Assesing Trudeau: A Guest Post By Pamela MacNeil

Yesterday, in response to my post about the Trudeau government's diluting the terms of the rules governing the export of arms, frequent commentator Pamela MacNeil offered these insightful observations:

I think "the terrible embargo on truth, honesty and openness," Lorne, will still be there with Trudeau. He can march on gay pride parades and support gender equality, which are good things, but he threatens the democratic and constitutional foundation these rights rest on. He has shown this with his support of the BDS motion and with his military deal with Saudi Arabia, to name a few of his decisions. The response he gives to violating Canadians' rights in these decisions is complete indifference.

His ignoring of amending or, better still, repealing Bill C-51 is very worrisome. The security and privacy risks it poses have already been enacted on some Canadians by CSIS. He may remain silent about it until he can find a way to keep it intact.

His foreign policies follow almost completely Harper's Neoliberal and American Imperial agenda. The U.S. expanding NATO troops, including Canada, in Eastern Europe along the Russian border is very dangerous.

Trudeau goes along and accepts the propaganda narrative that the U.S. is spewing about Russia. More then ever this is when we need a strong independent PM who at the very least questions U.S. foreign policy or, better still, says no to its request to go along with the deception.

The policies he creates in energy, climate change, trade and defence are not in Canadians' interest, but are in fact supporting special interests, especially the American Government's interests.

He is no different than Harper, including having his MPs toeing the party line. Where Harper was a miserable, petty personality, Trudeau is very likable. That is primarily where they differ. In developing policy, however, they are Neoliberal Imperial twins. This does not make him less an authoritarian then Harper.

Because of his strong positive personality though, it's going to take Canadians a long time to come to that conclusion.

When Canadians gave Trudeau his majority, we were ready to once again become a progressive, sophisticated country that respected the rights of all Canadian citizens including the rights of citizens of the world. Instead, Trudeau has embarked on a journey of making Canada a sycophant of the U.S. and is quite prepared to destroy our sovereignty in becoming that sycophant.

Where Harper was aware of what he was doing, Trudeau may be oblivious to the political and cultural consequences of his policy decisions. This doesn't make him any less dangerous.

Canadians are going to have a serious fight on our hands when we realize we're going to have to once again reclaim our democracy.

Are The Changes Only Cosmetic?

Despite unpromising predictions, Justin Trudeau led his party to overwhelming victory close to a year ago. And like political prisoners held captive by a foul and reactionary regime, Canadians began immediately basking in the freedom they were so long denied. According to a Toronto Star article, that basking continues to this day.

“People are welcoming this more active, bolder form of federal government,” said Frank Graves, president of EKOS Research Associates.

Graves said that the Liberals have been consistently polling above 40 per cent in popular support. His firm’s most recent survey had the Liberals at 46 per cent, the Conservatives at 26 per cent and the NDP at 15 per cent.

While I continue to feel much better than the years I chafed under the Harper cabal, it would be imprudent for any of us to simply turn our eyes away and merely trust Justin and his team to do the right thing. As many others have pointed out, there are some very troubling indicators that in many ways we are witnessing only a change in styles, not substance, from the previous regime. A cosmetic makevoer, if you will.

Thanks to Kev, who tweeted a link to this story, it would seem we have ample reason to worry, given the adamant refusal of Trudeau to reconsider the Saudi arms deal. Apparently his answer is to simply change the rules.

The Canadian government has quietly watered down its own mandate for screening the export of military goods, rewriting parts of the only substantive public statement available on Ottawa’s responsibilities for policing foreign sales.

The Report on Exports of Military Goods from Canada, published by the department of Global Affairs, offers the best insight into Ottawa’s export-control policy when it comes to screening deals to sell defence products to foreign customers.

Both the 2014 and 2015 versions of the Report on Exports of Military Goods were released recently by the Trudeau government. Like previous reports, they include several pages of prefatory statements that articulate the rationale and guiding principles for screening weapons sales.

As the saying goes, the devil is in the details, and something akin to the diabolical is to be noted here:

It has removed a phrase about how export controls are intended to “regulate and impose certain restrictions on exports” in response to clear policy objectives.

Instead, it substitutes more anodyne language saying the goal of Canada’s export controls on military goods is, in fact, to “balance the economic and commercial interests of Canadian business” with this country’s “national interest.”

This edit removes the only reference in the entire document to restricting and regulating the export of military goods.

In 1987, Ronald Reagan made famous an old Russian adage while negotiating an arms control treat with Mikhail Gorbechev: "Trust, but verify." Clearly, with this latest development, that advice is as applicable today as it was then.

The Power And The Glory

The power is nature's, and the glory is the human capacity for noble, courageous action, as you will see. Two bad that in the collective human psyche, we can't have more of the latter and less of a thirst for the former.

News From Dystopia

We interrupt this program to bring you important news. But please remember, as Johnny Carson used to say, "I merely report these things, folks. I don't make them up.

The Colorado Springs fire marshal gave a measured response after being attacked by GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump for not allowing his rally to get unsafely overcrowded.

Trump lashed out at Colorado Springs Fire Marshal Brett Lacey at his Friday rally, blaming him for the fact that not everyone who held tickets to the event could get inside — but Lacey said that was because rally organizers gave out too many tickets. The hall at University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, where the rally was held, holds a maximum capacity of 1,500 — and Lacey allowed 100 more inside after evaluating the crowd.

“The reason they won’t let them in is because they don’t know what the hell they’re doing,” Trump said Friday. “Now because of your fire marshal, who I am not a fan of, he’s probably a Democrat, probably a guy than doesn’t get it, I’m going to go into the other room and say hello to people that didn’t get your location.”

This came after Colorado Springs firefighters rescued Trump and about ten others from a stalled elevator just before his speech by prying open the top and lowering a ladder, according to KKTV.

Lacey responded by simply saying it is his job to make sure everyone is safe at such events.

“There’s an old adage that when a fire marshal walks into a room, milk curdles,” he told the station. “So because we’re always looking out for public safety and trying to make certain venues go off successfully and safely sometimes there are people that aren’t very happy with some of the rules and regulations that we’re required to enforce. But it doesn’t bother me at all.”

Lacey recently received recognition from the city for helping the wounded after the 2015 mass shooting at Planned Parenthood.

All Grown Up

But more of a menace than ever.

A Further Reflection

At the risk of seeming a tad obsessed about James Forcillo, I feel compelled to do yet another post on him and Sammy Yatim, the troubled teen he recklessly and needlessly gunned down three years ago.

We all know there is a great deal of injustice in the world, the bulk of which is not open to easy resolution. Sometimes all we can do is bear witness to that injustice and the suffering it causes. Although hardly an adequate response, a small gesture at best, it is, in my view, better than silence.

First, on the fact that Forcillo has been granted bail due to his pending appeal, this is what Justice Eileen Gillese had to say about releasing the criminal officer:

“Despite the seriousness of the offence for which the Appellant stands convicted,” she wrote, “in my view, fully informed members of the community will objectively understand and accept that it is not contrary to the public interest that he be released.”

The fact that he will now be under house arrest pending his appeal (which begs the question of whether house arrest will constitute 'time served' should his conviction be upheld) is not sitting well with everyone:

Criminal defence and constitutional lawyer Annamaria Enenajor, who wasn’t involved in the case, said there can be a disconnect between what the courts may consider to be supporting public confidence in the justice system and what the public actually feels.

“As a member of the public, I’m outraged by the conduct of Officer Forcillo but I also I view it in the broader context of police violence and impunity. So my understanding of what diminishes my confidence in the administration of justice might be quite different than that of a judge who is really only dealing only with the case in front of them,” she said.

“The reasonable person, who according to the court who is the holder of the public opinion, is somebody who trusts the police, believes the police implicitly and has confidence in them. And that’s not generally representative of many members of society.”

Annamaria Enenajor may be reflecting the concerns of the broader community here, but what about those of the Yatim family, who have suffered grievously over the loss of their son and brother?

Nabil Yatim, Sammy's father, speaks of their ongoing trauma:

Yatim, 68, is thoughtful, articulate, reflective, but he struggles to explain the pain of the past three years. “You go through hell and back — how I can describe that more?”

Immediately after getting the news of his son’s death while on a business trip in the U.S., Yatim, a retail management consultant, says he took things hour by hour, day by day. He became a “hermit,” never wanting to go out, avoiding family and friends, because the subject was always the same.

“You’ve been thinking about it all day and all night, the last thing you want to do is talk about it some more, so you become isolated,” he said. “And you just kind of nurse your wounds, in a sense. It was horrible. It still is.”

Harder still is the public nature of the family’s grief. Sammy’s death and the unprecedented conviction of a police officer for attempted murder have made international headlines. Yatim finds himself reluctant to introduce himself to strangers, knowing his name will prompt questions — are you related to Sammy?

“People are so nice, and they mean well, but sometimes you just don’t want to open up (your) wounds again, every minute of every day.”

With psychiatric help and medication, Yatim says he is at least now able to sleep. “I have a little bit more strength than I thought,” he said.

But he and his wife are not the only people contending with the aftermath of Sammy's death. Sammy's sister, two years younger than her brother, has undergone trauma that I think few of us can fully appreciate:

In the hours after Sammy’s death, it was Sarah, then 16, who had to identify her brother’s body. She is “traumatized,” and has dropped out of school. “I am very concerned about her,” Yatim said.

He is trying to get her professional help, even check her into a residence program to treat post-traumatic stress, but the family can’t afford it, Yatim said.

The other day, in speaking on the conviction of Forcillo, Mike McCormick, head of the Toronto police union, said,

“This is a tragic day for the Forcillo family, the Yatim family - there will never be any good outcome from this, it's tragic all around.”

That may well be, but perhaps Nabil Yatim's pained observation about Forcillo sums up a stark reality that puts things into a truer perpesctive:

“He gets to go home. My son sleeps in an urn.”

A Skating Party For Forcillo

What many of us feared has happened. James Forcillo has been granted bail:

Justice Eileen Gillese’s decision was released to counsel by email this morning.

“The Appellant’s release, pending the determination of his appeal, poses no risk to the public as there is no risk that he would commit further offences,” Gillese wrote.

“For the reasons given, despite the seriousness of the offence for which the Appellant stands convicted, in my view, fully informed members of the community will objectively understand and accept that it is not contrary to the public interest that he be released.”

I guess Justice Gillese's definition of the public interest is far narrower than mine. It should bother everyone that the public's interest in seeing justice swiftly served continues to be ignored.

Kind of gives new meaning to the term 'contempt of court,' doesn't it?