LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

One day, Bruce Wayne wakes up in Wayne Manor, unable to remember how he got there.  He finds that his parents, who were murdered before his eyes as a child, are somehow still alive, and that he is engaged to Selina Kyle, the woman he loves.  There is no cave beneath Wayne Manor, and the mantle of Batman is being worn by another.  Bruce can remember his time as Batman, but his loyal butler Alfred, who is supposed to know his secret identity, cannot.

Now freed from the constant pressure and strain of defending Gotham City, Bruce should be happy, but he is not.  He knows something is wrong with this seemingly perfect world.  At one point, with the help of a psychiatrist, he seems to accept that his time as the Batman was a dream, and this new reality is his true life.  But, when he tries to read a book, he realizes that he is unable to make sense of the words.  His parents and fiancee try to convince him that he is not well, but he knows the truth.  No matter how idyllic this world is, it's not real.

Millennials like myself might recognize this story as the plot of an episode of the critically acclaimed "Batman: The Animated Series".  I return to it to illustrate the crucial reason for resisting the vision of Canada foisted upon us by the cultural guardians, by the intellectual leaders, and by the various iterations of the Liberals.  Their Canada, where diversity is somehow our strength without sowing deep cultural divides, is no more real than the dream world Bruce Wayne found himself in.

If it was real, then Doug Ford wouldn't have been able to preoccupy Ontarians for an entire week and more with the ridiculous, utterly distractory and thoroughly pointless matter of "buck-a-beer."  If we were the level-headed Canadians we hold ourselves out to be, we would have shrugged our collective shoulders and moved on with our lives instead of threatening boycotts of private businesses because the Premier reduced the price floor on suds by A WHOLE 25 CENTS.  SWEET FANCY MOSES WHERE'S THE FAINTING COUCH.

As several of my Loonie Politics colleagues have pointed out, this isn't a move that can be justified on the basis of conservative principles or much common sense.  So why is the Premier doing this?  To prove how easy it is to sweep away this fantasy of Canada United.  The same holds true for cutting council in half, directing his staffers to clap to cut off the press, and scrapping the sex ed curriculum.

If this is all it takes to set Canadians at each others' throats, I shudder to think what will happen when Ford does something really reality-altering, like funding faith based schools, or radically restructuring the Toronto Community Housing Corporation, or turning Metrolinx upside down and shaking it to see what falls out.  (All of those are probably on the way, by the way.  You heard it here first.)

The left can argue all they wish that Ford's assault on democracy (or whatever overheated language they're using this week) is unprecedented and that justifies their over-the-top response.  But by taking Ford's bait, all they have done is laid their own hypocrisy bare.  For as they tell us that buck-a-beer is to be shunned and resisted, they throw cold water on suggestions that the situation at the border is a crisis, or that Toronto has a terrorism problem, or that a Toronto Sun photographer getting his hat stolen by Antifa is worth getting upset about.

And like Bruce Wayne who can't make sense of the words he tries to read, they offer no rationale for telling Canadians what they should and what they shouldn't panic about, other than "Because We Said So."  More and more Ontarians will realize they are being treated like livestock, milked for outrage just as the Rebel milks their base.

All that is left then is to realize that it was always this way, before Ford.  They've always pulled the wool over the eyes of Canadians it's just more obvious now.  And once the illusion disappears, it isn't coming back.

Written by Josh Lieblein

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.