Has Mr. Harper's Niqab's Misdirection Worked?

You decide.


H/t Michael Nabert

Meanwhile, Bruce Anderson wonders about the implications for our democracy in Mr. Harper's pontifications on what women should and should not wear.

Stephen Harper says covering your face is concealing, not expressing, a “Canadian” identity. He didn’t argue that it was a security threat. He was saying that if this is how you express your personal values, it’s not Canadian enough for his tastes.

Initially his comments were focused on the citizenship ceremony. But he has since wandered further, hazardously afield.

The problem, he says, is that the practice of wearing a niqab is rooted in a culture that is “anti-women.” He appeared to be generalizing about the Muslim faith. His reference was not specific to the Taliban or the Islamic State, or any radical faction.

His point was that those who cover their faces are not making a choice of their own free will – but are victims of subjugation.

You don’t have to be a Muslim to wonder if this line of commentary from a Prime Minister is a healthy development in our democracy.

Another Pundit Supports Trudeau's Rejection Of Sun News

Reaction continues to be mixed on Justin Trudeau's decision to boycott Sun News following resident madman Ezra Levant's tirade against his entire family. Pollster Bruce Anderson is now the second pundit to support the decision, as he makes clear in his inaugural digital column for The Globe and Mail.

His has several reasons for taking this stance:

First off, if a competing politician uttered the things that Mr. Levant said about Justin Trudeau, we would expect an apology or a resignation, or both. If we wouldn’t tolerate such shameful behavior among political competitors, what would it say about how low we are willing to see media standards fall, if there were no consequences.

Second, maybe someone can explain why any of us should have to answer to anyone for the sexual habits of our parents. I’ve never heard a voter in a focus group say “I’d vote for candidate x, if his or her parents had been more sexually conservative.”

Anderson also points out, in addition to the distasteful content of the Levant screed, it is inaccurate:

Watch Mr. Levant’s description of events, and then read the account of how the bride’s father saw the same moments. I suppose it’s possible that the father of the bride was lying, but I think another explanation seems more likely.

Labelling the unhinged Levant's performance an embarrassment to journalists, and to those in conservative politics that he is normally aligned with, Anderson feels that Trudeau's response was a reasonable one, since he is simply

holding the publisher to account and using what leverage he can muster. His goal seems not to end or disrupt or manipulate media relations in a permanent or pervasive way, but to say this isn’t normal and it shouldn’t be treated as such.

In the instances of such scurrilous attacks one can either ignore the insults or speak out against them. In Anderson's view the latter is the more noble choice:

I fielded one call from a conservative who said that Mr. Trudeau was taking the coward’s way out by refusing to engage with Sun. I tried hard to understand that logic.

But in the end I couldn’t help but think that cowardice in that situation is doing nothing to defend your honour, and that of your parents.

I certainly get the need to protect professional journalism. But this week anyway, it needs more protection against what Ezra Levant would do to it, than what Justin Trudeau would.

It has been my observation that, like the bullies they are, extreme right-wingers are quite happy to mete out abuse, but cry like babies when held to account. Expect no agreement with Andersen's defense of Trudeau from that quarter.

At Issue: Harper's Obfuscation

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary offers the following definition of obfuscate: to make obscure; to confuse. As an intransitive verb, it means to be evasive, unclear, or confusing.

I suspect that those engaged citizens following the details of the Senate scandal that continues to dog the Prime Minister and shows no sign of abatement would agree that both forms of the verb apply to the sad Nixonian performance of Stephen Harper and his operatives. During both Parliament's Question Period and TV interviews with the likes of his Parliamentary Secretary, Paul Calandra, the refrain is always the same: "I told Mr. Duffy to repay his inappropriate expenses," and "This was a secret deal between Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy."

As his channeling of Sgt Schultz grows increasingly predictable and tiresome, his credibility (if he really has any) diminishes proportionally. And yet to call the Prime Minister a liar would be unseemly for journalists, so euphemisms abound. Last night's At Issue Panel on The National offers some good examples; the discussion also leaves one with the very real sense of Andrew Coyne's barely contained disgust with the Prime Minister:

At Issue Panel Opines On Harper and the Scandal

I have a bit of a busy morning, so I only have time for a couple of short posts. For reasons I have indicated elsewhere, I rarely watch CBC's The National anymore. However, given yesterday's shameful and feeble refusal by the Prime Minister and his trained seals to address the rot engulfing his administration, I decided to watch a special At Issue Panel last evening.

Below, you can watch Andrew Coyne, Chantal Hebert and Bruce Anderson evaluate Mr. Harper's efforts:

CBC Truculence: Too Little, Too Late

About a year ago, I lamented the fact that the CBC, through Peter Mansbridge, seemed to be following a policy of appeasement toward the Harper government, probably in the forlorn hope of avoiding further decimation of its funding. Quite predictably, as we learned last week, that policy has proven to be an abject failure.

It is perhaps that realization that produced some 'fire in the belly' of last night's At Issues panel, which saw pretty much a uniform condemnation of the Harper regime over its gross and intentional misrepresentation of the true cost of the F-35 jet procurement program. The issue of ministerial responsibility got a pretty good airing on the panel.

I do, however, continue to be troubled by the presence of Bruce Anderson on the panel. Anderson, a senior 'spin' advisor, er, I mean public relations consultant, is described in his profile as 'one of Canada’s most experienced advisors specializing in issue, marketing and reputation management'. And it is through that lens that he evaluates the Harper regime misdeeds; as I noted in an earlier post when, on Tuesday's special panel, he wondered whether the issue will resonate with the public. He sang much the same tune last night, and while I truly hope that issues of public morality and basic democratic expectations cannot be reduced simply to public opinion, part of me fears that in this age of superficiality and a disengaged electorate, there might be some truth in his observation.

In any event, I hope if, on this Good Friday, you have about 15 minutes to spare, you will view last night's edition. As well, if you have an additional 3 minutes and 40 seconds to spare, I highly recommend for your delectation Rex Murphy's withering assessment both of Harper and Defense Minister Peter MacKay, describing the latter as an 'honourary cabinet minister' and an 'ornament.'

It is sad, however, that the CBC was unable to find its fortitude and integrity earlier, when it might have made a difference. I'm afraid that now, all of this 'sound and fury' does indeed signify 'nothing.'