Would someone who thinks that the U.S. is deserving of violence on its own soil think the same way if they lost a child in the Boston bombing? Would this misplaced empathy with the terrorists still work if one's own legs were blown off by shrapnel? When Peter Mansbridge asked Liberal leader Justin Trudeau what he would do, as prime minister, in the immediate aftermath of an attack like the one in Boston, Trudeau said that "we have to look at the root causes." But the root cause is only depravity. The line between seeking to understand this depravity, and seeking to justify it, is fine and must be tread upon with care.
According to senior UN official Richard Falk, the killing and maiming of all those innocent people at the Boston marathon can be rationally explained as a by-product of America's many geopolitical acts of attempted global domination. This is similar to Trudeau's conclusion.
Personal learnings from the Countering Violent Extremism portfolio echoed the sentiments that Justin Trudeau expressed following the Boston Bombings -- to get to the root cause to prevent future attacks. Last year I had the chance to work with the Department of Public Safety on National Security Policy, and if there's one thing that you need to focus on in preventing any kind of violence from happening -- whether it be localized gun violence or terrorism -- it's the root cause. Mind you, gun violence and extremism are two very different animals, but what they do share in common is an immature and ridiculous sense of expression through violence.
Justin Trudeau needs to fire his public relations team. Either that, or perhaps the Conservative Party truth ads were entirely correct in depicting Trudeau as being completely devoid of the experience."Doesn't have the judgment or experience to be Prime Minister" could not have rung clearer in Trudeau's first week as Liberal leader.
Tim Knight writes the regular media column, Watching the Watchdog, for HuffPost Canada. O, young Lochinvar is come out of the west, Through all the ...
Political attack ads are designed to make you think. Their aim is to get you to look at a person or an issue in a different light, one different from what the media or the party's political spin machine wants you to look at. Simply put, they work. While it seems everyone complains about them, they still watch them.
When an act of terror occurs, it takes time to assess what exactly happened. Two hours after the blast, blood was still being spilled, explosives were still being sniffed out, and loved ones were still being contacted to share the terrible news. It was in this chaos that Mr. Trudeau was asked to react -- even before the President of the United States, the FBI, or the State Governor had reacted. What Mr. Trudeau did was answer the truth. A novel concept for some, but a welcome philosophy to Canadians tired of the dreary, divisive diatribe. We don't know who did this, but surely there are ways we can look at root causes and prevent future bloodshed.
Both the Conservative and Liberal parties have declared themselves victorious over the recent Trudeau attack ads but the real winners of these ads have been the NDP. These ads allow the NDP the luxury of not spending money on, or bearing the negative condemnation that comes with running attack ads. Moreover the NDP benefit from the actual attack that the Liberals and Trudeau are taking because attack ads do work.
During the leadership race Trudeau was rather ambiguous when it came to tangible policy proposals -- instead insisting it's not the leader's role to hand down decrees from on high to grassroots Liberals, and if elected, he would consult both partisan Liberals and other Canadians so to develop his party's platform from the bottom up. Fair point in theory, but let's wring out what little Trudeau has said so far.
Lisa Raitt is right that the conversation we're having about Justin Trudeau would be very different if it was a female MP who'd taken to the catwalk and stripped to her bra, while a group of men bid on the opportunity to lunch with her. It would seem exploitive and distasteful. People would definitely question the MP's judgment.
Justin Trudeau's comments about the Boston bombings in an interview with Peter Mansbridge display an ignorance and insensitivity that know no bounds. He appears to give equal moral weight to monitoring those people who point fingers at minorities as to monitoring violent subgroups. In other words, according to Justin, these terrorists are not really at fault.
Powerful King Harper seated atop his dragon. Alas, has a new Knight come to Camelot to overthrow the Conservatives and follow in his father's footsteps? Or has Justin Trudeau stepped out of the frying pan and into the fire?
By poking fun at Mr. Trudeau's strip tease, the Conservatives are not only limiting their own MPs' charitable efforts, but by association they are demeaning the many others who do the same. The only judgment that these ads question is that of their creators, the Conservatives.
Justin Trudeau claimed the Liberal Party of Canada leadership in a resounding victory, and if we believe the polls, Canadians are open to supporting their Liberal candidates in the next election. However, there is a lot of work to be done if the Liberals want more than just a temporary splash in the polls.
While always nice to get a lot of media coverage, Trudeau should be concerned that in the long run all the hype could hurt more than help him. Expectations are so high for him that I wonder if anyone could live up to them. Remember all the media hype around the previous savior of the Liberal Party, a gentleman by the name of Michael Ignatieff. It didn't help him.
As we await formal notice of Trudeau II's coronation, take a quick survey our nation's top papers. You'll find (at best) mostly cautious statements of conditional interest in a mildly competent politician whose greatest talent is exceeding low expectations. To be sure, the press does have a pro-Trudeau bias, but it's a bias of interest more than affinity.