LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Years ago I came across a line attributed to Rudyard Kipling that if you go into the jungle, you must know what size beast you are.  I've never been able to source it properly, but if I ever do, I'll definitely send a copy to Justin Trudeau, whose effortless swinging from vine to foreign vine just ran into a giant surly panda.

Actually his travels through the international jungle have run into a series of dangerous animals.  It's not his fault they're out there.  He didn't elect Donald Trump with his perplexing nativist hostility to NAFTA.  Nor is he responsible for Vladimir Putin, Bashir al-Assad or any number of other nasty foreign leaders.  But it is foolish and vain for him to regard this jungle as a garden whose inhabitants are tame creatures much smaller than himself.

It is probably a conceit of leaders worldwide that their nation matters more abroad than it does.  I'm sure voters from Latvia to Mozambique like being told their homeland is a significant international player.  Hence Barack Obama's cliché that virtually every ally he visited "punches above its weight"; whether even slightly sincere, it was a crowd-pleaser everywhere.  And Canadian leaders from Pearson to Harper boasted that we were an "energy superpower" or a "moral superpower" or the world needed more Canada and was eagerly awaiting the next sanctimonious shipment.

There's another, related unattractive Trudeau trait that contributes to his international perplexities.  While he seems genuinely nice and well-meaning, it is striking how his attitudes on any issue you can think of align nicely with prevailing domestic winds.  He apologizes tearfully for things now very much out of fashion, but you won't ever hear him regretting the number of abortions in Canada or infringements on the conscience rights of Christians.  He never champions unpopular causes.

It was also true of his father, whose 1967 claim that "The only constant factor to be found in my thinking over the years has been opposition to accepted opinions" ranks among the least self-aware remarks ever made by a politician, which takes some doing.

It would be wrong to call Trudeau Jr. a bully and after his boxing match with Sen. Brazeau he cannot be mistaken for a coward.  But he is used to operating from a position of strength, where he can charm and when that fails push and get his way fairly easily.  And when he is obliged to back down, for instance on electoral reform, he does so with a singular lack of grace.

His instinct for aligning himself with the winning side helps explain his flattery of Donald Trump once the latter was elected, and his unseemly eagerness to get along with the apparently rising power of China.  And while it might seem paradoxically to combine obsequiousness with conceit, an unconscious habit of successful association with the powerful can easily lead a person to overestimate their own power and, sometimes, overreach badly in consequence.

Thus in NAFTA negotiations, Trudeau sought to impose conditions on the White House when a realistic appraisal of his situation would have led him to seek find allies in Congress and various statehouses to restrain Trump's appalling instincts.  Then he torpedoed a Trans-Pacific Partnership summit leaving allies wondering not so much what just happened as who he thinks he is, casting aside an important geopolitical counterweight to China's growing ambition and assertiveness as if Canada needed no such thing unlike timid herbivores like Australia or Japan.  After which he went to China apparently believing launching free trade talks on our terms was a done deal, and couldn't seem to process the reality that he wound up humiliated by leaders even more convinced the world should kowtow to them.

That Chinese president Xi Jinping and his cronies openly intend to restore China's position of global cultural, economic and military leadership it never even occupied, proving that hubris and a badly skewed sense of proportion about the international jungle afflicts big beasts too.  But they are more immediately dangerous if you are smaller.

Canada is not unimportant.  We are 38th in global population, but in the top fifth of 233 on the UN list, more than half of whom have fewer people than greater Toronto.  We rank somewhere between 10th (nominal) and 17th (purchasing power) in total GDP and 35th per capita, while many who rank higher in the latter are oil sheikdoms or banking havens.  If we cared to, we could even field armed forces whose quality more than made up for their size.

In short, we matter.  But we cannot dictate to the world.  Nobody can.  And if anyone could, it wouldn't be us but the United States or, its leaders believe, China.

If Trudeau realized he was a medium-sized beast, he would adopt a more reasonable and cooperative attitude.  Instead he swaggers about ignoring danger and annoying friends.  And the law of the jungle is not forgiving of such conduct.

Photo Credit: Jeff Burney Loonie Politics

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


What is it with the Conservatives that makes them so unable to do something without being ridiculous.

I could be talking about all sorts of things, but in this case I'm referring to the motion put forward this week by the federal party, looking to condemn the government for its handling of returning ISIS fighters.

The motion culminated days of hammering at the Liberals' for their policy of trying to reintegrate people who have gone abroad to fight with the terror group.

Moved by Tory MP Pierre Paul-Hus, the motion says the government should:

"(a) Condemn the horrific acts committed by ISIS;

"(b) Acknowledge that individuals who joined ISIS fighters are complicit in these horrific acts and pose a danger to Canadians;

"(c) Call on the government to bring to justice and prosecute any ISIS fighter returning to Canada; and

"(d) Insist that the government make the security and protection of Canadians its priority, rather than the reintegration of ISIS fighters."

So, there's basically two halves to this.  The first half is the Tories want the government to say ISIS is bad and people who like ISIS are bad.  The second half is that bad people should be locked up, presumably forever.

It's a glossy way of passing over an actual problem, though.  What do you do with these people?  You can't lock someone up based just on their travel itinerary, at least not for very long.  You need actual evidence of wrongdoing, and it's rather tough to go all CSI on a foreign battlefield.

Tories seem to take a certain pleasure in punishing criminals.  They don't really care there's a whole raft of evidence showing this just makes things worse.  But all of that is a bit academic.  This isn't about evidence of effectiveness or any of that sort of stuff.  It feels good to throw people in prison, goddamnit, so let's throw more in.

But let's assume we're able to imprison people travelling abroad to do a bit of terror tourism.  Eventually, they're going to get out.

Now we're stuck with someone who in one way or another gets off on violence against civilians.  And that's… not great.

This is where the opposition to rehabilitation and reintegration is so foolish.  Someday, these people will need to be brought back into society.  Locking them up isn't good enough.  That's not what a country of rights and laws does.

But all of this argument rests on the idea the Tories were arguing in good faith.  Friends, I have bad news, they were not.

(Let's for a second go out on a very long limb and assume that good-faith debate is a thing that happens in the House of Commons on occasion.  And that enough Liberals might agree with the Tories to vote against their own party if the case was made well enough.  A fantasy of sorts, for argument's sake.)

This week's debate had nothing to do with "keeping Canadians safe" or cracking the skulls of evildoers or whatever.  This was a game of optics.  A legislative bit of trickery, some yea-or-nay tomfoolery, to get the Liberals to "vote for ISIS" or some other scurrilous bullshit.

The debate didn't matter, because the Tories loaded the dice.  Before the thing even started, the Tories made sure to add a little poison pill, one that I left out in my earlier rundown of the motion.  Because, this wasn't just a debate about the efficacy of the Liberals' reintegration plan, because there was also a clause that condemned the government for paying Omar Khadr for his mistreatment at the hands of the U.S. government*.

I left that out earlier.  The motion finished with the, ahem, flourish (italics my own): "Insist that the government make the security and protection of Canadians its priority, rather than the reintegration of ISIS fighters, or the unnecessary financial payout to a convicted terrorist, like Omar Khadr."

So, this is a political play, nothing more.  Someone decided it would be a good to put on a pamphlet mailed to your house some day that "Justin Trudeau is soft on ISIS, look how he votes!"

The Conservatives will make noise about wanting to stomp out terrorism, and use this motion as proof of their commitment.  But they're not committed, because they don't mean it.  They can't.  If that happened, they wouldn't have the government voting against their motion.  And there goes the whole strategy.

There's nothing sincere here.  It's not an honest effort to do anything.  This isn't a plan to make you safer, it's PR.

Until they do something serious, there's no reason to treat them as serious people.

***

* There's perhaps space somewhere to debate the merits of the Khadr payout, but not here.  To be brief on where I stand: you can't accept your citizens have fundamental rights and then go violating them willy nilly.  He was wronged, and he was compensated for that.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.