Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to heaven yet at the same time likely to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. – C.S. Lewis
Two time university drop-out, former TV actor and son of former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau won leadership of the Canadian Liberal Party in 2013 and became Prime Minister of the country in 2015.
Following the recent passing of Motion M-103 (condemning ‘Islamophobia’, yet giving no definition to the term) by the Liberal government, Trudeau has been the subject of criticism regarding the vagueness of the motion, and potential for the future suppression of free speech which such rumblings bring.
The Prime Minister is no stranger to this type of controversy, however.
In 2016, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-16. The bill would make it illegal to deny opportunities, housing, employment and other benefits to people based on their “gender identity or expression”.
Where the controversy lay was in the criminalisation of ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate propaganda’ with regard to gender identity. The bill failed to define such things very clearly, and so made it unclear whether what we’re talking about is a statement such as “death to trans infidels”, or something more akin to “Do not recognise non-binary gender without sufficient evidence.”
One is an identifiable call to extermination and unarguably hate speech; the other a fair and reasoned position – even if it is often decried as hateful for it’s plain empiricism.
Hence the argument for clearer definitions of terminology when legislating, given the propensity of some to redefine ‘hate speech’ as anything which may cause offence to anyone.
Similarly, when members of the Trudeau cult were asked to rewrite M-103 in 2017 using clear, decoded language they flat out refused – as if Islamophobia wasn’t one of the most commonly abused (and widely misunderstood and re-definable) terms in contemporary political discourse.
This looks sneaky to say the least.
Beyond being a perplexing ideologue, Justin Trudeau is above all a hypocrite of the highest order.
I’d like to examine the Canadian Prime Minster’s failings and hypocrisies (and those of his administration) in three particular areas: first regarding transparency laws, second in his government’s stance on Islam and Islamophobia (particularly in light of M-103 and MP Iqra Khalid), and finally in his most staunch of convictions – feminism.
Transparency in Liberal Canada
The previous Harper government’s First Nations Financial Transparency Act 2013 required the auditing and publishing of remuneration and expenses paid to indigenous chiefs and council members – thereby supplying a transparent view of what public money was going towards.
In an effort to gain the support of Indian leadership, Trudeau’s regime have stopped enforcing the Transparency Act and unblocked millions of dollars worth of funding which was previously denied to First Nations which refused to comply with the law.
These actions come at immediate cost to indigenous Canadians, but also at the reduction of the right of all Canadian taxpayers to know where their money is going.
Canada has been promised by the administration that an agreeable replacement for the Transparency Act will materialise, but it seems a faint possibility and one not to be counted on.
In December 2015, shortly after Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Carolyn Bennett announced the change, iPolitics’ Alan Freeman wrote:
“While the Harper government’s relations with indigenous people may have been fraught, that doesn’t mean that everything they did has to be shredded. Rather than just halting application of the Transparency Act and promising a replacement sometime in the far-distant future, why not wait until an alternate piece of legislation is ready and apply the law of the land in the meantime?
By doing it this way, Ms. Bennett is rewarding the First Nations leaders who obfuscated and held back information from their own people — and all Canadian taxpayers. Both groups have a right to know how their dollars are spent.”
Following the initial introduction of the Act, it was found that some chiefs had been paying themselves fat salaries at the expense of their own communities, sometimes reaching into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It is then, not an overstatement to say that this move (guaranteeing Trudeau First Nations support in 2019) is a bribe paid in tax dollars.
As blatant of a suck up as this is (and at the cost of the people), it only becomes more repulsive in light of comments Trudeau made to a UN gathering in March 2016 following his acceptance of an award for the number of women in his cabinet – an achievement of which Mr. Trudeau has been quoted as saying he is “particularly proud”. (How profoundly patronising to the real achievements of Canadian women beyond simply being electable!)
The Canadian PM when speaking on gender equity, said that the way forward for getting women into big business roles is to force companies to “report explicitly on the gender balance in their organisation”.
This presents a telling juxtaposition in Trudeau’s thinking: forcing gender equity by way of transparency and the resulting scrutiny is considered desirable, but forcing proper use of First Nations funding by the same means is not.
It seems that the balance of power in boardrooms is of greater concern to the PM than the right of natives not to be swindled out of their government funding.
Following the comments, Rebel Media Co-founder Brian Lilley wrote:
“Justin’s happy to say that companies need to be more open and transparent, because it’s 2016, but he’ll let union bosses and native Chiefs off the hook because he needs to think about 2019.”
Trudeau displays a disturbing opportunism when it comes to transparency and freedom of information, but at least can boast the “world’s first gender equal cabinet”.
We’ve heard already of one female member of the administration, Carolyn Bennett and her questionable stance on the issue of First Nation funding.
Next let’s shift gears and examine the Islam debate raging in Canada at the moment, sparked in no small part by another such (equally questionable) member of Trudeau’s adherents: Iqra Khalid.
Islamophobia, M-103 and Iqra Khalid
“Beating without hurting, breaking a bone, leaving black or blue marks on the body, and avoiding hitting the face or especially sensitive places at any cost. The purpose of beating her is only to discipline and never retaliation or with desire to hurt by any means. Islam forbids severe beating as punishment. The Prophet has said:
“None of you shall beat his wife like a slave-beating and then have intercourse with her at the end of the day”.
This treatment has proved to be very effective with two types of women, as pyschologists have determined.”
The above excerpt is from a book called Women in Islam: The Common Misconceptions by a certain Dr. Abdul-Rahman Al-Sheha.
The passage goes on define the types of women who react well to being beaten:
“The first type: Strong willed, demanding and comandeering women.”
“The second type: Submissive or subdued women. These women may even enjoy being beaten at times as a sign of love and concern.”
The book then brings up (the too often quoted among extremists) psychologist G.A. Holdfield, and notes him as saying:
“women are known for bearing more pain than men. A wife, from this type of woman, becomes more attracted and admiring of her husband when he beats her.”
(And so on…)
I do not bring this publication to your attention simply to offend your most basic moral sensibilities, but because this book was distributed by a student association in 2014 at York University, Canada (an establishment we will be returning to twice more later).
One former member and President of the York University Muslim Student’s Association is now a prominent member of the ‘feminist’ Trudeau government: Iqra Khalid.
(Quite how women like Khalid contort themselves into the ability of reconciliation between such ideological opposites is almost incomprehensible.)
Iqra Khalid was born in Pakistan, before moving to Canada and studying at York University (where she lead the controversial Islamic group) and ultimately being elected to the House of Commons in 2015.
Khalid was the presenter of Motion M-103.
The 2017 motion condemned ‘Islamophobia’ and systemic racism, and in it’s wording suggested that the two were in some way similar.
Islamophobia is by some called a hatred of Muslims, and by others a condemnation of Islamic doctrine – by others still it is defined as a condemnation of Muslims for their adherence to Islam and it’s doctrine.
The main criticism of the motion, by Conservatives and Liberals alike, was that it offered no definition at all: leaving the government’s stance open to interpretation and future bills featuring similar wording open to abuse.
I, myself have been accused of Islamophobia before for merely making the statement that Islam has a problem with violence – something apparent to any reasonable observer and revelled in by fundamentalists of the religion of peace.
(A recent French study found that 1/3 of French Muslim girls aged 14-16 thought it acceptable to use violence in the name of Islam and of all major current global conflicts 2/3 of them involve an Islamic state or faction.)
It must be noted that while the motion calls for condemnation of “Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination”, Islamophobia is the only form mentioned by name.
It is interesting to note that the motion presented by Khalid, a former student of the Canadian education system, made no such specific mention of anti-Semitism – especially given the events of 2002 (at Concordia University) and 2009 (at Khalid’s own York University), during which Jewish students freedom of speech and physical safety were respectively thwarted and threatened.
In 2002, a speech at Concordia University by then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had to be cancelled due to student protests.
In 2009, more viscerally, Jewish students attending York University resorted to barricading themselves in office buildings, and were eventually escorted to safety by police, amid a crowd of thugs shouting “Die Jew” and banging on the office windows.
These injustices deserve no such pointed condemnation in the eyes of Khalid of Trudeau – the only difference being that they were committed against mere Jews.
So, in addition to Carolyn Bennett, Iqra Khalid can be added to the list of Trudeau’s Ministers who seem intent upon being viewed as taking a stand on moral issues, but only so long as it serves their crooked cause to do so.
Justin Trudeau names his cause as feminism and is never one to shrink away from a proud pronouncement of it.
Let’s look a little closer at the type of feminism which leads a Canadian Prime Minister to patronise the women of his country, ignore the prevalence of crime befalling natives and endorse by association one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet, to not only women but many minorities: Saudi Arabia.
Trudeau: The ‘Feminist’
The measure of any first world feminist government is two-fold: the effect had upon the woman of that country, and the effect had on women elsewhere in the world as a result of foreign policy.
In 2016, reports surfaced that a deal struck between Canada and Saudi Arabia had been misrepresented in such a way as to allow the Liberal government to both have their cake and eat it, so to speak.
The sale to Saudi Arabia of $15-billion worth of Light Armoured Vehicles (LAV, small tanks) had been signed by the previous Harper government in 2014, and was consummated and honoured by Trudeau’s Liberal government once in office – despite purported reservations.
It came to light in April 2016 that when the Liberals came to power, the deal was in fact far from a done thing.
The Globe and Mail reported at the time:
“The contract was signed in 2014, back when a Liberal government was a distant prospect. But it was revealed this week, final approval of the deal from Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion only took place a few days ago, on April 8. That ministerial approval, including a review of the potential for human rights violations by Saudi Arabia, was necessary to give the contract effect and allow the sale of billions of dollars’ worth of armoured fighting vehicles to go forward.”
It seems then that what was required of the Liberal government before the selling of LAV could be completed was a review of the potential for human rights violations in Saudi Arabia’s future.
In fact, not only were threats to human rights ignored by Dion and the administration, but the relevant Memorandum for Action reads (with striking déjà vu): “Canada appreciates Saudi Arabia’s role as a regional leader promoting regional security and stability, as well as countering the threat posed by Iranian regional expansionism and ISIS.”
This attitude bears an eerie resemblance to that of the US towards the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq in the not too distant past (the stance on Iran is identical), and one can’t help but feeling disgusted at such tacit support by the Liberal government for a regime which implements the absolute antithesis of feminism (or egalitarianism or basic freedom for that matter): Sharia law.
While the reasoning behind picking the lesser of two evils (if Canada are to continue their involvement in the Middle East) seems solid, when it comes to pronouncements of feminism the hypocrisy is almost tangible – which we can safely presume is the reason for the Trudeau government’s reluctance to be open about their part in the Saudi deal.
“Canada must stick to it’s word.” – Justin Trudeau, March 2016
In truth, Canada was in no way obliged.
The Saudi deal did provide jobs and an economic boost for Canada, and so could be construed as Trudeau (in an underhand and deceptive manner) putting the women of Canada before others – he is after all the Canadian Prime Minister.
Sadly, this admirable position has not been mirrored in any other policy making or accessible change in the past two years of Liberal government.
Canada features in 35th place in the World Economic Forum gender gap report, below countries such as Bahrain which implement Sharia law.
Despite Trudeau’s complaints about the ‘wage gap’, no legislation to tackle it has arisen – what has risen is the cost of childcare, making it harder for those women who want to work.
Following big promises to First Nations women during his election campaign, Trudeau has proven himself either too impotent or simply unwilling to follow up on them. Despite the promised inquiry into the death and disappearance of 4,000 indigenous Canadian women in the past 30 years, the inquiry has yet to hold a single hearing.
Pamela Palmater of Ryerson University in Toronto recently remarked “Justin is practicing token feminism. He made his cabinet half women, but these are women who are already privileged and in power. So, essentially, he shared some power around a small group of elites.”
I would add to this statement that not only are the women of the Liberal government already members of an elite, but they seem to care little for their fellow women, be they Canadian or otherwise.
To move away from policy and towards changing attitudes under Trudeau, the feminism of Canadian universities has been the deserving subject of much scrutiny.
Reports this month of plans for a ‘masculinity confession booth’ to be part of a four day ‘Man Up Against Violence’ event at the University of Regina are frankly disturbing.
The Washington Post reported:
“Meet up with [University of Regina Students’ Union] members and make a confession,” the group’s website reads. “We have all reinforced hypermasculinity one way or another regardless of our gender! … Come and share your sins so we can begin to discuss how to identify and change our ways!”
And quoted one male student as saying:
“We don’t have to continue to live in a misogynistic society, I think [changing this] falls on everyone and especially men because quite frankly we are the problem right now.”
This bizarre trend of recasting masculinity itself as a sort of ‘original sin’ by hard line feminists is nothing new, but the introduction of such insanity to university campuses remains shocking nonetheless.
I believe that asking men to confess their ‘sins’ of masculinity is the moral equivalent of considering women inherently sinful for their femininity, and ultimately amounts to thinly veiled misandry.
Beyond being misandry and a direct result of the Trudeau cult, this attitude does women yet another disservice by placing them in the role of the weaklings who are only to be emancipated through the putting down of their male counterparts and a great deal of hand holding.
Trudeau seems to be in complete support of such thinking, given his relish for quotas in business and indeed his own cabinet.
It is bizarre that someone with such a low opinion of women’s capabilities is so often hailed a great feminist.
When remarking on Justin Trudeau and his government, Oxfam’s Lauren Ravon said “You can’t overstate the importance of the first gender-balanced cabinet in Canadian history”.
This is something I heartily disagree with. It is far too often overstated and made out to be an achievement in itself irrespective of the historical and/or future achievements of said cabinet members.
It’s a sad state of affairs when the proponents of women’s rights think so little of women that they pat them on the back simply for gaining rank by way of quotas, rather than allowing them to be judged on their merit when operating within that position of power.
I believe women are as capable and adept as men, and shouldn’t be condescended to in such a way.
One Professor of Sociology and ‘Women’s Studies’ at York University said of the 2015 Liberal victory: “A lot of strong feminists I know cried when they saw half the ministers were women. The women appointed all identify as feminist themselves”.
Here is the encapsulation of the argument against this ideology: it doesn’t matter what they do, it doesn’t matter how many tanks they sell to Saudi Arabia, it doesn’t matter if indigenous communities see no justice for their 4,000 dead or missing women and it doesn’t matter if the freedom of speech and information of Canadians is threatened along the way.
All that matters is that they “identify as feminist”.
In recent months barely a week can go by without a flare of vapid dogma spewing from Justin Trudeau’s mouth, and it’s perfectly understandable!
There’s a good reason he has to keep saying he’s a feminist: because given his policy and legislation it is far from apparent.