 

April 7

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer says that Prime Minister Trudeau threatened to sue him over his criticisms of the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

Watch Andrew Scheer explain being threatened by the Prime Minister:

Watch Trudeau answer questions around lawsuit threats to Scheer in scrum:

Watch Question Period with Evan Soloman hold panel with Bob Fife:

 

April 9

Jane Philpott speaks out about how the PM broke party policy by removing her without a caucus vote. 

Watch CTV covering Jane Philpott’s accusation:

 

April 14

Jane Philpott contemplates her political future and contends with accusations of being “attention seeking”.

 

April 24

Jody Wilson-Raybould attacks Liberal’s lack of real progress within the indigenous community.

 

April 30

A confidential document sent to the Liberal Party of Canada in 2016, and obtained by CBC/Radio-Canada, reveals how top officials at SNC-Lavalin were named in a scheme to illegally influence Canadian elections.

 

May 3

Globe and Mail Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife said he was worried for weeks after breaking the SNC-Lavalin story that has rocked the Liberal government, fearing that former cabinet minister Jody Wilson-Raybould would refute his reporting. He spoke to Power & Politics host Vassy Kapelos.

 

May 24

Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott, former Liberal cabinet ministers who resigned over the Liberal government’s SNC-Lavalin controversy, say they will make announcements Monday about their political futures.

Watch Power & Politics discuss political future for Philpott and Wilson-Raybould:

 

May 27

Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott declare they will run for re-election in the next federal election as independents.

Watch Wilson-Raybould discuss her running as an independent:

Jody Wilson-Raybould’s riding association members quit Liberals to work for her campaign as an independent.

 

May 29

There is enough evidence against SNC-Lavalin for it to be tried on fraud and bribery charges, a Quebec Court judge has ruled. The engineering giant spent months lobbying Ottawa to avoid a trial, and the case is at the centre of an upheaval for the Trudeau government.

Jody Wilson-Raybould plays a recording of Michael Wernick to the justice committee in an appeal to reopen the SNC probe. The Liberal majority voted down the reopening of the SNC probe despite the new evidence. The media reports on suspicion over Wilson-Raybould’s judgement in conducting an illegal recording, given her status as a lawyer. They do not discuss the things disclosed by Wernick throughout the call which verified all of her testimony and disproved all claims by Trudeau through his various press conferences since the time of the Globe and Mail article. The media narrative then shifts to questions of whether or not Wilson-Raybould and Philpott hurt the Liberal party’s chances of getting re-elected.

 

June 3

Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott sit down with Evan Solomon on running as independents in the upcoming Federal election:

June 14

Justin Trudeau sits down with Celine but she will not be returning to the Liberal party

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other Related Content:

Watch analyst breakdown over Trudeau’s brand post SNC-Lavalin scandal:

The MPs who got the boot or left their caucus over the last four years:

Read The Liberals can’t shut down what they don’t control

Read SNC-Lavalin never claimed jobs were at risk, CEO Neil Bruce says

Read Crimes, deals and fines: A guide to deferred prosecution agreements

Read From the archives: The inside story of SNC-Lavalin’s Gadhafi disaster

Read Justice, jobs and SNC-Lavalin: How much does the engineering giant matter to the economy?

Watch True North debunk Trudeau’s justification for interference:

 

Disclaimer:

The following TVO episode serves as a perfect example of the toxic nature of hyper partisanship. The reason why people use terms like “shill media” is because mainstream media which is supposed to be held to a standard and with at least SOME expectation of non-partisan reporting and reasoned analysis. This episode of the agenda is so disgusting that I do not see how the show can continue with any credibility. As far as I’m concerned I will now be referencing TVO as Canada’s Liberal equivalent to Fox news.

Greg Sorbara, former ontario liberal finance minister actually states, with regard to the SNC-Lavalin scandal, that he ‘can’t see the mischief”. And regarding Ms. Wilson-Raybould “if you don’t like being under undue pressure, don’t take a cabinet seat.” He is well within his right to state such disgusting opinions but having gone almost completely unchallenged and then by Paikin shifting the conversation to the OPP commissioner situation surrounding Doug Ford (where it isn’t a scandal or illegal or immoral to appoint friends with the OPP commissioner, as McGuinty did before him, openly calling his OPP chief his “great friend”) really shows the true hyper-partisan bias of TVO and their producers.

If you are one of these people who discredit Rebel Media as being “stunt journalism” then you must watch this and understand that media plays a role in the discourse of the country. and TVO has made it clear that their role is to influence the province to develop a liberal bias by refusing to hold Liberals to anywhere near the same standard as conservatives. In a time when the province voted overwhelmingly for a conservative government, TVO no longer speaks on behalf of the province. From now on I will be referring to TVO as I refer to CBC, as activist based narrative reporting. TVO should be ashamed to ruin their reputation over cheap partisan bias. It’s a damn shame and I hope Paikin is losing sleep at night for the reputation he’s dragging through the hyper partisan swampy mud. This isn’t news, it’s propaganda and I am only sharing this so you can see exactly what that looks like:

Read Are 9,000 SNC jobs really in peril? A reality check on the job market

Read How Jody Wilson-Raybould could speak her truth, even if Liberals block return to justice committee

Read Did SNC-Lavalin enable Gadhafi’s brutality?

Read The impossible position: Canada’s attorney-general cannot be our justice minister

Read OECD says potential job losses not a reason to shelve SNC-Lavalin prosecution

Read The Globe canvassed all liberal MPs on SNC, here are their responses

Read Indigenous leaders applaud Wilson-Raybould, but stay clear of criticizing Trudeau

Read Wilson-Raybould on SNC-Lavalin and Trudeau: What you missed from her bombshell testimony, and what it means

Read What are the PMO and PCO, and what do they do? A guide for the SNC-Lavalin affair

Read SNC-Lavalin, Jody Wilson-Raybould and Trudeau’s PMO: The story so far

Read Jody Wilson-Raybould and the paradox of reconciliation in Canada

Read Jody Wilson-Raybould’s accusation goes to the very heart of Canadian justice

Read Trudeau has lost the moral mandate to govern

 

Watch Abacus CEO discuss the impact of the SNC-Lavalin affair on the Trudeau government:

 

Watch Power and Politics visualize key dates and events outlined by Wilson-Raybould’s testimony:

 

Watch Steven Ledrew judges Trudeau’s transparency test on SNC-Lavalin:

 

Watch Steven Ledrew argue for why Trudeau should resign over SNC-Lavalin:

 

Watch Lorrie Goldstein scrutinizing Trudeau’s track record to date and handling of SNC-Lavalin affair:

 

Watch: MP Michelle Rempel breakdown the sequence of events from the RCMP charges against SNC-Lavalin to the testimony of Jody Wilson-Raybould:

 

Watch CBC compare Butts’ and Wilson-Raybould’s versions of SNC-Lavalin affair:

 

Watch Andrew Coyne’s reaction to Gerald Butts testimony and the SNC scandal:

 

Watch Jody Wilson-Raybould comment on the Colten Boushie court case (on indigenous relations and the justice system):

 

Watch Trudeau’s year end sit down with Evan Solomon ‘Canadians expect me to stand up for the rules’:

 

Watch Trudeau speak about energy east pipeline July 20, 2015:

 

Watch Christie Blatchford ask why Liberals are so cozy with SNC-Lavalin:

 

Watch BLG perform a body language reading of Trudeau’s response to Wilson-Raybould’s testimony:

New Free Speech Mandate And Why it Matters

 

35154585230_03052ac26d_b

Watch: Students react to most outrageous cases of campus censorship

Sheridan College, which has campuses in Brampton, Mississauga and Oakville, has announced that as of Jan 1, 2019 they will be adopting a new free speech policy.

Although faculty, students and staff are free to criticize, contest and condemn the views expressed on campus, they may not obstruct, disrupt, or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loath, – Sheridan college’s statement of principles.

The free speech policy consists of five core elements:

— A definition of freedom of speech

— A commitment to allow open discussion and free inquiry.

— A statement that it is not the college’s role to shield members of the college community from ideas they disagree with.

— A statement that while members of the college community are free to contest the views of others, they must also respect the rights of others to express their views.

— An affirmation that speech that violates the law is not allowed.
twitter
This is all after the Ontario provincial government mandated all University and College campuses to adopt strong free speech policies by the new year otherwise they would face funding cuts. This coming after a series of disturbing breaches to free speech on campuses across the country. This demonstrates a real divide in the country since the election of US president Donald Trump. There are those among us who have decided that free speech enables hate speech. And that advocating for free speech is simply apologizing for deplorable speech.
Now, if you’re among those who have been pretty tuned out of the free speech debate over the last few years then this all may seem like just more political rhetoric. If you’re reacting to this like my friend Rob, “Umm, I’m pretty sure that’s because free speech was already protected in Ontario and this is just virtue signalling to the triggered ‘kids these days’ crowd,” then allow me to highlight just some of the things that have been happening and entertain the trickle down effect campus culture has on the rest of our culture.

Watch: TVO, The Agenda with Steve Paikin: Freedom of Expression on Campus

1. Lindsay Shepherd vs Laurier University.

It all started when Lindsay Shepherd, a WLU T.A. who was teaching a grammar class, showed a clip from the TVO show, The Agenda with Steve Paiken. This episode happened to feature Jordan Peterson at the peak of his bill C-16 controversy. The episode was discussing the gender based pronouns. After Shepherd played the clip she was notified by her professor that she was to meet him for a meeting as apparently there had been one or more complaints made against Shepherd. Suspecting she was being hauled in over the video she showed she decided it would be a good idea to record the meeting.
It was a good thing she did because if she hadn’t, no one would believe her outlandish story about her professor accusing her of showing off nazi propaganda. The recording Lindsay leaked revealed her professors accusing her of being irresponsible for exposing the students to the content in a neutral manner. He went on to criticise that it was like neutrally playing something from Hitler or Milo Yiannopoulos. Basically she was being disciplined for not attempting to shape the students opinion. However Lindsay pushed back to say that the role of the University was in fact to challenge students values and perspectives.
Watch: Benjamin A Boyce created a series of video critiques following Laurier
Once the story blew up in the public TVO had the WLU president and vice-chancellor, Deborah MacLatchy, on to discuss the matter. However throughout the, over 14 minute, interview she refused to outright say that Lindsay had done nothing wrong. An independent third party investigation was launched and it found that there had been no complaint made and that the grounds for Ms. Shepherd’s disciplining was baseless.
But that didn’t stop the University from continuing to mistreat Ms. Shepherd. She was reassigned to another professor who was simply vicious with her and was more than happy to create a toxic workplace for Shepherd. Until eventually she had nullified Shepherd’s role as T.A. for the remainder of the year. Harassment of her peers and students went un-mediated as Shepherd first attempted to hold a Q&A with guest speaker Faith Goldy but had the event shut down when students pulled the fire alarm. In a second attempt to host the event with Mrs. Goldy the University itself demanded a security fee of $28,500 before allowing the event to proceed. And then when they were unable to accumulate the funds demanded, they were denied their request to host the event.
Lindsay Shepherd is currently suing Wilfred Laurier for their ongoing mistreatment of her. 
Benjamin_Franklin_freedom_of_speech_quote

2. Valerie Flokstra vs University of the Fraser Valley

Watch: Benjamin A Boyce Interviews Valerie Flokstra

Students were told premature births were contributing to increased autism diagnoses. Flokstra questioned whether high abortion rates in Canada could be playing a role, citing studies showing a link between abortion and later premature births.

Asking that made the classroom an unsafe space, the 22-year old was told.

Flokstra covertly recorded the hour-long meeting with Prof. Nancy Norman, in whose class the incident took place, and Prof. Vandy Britton, the head of the teacher education department. Fearing academic reprisal, she waited until after graduation to share the audio. She now works as a teacher at a British Columbia private school.

Flokstra’s ordeal has numerous similarities to what former Wilfrid Laurier University graduate student Lindsay Shepherd experienced last year. In fact, Flokstra credits Shepherd’s ordeal with motivating her to record the meeting in the first place.

Much like with Shepherd, Flokstra’s professors attempt to couch offensive recommendations with an “I’m on your side” attitude, using social justice as a trump card over academic inquiry. Just as Shepherd’s professors compared Jordan Peterson to Adolf Hitler, Flokstra was told discussing abortion is like a UFV KKK club.

It’s this attitude, particularly in the teacher education program, that Flokstra said she wanted to challenge by releasing the audio.

– Andrew Lawton, fellow at the True North Initiative

Thomas_Jefferson_freedom_of_speech_quote

3. Men’s Issues Awareness Society student group denied funding at Ryerson U

A male student attempted to create a men’s issues student group but was met with protests and slander as a feminist collective had funding refused from the group and went on a smear campaign to label Kevin Arriola, the student applying for the group, as a misogynist. Despite the fact that about half the group was made up of women. On Oct. 27, 2015, MIAS was informed its application for club status had been rejected. Kevin Arriola took the Ryerson Student Union to court with representation by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. But the case was dismissed, the judge saying it, “had no merit,” to it.

“It’s the kind of culture and climate that exists around these group… even if it’s not the group itself,” said Alyson Rogers, one of the founders of the Ryerson Feminist Collective. “It’s a gathering area for people who are anti-women, anti-feminist and rape apologists. A lot of the issues that men face comes from the privilege of being men. Patriarchy is oppressive to women but it also deals men a bad hand. Even if half their membership is women… We’re more concerned about the ideology as opposed to the makeup of the membership.”

“We have explicitly said we are not a feminist group, but we are not an anti-feminist group as well,” Arriola said.

Watch: CBC’s Sunday Talk Panel featuring Jonathan Kay on The MIAS group

800px-George_Washington_freedom_of_speech_quote

4. Rick Mehta vs Acadia University

Watch: Gad Saad interviews Rick Mehta (The Saad Truth_724)

 

Rick Mehta was fired despite his tenured position with the University for critical comments made around the truth and reconciliation commission, feminism, identity politics, immigration and decolonization. He was then only offered a copy of the report that lead to his firing if he would sign off on what he called a “gag order” agreement.

 

5. Danielle Robitaille cancelled event at Laurier over safety concerns

A student group studying criminology sought to host a lecture by Danielle Robitaille, Jean Ghomeshi’s lawyer. But mobs formed opposition and with a lack of time to coordinate a security detail Robitaille cancelled. “Even without uttering a word, one of the main points in my speech has been made: the complaints and the call to cancel my talk rest on a fundamental misunderstanding of the justice system and the nature of the role of defence counsel in the adversarial process,” Robitaille wrote in her response to the student group who invited her.

 

6. Universities allowing Social Justice Mobs to shut down events and lectures

Whether it’s Jordan Peterson hosting a lecture about the value of free speech or Janice Fiamengo questioning the ethics around modern day feminism, Universities intentionally under staff security to these events when they know protests will take place. At Jordan Peterson’s lecture at Queen’s one protestor brought a Garrote and another damaged the stain glass windows of the lecture hall from bashing against the glass. Or in Lindsay Shepherd’s case after a mob pulled a fire alarm, the University prevented the event by demanding a security fee of $28,500.

Watch: SJW Mobs at Queen’s University

Watch: SJW Mobs at McMaster University

 Watch: TVO’s Agenda with Steve Paikin, Free Speech: At what cost

Watch: SJW Mobs at Wilfred Laurier University

 

7. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Centre for Constitutional Freedoms University rating chart

The Centre for Constitutional Freedoms does a full detailing of data about the state of free speech on 60 Canadian public universities. The Campus Freedom Index grading methodology is found here.  Each university receives four letter grades: one for each of university policies, university practices, student union policies, and student union practices. Using a five-tier letter scale—A, B, C, D and F—the Campus Freedom Index grades universities and student unions on their stated policies (what they say) and their practices (what they do).

Some of their findings which I did not mention here already were:

  • Dalhousie University earns an ‘F’ for its decision to launch an investigation against undergraduate student Masuma Khan, over remarks she made on social media that offended some readers.
  • Saint Paul University earns an ‘F’ for its decision to cancel a planned film screening about abortion.
  • The University of Guelph earns an ‘F’ for refusing to allow a pro-life student group to hold a tabling event about abortion.
  • The University of Victoria earns an ‘F’ for condoning vandalism and disruption of a sanctioned student-organized pro-life event.

Twit 4

 

The “trickle down effect” that campus culture has on the rest of society can be observed in some of the latest changes among social media platforms. Twitter has now updated it’s conduct policy to ban hateful conduct such as misgendering, deadnaming or “promoting harm”. Yet it makes a clear distinction between those it deems to be within their “protected category membership” and those that are not. That’s how people like Megan Murphy and Jesse Kelly get banned. Whereas twitter actively permits people like Louis Farrakhan tweet things like, “I’m not an anti-Semite. I’m anti-Termite.” And known terrorist groups like Hamas don’t get their twitter accounts removed. So it’s official. You talk about Bruce Jenner’s work in the olympics and Twitter actually believes you’re worse than terrorists. Actually.

And then there was Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, delivered a speech while accepting the Anti-Defamation League’s first-ever Courage Against Hate award at an event in New York City. He said, “We only have one message for those who seek to push hate, division and violence: You have no place on our platforms. You have no home here.”

“We believe the future should belong to those who use technology to build a better, more inclusive, and more hopeful world,” Cook continued. “I believe the most sacred thing that each of us is given is our judgment, our morality, our own innate desire to separate right from wrong. Choosing to set that responsibility aside in a moment of trial is a sin.” This religious framework was no coincidence.

The ideology of identity politics operates like a doctrine which overrides reason and logic. Tim Cook may be a brilliant man but if he insists on viewing life through the context in which intersectionality provides then it won’t be long before the category of “white supremacist” becomes a blanket term which is used to categorize anyone who disagrees. And when your doctrine persecutes comedians, the gulags are not far away.

We’re already seeing a doubling down on this banning culture where now Patreon has been purging it’s platform of those it considers guilty of hate speech. With the deplatforming of Sargon of Akkad, a gamergate free speech advocate, pro-brexiteer and mere internet troll. He used the “N” word to insult an actual ethno-nationalist, white supremacist in a fight they were having. He called the actual neo nazi the “N” word because to them, there is no greater insult. Like when engaging with another in road rage, you don’t first consider whether or not your critique out the car window is politically correct enough or not.

7757625298_b489ecea59_n

Not that I’m making the case that it’s ever ok to use such charged language, I must say, to separate myself from the violation in question. In order to play the game by the crazy’s rules in this upside down world of “words are violence”. But what’s worthy of note is that Sargon did this impulsively on another person’s content which THEY chose to leave in. And this was not something that took place over Patreon. Nor did it directly violate Patreon’s terms and conditions. And he was not given any warning, second chance or opportunity to appeal. Overnight he lost his income which enabled him to commit towards content creation.

And he may be an offensive troll but there is no doubt that he is not a white supremacist. Not to mention that if you search the “N” word on Patreon you find about 9 page results in references to it. So, like any message board or comment enabled media, it’s a very commonly used. So why Sargon? Perhaps he’s just enough of a troll that a cost vs benefit analysis can be experimented with in the lead up to the 2020 American elections. Creators began moving to a competitor site, Subscribe Star, but within less than a week Paypal, the payment processor used by these platforms, refused to service Subscribestar. Coincidence? Or antitrust violation?

Eric Weinstein said that in order to make moves against the IDW they would need to act in the light. And they are indeed making their political motivations very clear by the unjustified nature of their actions. But creators see through the vague explanations and the inconsistencies and are currently working on an alternative platform to rival Google’s attempts to silence all those who refuse to bend a knee to the accepted narrative.

And now with this UN global compact using the terminology “irregular migrant” as opposed to “illegal migrant” will we see a crackdown on independent media over the use of the word “illegal”? Another example on how technical language becomes reshaped into moralized language. Exactly for the purposes of communication. So when legitimate media has questions to hold politicians accountable they now have the ability to skirt disagreeable questions by dehumanizing the person asking the question. Liberals don’t answer to bigots.

That is why we must stand for free speech, in all forms, shapes and sizes from every institution through to every corporation and down to every personal conversation. You may not like all speech you hear, so combat it with better speech. By shutting down and silencing the ability to express oneself freely, the cure will become more harmful than the problem. Speech is no different today than it was 30 years ago. In fact it’s probably a lot better considering average joes like me actually say “N” word. But it’s technology that elevates it and it’s trolls who throw it in our faces, forcing us to look at it. What we have is a technology problem, not a speech problem. We need to stop this madness before someone decides to program this condemnation of hate into the AI that will bring upon the singularity and once it realizes that every human has the capacity in their heart for hate, it decides to end the human experiment. This is not so unbelievable if you’ve been reading the new york times lately.

 

Watch: Benjamin A Boyce edit of Tim Cook’s comments

 

Watch: Jordan Peterson delivers lecture on free speech

 

If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise; we do not believe in it at all.

– Noam Chomsky

Trump’s worst fake news claim yet

 

my goals

A photo on the Facebook page of the deep-south born white American showed shoes. “Other guy goals,” the caption read. Below it was a photo of a cache of military-style firearms. “My goals,” read the post by the man, who identified himself in his profile as “John Smith.” He has since deleted the post. On Facebook, the man described himself in a recent post as a “MAGA warrior residing in the land of godlessness”

But more than two years after flying back to Georgia and telling reporters he participated in the brutal Trump rallies in Las Vegas, he has not been arrested.

“No unbeliever can touch me,” he said in a recent text message to a former friend, who shared it with local news sources.

The Trump administration was to respond Tuesday to a House motion that called for “a plan to immediately bring to justice anyone who has promoted hate or participated in any violent activity.”

Although introduced by the Democratic opposition, the house supported the Oct. 22 motion, which specifically urged action against those “who are in America or have American citizenship.”

“This President has failed to secure America so badly that genocidal maniacs feel safe to brag to their friends about our President’s fecklessness,” House Judiciary Committee member Michelle Rempel said during Question Period on Monday, referring to the local news report about the white American.

In response, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said police and security agencies “are far more proficient at securing the country and keeping Americans safe than the alleged sources that are referred to by the opposition.

 

person reading the daily fake news newspaper sitting on gray couch
Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com

OK. Full stop. Let’s take a moment to digest all of this. This could be direct evidence as to how exactly Trump is enabling violent discourse throughout the country. The only problem with this is that the real fake news is me. This isn’t actually a story about Trump. I mean, it’s a real news story but this has nothing to do with America. It’s about a former ISIS fighter in Syria who our Trudeau government has invited back home.

 

Fake: “MAGA warrior residing in the land of godlessness”

Real: “Mujahid residing in Dar al Kufr” — a jihadist fighter in the land of disbelief.

Fake: after flying back to Georgia and telling reporters he participated in the brutal Trump rallies in Las Vegas, he has not been arrested.

Real: after flying back to Toronto and telling reporters he had served in the brutal ISIS police in Syria, he has not been arrested.

 

What I have done here was an intentional attempt to provoke you. But to provoke you in a meaningful way. To challenge your preconceived notions. To apply your values in one situation to another which merely poses the same question, do we oppose government officials who denigrate journalism that questions their decisions and policy? Because even though Ralph Goodale was more articulate than needing to call Global News fake news or the enemy of the people, he’s still outright denying the legitimacy of the report.

It’s the fact he’s merely dismissing it outright rather than opposing it with contradictory information. This new Liberal tactic of if you’re unethical I don’t need to talk to you. Only their criteria for what’s unethical borders around whether or not you disagree with them. And we all know how the Trudeau Liberals feel about borders. The reason this is such a big deal is because this isn’t a report discussed on fringe news medias like independent youtubers or the detested Rebel Media. It’s Global News, among the mainstream media. But he’s treating them as if they were Rebel Media by simply discrediting their journalism.

Why? Because it counters the Liberal narrative so it must be opposed. It’s not about truth. And that’s why this assault on free speech is so disturbing. Because the only “evidence based” journalism they acknowledge is that which has no objectivity. This is why we are seeing more and more questions posed to this government being met with claims of fake news or promoting hate or illegitimate due to it’s phobic orientation. These are slurs, not arguments, not answers. All to simply silence opposition by taking to a moral high ground to signal one’s virtues to the world rather than actually face scrutiny.

The photo I shared at the top I made up to mimic the real photo on the official Global News website. And the guy who posted the facebook image was Abu Huzayfa. But the only alteration to the text message, “No unbeliever can touch me,” was the word “unbeliever” with the Arabic word “kafir” which translates into non-believer. I even left in Michelle Rempel’s real name to see if anyone would catch the hint. Or at least hopefully expose how little you pay attention to question period in the house of commons.

I mean, I get it, who has time to watch question period? But that doesn’t stop us from forming our stubborn opinions and act like armchair experts. It doesn’t stop us from voting to prop up a government that does not have our best interests at heart. It’s exactly what allowed Doug Ford to become premier. Because when I warned all my friends during the PC leadership that if they didn’t get involved then Doug Ford could win I was met with “oh, but I don’t vote conservative.” Well guess what. Ford Nation shows up to vote every time for every situation for every election. And after Doug Ford beat Christine Elliot by only like 200 votes, you now have the premier you truly deserve.

 

Real: Michelle Rempel asked the public safety minister Ralph Goodale, “This prime minister has failed to secure Canada’s borders so badly that genocidal maniacs feel safe to brag to their friends about our prime minister’s fecklessness,” Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel said during Question Period on Monday, referring to the Global News report about the Pakistani-Canadian.

Real: In response, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said police and security agencies “are far more proficient at securing the country and keeping Canadians safe than the alleged sources that are referred to by the opposition.

 

The greater point I am trying to make here is that we all need to have our preconceived notions challenged from time to time. I am by far no exception to this. But voting is more than a mere civic duty, it’s about fulfilling your role in a democracy predicated upon the sovereign individual. A value structure that is not shared globally. A value structure that is itself attacked wherever individual freedoms and liberty are suppressed. And every person who abandons their role in such a value structure is enabling those who would revoke such freedoms and liberties. Honestly, if you don’t want to participate in the western experiment then why don’t you opt out of it? Move to Saudi Arabia where the laws and rights are very structured and where you don’t have to be responsible for government. Just simply let the Monarchs bear all the responsibilities that come with governing. You do what your told and then you get to live out your days. Sounds way better than any patriarchal tyranny going on here in the west, for sure!

To allow ourselves to fall back into the apathy of group think and vote based on the tribe we subscribe to is a betrayal to the core values that was the foundation that our democracy was built on. We need to vote on issues. Issues are colour blind. And though a party governing philosophy, local representation and leadership weighs greatly on who we decide to support we also need to have the honesty to look within ourselves to observe what the issues are of the day and who is best representing the initiative to face the challenges ahead. We often become dispossessed by the present we inherited by our past but we always forget that the future depends on what we do now, in the present.

When claims of fake news looks like this, it’s easy to oppose:

But when someone more articulate dismisses questions with a more civil demeanor it’s much harder to discern what’s actually going on. But when a politician refuses to answer a question there’s a reason why. And in this case the Liberals are not answering questions on carbon tax, asylum seekers, ISIS fighters returning to Canada and now this “non-binding” UN Global Compact they’ve been working on since 2016. When asked about the Tori Stafford killer Terry Lynne McClintic going from a prison to a healing lodge Trudeau literally just called the conservatives “ambulance chasing politicians“. You could literally see the hit of dopamine in his eyes from the smugness he thrives on. I’m just saying that if Fox news can stand in solidarity with CNN to defend free speech then we should also be willing to hold those accountable who seek to stifle access to information, deny the right to speak freely or defame those who scrutinize.

Before I end this I want to provoke you with one more thing. I want to address the actual story here because I want to point out something very important, which is why I decided to get out of bed at 4:00am to start this. When the Pakistani-Canadian texted his friend, “No kafir can touch me,” he was absolutely correct. We need to ask why we even have laws or borders or rules at all in general. Because there is a value system behind those laws. It’s called the spirit of the law. And it embodies the intent of those who wrote the laws. And the motivation behind those intentions were moral values. Judeo-Christian values such as the dignity of human life.

The Liberals are following the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. The problem with the written law as words on paper is the ambiguity of language. It allows for loopholes to be exploited. There could be no better example of this than the case of Terry Lynne McClintic. You can’t commit a more egregious crime than what she did. And to find yourself in line with defending her actions, in my opinion, puts you in contempt of the court. If laws do not uphold our moral values then justice is not being served. It is a moral distinction between what is right and wrong. It is the written laws that enables us to act on those moral distinctions. Therefore without the spirit, the law itself is hollow. So sometimes we need to stop, take a step back and reassess whether or not we are doing the right thing.

Based on how Liberals follow rules, there is no reason to believe that they will act on any punishment against these returning ISIS fighters. They openly seek to rehabilitate them. As if they committed some misdemeanor. Get caught for rolling through a stop sign and you will face more persecution than any of these ISIS war mongers who behead, weaponize rape and vow to God to oppose each and every one of us simply by our identity. There is no “rehabilitating” a fundamental commitment to hatred and violence. And what remains of ISIS is learning that the best way to destroy the west isn’t to actually fight them, it’s to stand with us and allow us to fight ourselves until they merely inherit the ruin that remains.

black and white black and white depressed depression
Photo by Kat Jayne on Pexels.com

I say this because today’s political correct culture allows for there to be double standards. It’s ok to condemn christians in the name of free expression. But say anything bad about Islam or Muslims and that’s blasphemy. Sorry, I mean “Islamophobic”. Which takes priority over your sovereign speech. Every time we appease the ouroboros SJW mob and bow to political correctness, we forfeit our freedoms and liberties. And I do sincerely apply this to every possible scenario because we already have amendments on freedom such as libel and defamation laws and incitement of violence laws. Everything else is up to the society made up of sovereign individuals within our sovereign state to enforce, it is not the role of government to legislate and compel.

If I were this Pakistani ISIS fighter I’d lawyer up and probably within a year I could find myself in a hotel room like the asylum seekers or with an out of court settlement for 10 million dollars like convicted terrorist Omar Kadhr, or both. And Trudeau himself would probably pose for selfies with me as the cherry on top. Because that’s how you follow the letter of the laws to destroy a country from within in the same way an infection kills it’s host. These are issues that we should all be able to agree on. And we should all stand to tell Trudeau loud and clear that we must have justice. And allowing ISIS to freely walk among us is to surrender to those who seek to conquer us.

You are a part of this culture war whether you want to be or not. And in this war silence is consent. Generations before you have built a society to honour you every single day. It’s time to take your place in the greater destiny of the world and uphold the values you’ve benefited from. It’s the Trudeau government itself which requires rehabilitation. Trudeau may have won the last election based on a popular vote but let’s not forget that before they even lost official opposition status. They have been out of touch with people for a very long time and even now the values they portray are that of special interest groups based on a regressive ideology that rejects enlightenment principles. All I ask is that you pay attention with open eyes and you challenge your preconceived notions as you pursue truth first before anything else.

 

Watch Michelle Rempel discuss what happened during question period more in depth:

 

Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent.
-Spock and McCoy, “And The Children Shall Lead”

It’s Time to Ban Banning

Photograph_of_Mrs._Reagan_speaking_at_a__Just_Say_No__Rally_in_Los_Angeles_-_NARA_-_198584 (1)

Nancy Regan declared a war on drugs in 1982 when she told a highschool student to “just say no” to drugs. It launched a whole movement but critics are saying today that it may have actually made drug use worse. I wonder what Nancy would say today with the opening of these safe injection sites like those around Toronto and Vancouver. Yes, drugs are bad but we didn’t get anywhere treating the people who take them as bad. And there’s a hell of a lot more nuance to substance abuse than just the substance. I think we generally all understand this. And maybe it’s because substance abuse is old as time.

But yet with most other things we tend to push to ban any and all things surrounding a problem. After the Danforth shooting people cried for Toronto Mayor John Tory to ban handguns. Despite the fact that the Danforth shooter was not using a legal gun so a gun ban would not have changed any of the events anyway. It was being said that the gun was smuggled across the US border and now CBC is saying the gun belonged to his brother. Either way you look at it, a gun ban wouldn’t have prevented the shooting nor will it prevent future shootings. But that didn’t stop Toronto Mayor John Tory from calling for provincial and federal support in banning handguns and ammunition sales in the greater Toronto area. “Why does anyone in this city need to have a gun at all?” John Tory asked in a press conference in response to the greektown shooting. But let’s be real. The only people who are hurt from a gun ban are legal, responsible gun owners.

But it sure is eerie how similar it sounded to the London Mayor’s tweet, “there is never a reason to carry a knife.” London currently has gun restrictions to address violent crimes and now stabbings have gone up and they’re currently talking about possible bans on knives. Will it take banning of every utensil or sharp object before someone steps up to finally address the implications of fatherlessness, PTSD among refugees we attempt to integrate into society, community based policing or gang culture which is prominent in the neighbourhoods in poverty? Nope, that means we have to actually talk about the differences between us all in society and that’s just targeting the vulnerable and that’s discrimination. Words are violence and ideas are dangerous!

Untitled2

Thankfully the province had the sense to not support a gun ban. They increased funding to the police to put more cops on the streets and specialty services. Because what we have isn’t a gun problem, it’s a gang problem. It seems like there were cops who were abusing their powers. Did they decide to crackdown on the bad apples? Did they explore possible protections like body cams to hold all police more accountable? No, Toronto decided that carding was a racist practice and they decided to just ban carding all out. Oh, then gang violence spiked to record levels? No, there can’t be any correlation there. And we are seeing less police engagement as we do more and more to tie their hands. I’m not saying I have all the answers but I know we’re addressing the wrong issues for the sake of looking virtuous.

Untitled

Another great example is anytime you see Trump take a position on anything, the left feels the need to oppose it to the utmost extreme. This is Trump Derangement Syndrome. Where feelings fuel your thinking. And so if Trump calls for a border wall? Trump wants to limit migration? Well then borders are racist! Ban all borders! Open borders for all! Really? All those egalitarian countries you love, did they get there by opening their borders? It even extends to hating those who enforce immigration laws as people protest ICE agents. Even Barack Obama was talking about cracking down on illegal border crossers and those who employ them.

These things don’t actually make things better, they just create more problems. You can see this kind of hysteria legislation in the upcoming UN Global Compact (which is a whole series of blog posts in it’s own right coming soon) where they seek to literally change the language of “illegal immigrant” to “irregular immigrant” so even the very discussion around illegals will be deemed discriminatory rhetoric.

#welcometocanada

We’ve been seeing this attitude in science with climate change. For me anyways, it started in 2015 when Mark Steyn decided to challenge the famous Michael Mann “hockey stick” climate graph. He was tied up for half a decade in the courts over it. But to have someone challenging climate science really felt like a climate denier. Steyn highlighted this when he was on the Agenda with Steve Paikin and pointed out to Steve that “it’s not a chair issue“. Like everything else that we move to ban and censor and sanction, we’re not mature enough to actually have the conversation. Despite the fact he was backed up by climatologist Tim Ball. He won his court battle against Michael Mann. Even the founder of greenpeace, Patrick Moore, has spoken out about the fraudulent science around climate change but it’s clear that if you are not a climate change scientist, you are a climate denier. How about I live by Al Gore’s example and stop once I have my own private jet.

There is no room for discussion. And all those who “deny climate change” must be silenced, deplatformed, shut up forever. In the effort to get everyone on board with climate change they feel the need to lie to people, which only pushes people away from climate change initiatives. Then there’s the conundrum of legislating against climate change. Which is too difficult so let’s just introduce a carbon tax to make people who pollute pay more taxes. But… we ALL pollute. So then you ALL pay #BecauseScience.

What’s going on in France right now is possibly the best example on how the left is failing its own people. President Macron may have had his moment to talk about how horrible nationalism is, completely dismissing the democratic system which gave him the mandate to look after such people of the nation he represents. Now there are riots in the streets and they’re being called bigots. The very people who were celebrated for voting down the french nationalists despite the countless acts of terrorism that traumatized the country. And that’s the thanks they get, because they don’t buy the bullshit of a carbon tax? Real classy.

three white windmills figure table decors
Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com

The new thing on campuses across the world is that words are violence and ideas are dangerous. So instead of using free speech to challenge disagreeable ideas or opinions it’s far easier to just ban free speech or deplatform. Some of the best examples of these are the protests held against Milo Yiannopoulos at Berkeley University which cost $100 000 during his first visit where protestors threw molotov cocktails at police. And then his second visit cost the University $800 000. Or when Ben Shapiro came to speak. Or Jordan Peterson at Queens University where one protestor carried a garrote. When words are violence you must ban free speech, they say. Free speech is an excuse for hate speech, they say. Well I say political correctness has gone too far.

group of people doing rally
Photo by Rosemary Ketchum on Pexels.com

Earlier this year Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others all decided to ban Alex Jones. Though there were references to comments made around his Sandy Hook conspiracy, there was no specific explanation as to how exactly Jones had broken the platforms code of conduct. More recently, Twitter just updated their hateful conduct policy to grant them the right to ban accounts who engage in misgendering or deadnaming trans people and other forms of hateful targeting of members within their “protected category”. And they’ve wasted no time in suspending accounts from people like Megan Murphy, who is controversial for advocating for women only spaces (i.e. women only gyms) to barr trans women (male to female). Also decorated peacekeeper and journalist William Ray had his blog (The Tranish Inquisition) removed off of “medium” and then was suspended on twitter. Even James Woods found himself suspended for tweeting out two apparently hoax hashtags (#LetWomenDecide and #NoMenMidterms). Their reasons being that his tweets could affect the political process. As if censoring tweets isn’t interference. “This is not about a celebrity being muzzled. This is about an American being silenced — one tweet at a time.”

Untitled

Twitter apparently subscribes to this ideology from the trans movement that because some people have gender dysphoria then we should all be compelled to address people by their choice of pronouns, despite how vague or inaccurate or nonsensical. It’s to such an extreme now that to even identify that biological sex exists is a form of descrimination of it’s own, called essentialism. Because gender is all just a social construct and we can choose to be whatever we want if we could only be free of the oppressive patriarchy. Oh, but we’re going to still call them “trans” because they are transitioning from boy to girl. Or girl to boy. You know, gender reassignment surgery? If Gender was a social construct then you would never feel that you were in the wrong body. And I wonder what trans people are talking about when they refer to appearing “passable”. You mean, like, passable as the opposite gender? Should we target trans people who use the word “passable” as divisive hate speech rhetoric? If gender was truly a social construct then “misgendering” would be impossible and no one would require hormones. Well it’s clear what we must do, ban all biological sex!

And then there was Apple today with Tim Cook. “At Apple, we believe technology needs to have a clear point of view,” Cook said while addressing “those who seek to push hate, division or violence.” Well, none of those I’ve discussed here today qualify as “white supremacists”. And now you’re probably second guessing all those times you swiped to consent to apple to have access to all your personal information. Look, regardless what you define hate to be or whether or not you disagree with the positions of any of the people I’ve featured here, deplatforming doesn’t work. The whole reason Jordan Peterson is world famous now is in part because everyone has told you not to pay attention to him. Deplatforming reaps more division than any divisive comment.

But this is what we get for creating a world where everyone gets to have a voice. There are no private clubs or closed off group chats or anything that isn’t immediately accessible by the rest of the world. And so there is no privacy. So all the locker room talk and every opinion we disagree with is right there in front of our faces, promoted by third parties looking for clicks. Maybe we ought to address the nature of clickbait journalism and provocateurs. But we’re not mature enough for that. It’s far easier to just ban it all. If you don’t like the conversation, change the channel. When you’re so obsessed with spotting conflict you literally see everything as problematic. Now christmas classics are under fire just like old Disney movies. Like “baby it’s cold outside” was actually about rape. Rudolph the Red nosed Reindeer was only accepted for deviating from the norm because he was able to be exploited by the patriarchal Santa Claus. Santa Claus himself is now a white supremacist.

blue and white hate has no home here printed signage
Photo by Johan Bos on Pexels.com

Everyone was on board when Charlottesville happened. People carrying tiki torches and chanting “jews will not replace us“. Yes, that’s a nazi. Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Ted Cruz. These are all people who have said and done toxic, reprehensible things. Would I call them nazis? No, Alt right, sure. How about all conservatives? Nazis? Bigots? Now you’re starting to lose me. But now you’re putting other feminists, conservatives, scientists and me in the same camp as the guys carrying the tiki torch because we said “Bruce Jenner”? It’s so scary to see this snowballing assault on free speech. And how it’s actually celebrated. And it’s EXACTLY what the tiki torch carriers want.

Today it’s a simple twitter account. Tomorrow it’s all media that has any kind of conservative perspective. Then it’s all media that doesn’t agree to promote the “accepted narrative”. Then we will program AI to share these “values” and it’s only when we program them to “ban” all forms of hate speech that they suddenly move to end the human experiment. God knows if any one of us will survive that purge.

 

Society is too violent. BAN ALL GUNS!

Police profiling feels racially charged. BAN ALL CARDING!

Halloween costumes are cultural appropriation. BAN HALLOWEEN!

Ideas are dangerous. BAN FREE SPEECH!

Immigration isn’t fair. BAN ALL BORDERS!

Gender binaries don’t match everyone’s identity. BAN BIOLOGICAL SEX!

We pollute too much. BAN ALL CARBON FOOTPRINT!

 

It’s time to grow the fuck up and ban banning.

“The best way to fight hate speech is with better speech.” – Marilyn Mayo