It’s a big part of the job. You talk in legislatures. You talk at committees. You talk to voters. You talk to reporters. If you’re lucky, you’re asked to talk on TV, the radio, or other popular platforms.
Politicians crave the attention. It’s validating. It means that you’re important. You’re a somebody with important things to say. You’re noticed. People listen.
Politicians know that the bigger their job, the more careful they have to be when they’re talking to an audience – however small or large. That’s especially true if you’re a cabinet minister or a “leader”. Too much unscripted talking can be dangerous.
So, more often than not, what politicians say while they’re talking is forgettable or worse, meaningless. They have to stick to their talking points. They adore cliché.
Still, there are moments when politicians get too comfortable. They get complacent. They slip up and say something candid and revealing about who they are and what they actually think and believe.
Fortunately, two politicians opted for refreshing bursts of honesty over the standard rhetorical gruel this past week. One is Canadian. The other is American. You probably don’t know the first politician. The second is quite well-known.
Both were talking, in a roundabout way, about what is happening in Gaza.
The first politician’s name is Selina Robinson. She is, as of this writing, the minister of post-secondary education in the “socialist” provincial government of British Columbia, Canada.
On January 30, Robinson was talking on Zoom as part of a panel of Jewish politicians organised by a pro-Israeli advocacy group. She was among “friends”, talking to and with “friends”.
In one remarkable swoop, Robinson not only rewrote history, but trafficked in a familiar racist trope. Before the engineered birth of Israel, she said, Palestine was “a crappy piece of land with nothing on it”.
“There were several hundred thousand people but other than that, it didn’t produce an economy … it couldn’t grow things. It didn’t have anything on it, and that it was the folks who were displaced that came and the people who had been living there for generations and together they worked hard,” the minister said.
Translation: 700,000 idle Muslim and Christian Palestinians had, for generations, squandered the chance to make the desert bloom. Happily, it flowered after the arrival of “displaced”, hard-working Israelis who “were offered” the “crappy piece of land”.
Since she said what she said, Robinson has stopped talking – in public, at least. Instead, the minister has had to watch and listen to a lot of other people talking about how and why she must resign.
Even the pro-Israeli outfit that invited Robinson to talk has more or less abandoned her, reportedly telling a CBC reporter that: “The comments made by Minister Robinson … do not reflect the opinion of our organization.”
You know you have talked too much when your once-close “friends” cut you adrift.
So, Robinson did what politicians have to do when they give fulsome voice to what they think and believe: she made a grovelling apology on X.
Robinson wrote that her “flippant” and “disrespectful” comments had “caused pain”.
“I regret what I said and I apologize without reservation.”
Few are convinced by Robinson’s belated, performative act of contrition, including two of her “socialist” colleagues in Ottawa. One member of parliament (MP) is demanding a “reassessment” of her place in cabinet. Another MP pilloried Robinson for “an appalling disregard for the horrific violence being inflicted on Palestinians”.
Robinson’s boss, the premier of British Columbia, is also talking. He said that the minister’s remarks were “wrong”. Rather than fire her, the premier is giving Robinson a good talking to. He told her, in effect, to keep talking.
“She’s got some work to do to go out to the community to address the harm that her comments have caused,” he said.
In other curious words, the premier wants Robinson to talk her and the government’s way out of a prickly jam.
Right. That should do it.
The second chatty politician is the former speaker of the US House of Representatives and the grande dame of Congressional Democrats, Nancy Pelosi. She did her troublesome talking in the ever-agreeable studios of CNN’s Washington bureau on January 29.
The influential “Speaker Emerita” was asked to comment on those pesky, mostly young demonstrators who have been interrupting President Joe Biden with chants of “Genocide Joe” at campaign stops and address whether she was “concerned that they might just stay home” in the fast approaching presidential election.
A condescending Pelosi promptly played the victim card, saying: “I have been the recipient of, shall we say, their exuberance in this regard … they’re in front of my house all the time.”
Poor, pampered Pelosi.
The “Speaker Emerita” compounded her, shall we say, disdain with a lecture, claiming that unlike the “exuberant” rabble, she and other serious types on Capitol Hill were required to “think” about “how to try to stop the suffering in Gaza”.
Poor, misunderstood Pelosi.
Apparently, she “thinks” that a “ceasefire” would not “stop the suffering in Gaza” since that’s what Russian President Vladimir Putin “would like to see”.
Pelosi’s McCarthyite-smear-laden logic is loathsome and bizarre. What, apart from a ceasefire, is going to “stop the suffering in Gaza” – with or without Putin’s blessing?
Silly, exuberant me, but I can’t “think” of anything other than a “ceasefire” that will “stop the suffering in Gaza”.
Pelosi ought to have stopped talking. Thankfully, she didn’t.
She then proved that behind every America-flag-pin-wearing speaker emerita, there lies an Alex Jones-like conspiracy theorist who is convinced that the homeland is awash with fifth columnists disguised as citizens exercising their constitutional rights to challenge a sitting president.
“I think some of these protestors are spontaneous and organic and sincere,” Pelosi said. “Some, I think, are connected to Russia.”
Again, Pelosi ought to have stopped talking.
Thankfully, she didn’t.
Not done tarring millions of her fellow, albeit “exuberant”, Americans of Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian descent as Putin’s useful tools, she confirmed that she is every bit as willing and eager as her nemesis, Donald Trump, to sic the FBI on perceived enemies.
“Some financing should be investigated and I want to ask the FBI to investigate that,” Pelosi said.
Paging J Edgar Hoover. Paging J Edgar Hoover.
I’m glad Pelosi kept talking.
I’m glad because she has exposed the Democratic Party for the “progressive” and “inclusive” sham that it is.
The Democratic Party never has and never will be the “home” to Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian Americans. They will always be treated with suspicion and contempt by a party establishment that confuses dissent with disloyalty and considers Palestinians disposable fodder.
You see, sometimes, when politicians talk, it’s clarifying.
Quebec legislature member Youri Chassin has announced he’s leaving the Coalition Avenir Québec government to sit as an Independent.
He announced the decision shortly after writing an open letter criticizing Premier François Legault’s government for abandoning its principles of smaller government.
In the letter published in Le Journal de Montréal and Le Journal de Québec, Chassin accused the party of falling back on what he called the old formula of throwing money at problems instead of looking to do things differently.
Chassin says public services are more fragile than ever, despite rising spending that pushed the province to a record $11-billion deficit projected in the last budget.
He is the second CAQ member to leave the party in a little more than one week, after economy and energy minister Pierre Fitzgibbon announced Sept. 4 he would leave because he lost motivation to do his job.
Chassin says he has no intention of joining another party and will instead sit as an Independent until the end of his term.
He has represented the Saint-Jérôme riding since the CAQ rose to power in 2018, but has not served in cabinet.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.
MONTREAL – NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says he will not be taking advice from Pierre Poilievre after the Conservative leader challenged him to bring down government.
“I say directly to Pierre Poilievre: I’m not going to listen to you,” said Singh on Wednesday, accusing Poilievre of wanting to take away dental-care coverage from Canadians, among other things.
“I’m not going to listen to your advice. You want to destroy people’s lives, I want to build up a brighter future.”
Earlier in the day, Poilievre challenged Singh to commit to voting non-confidence in the government, saying his party will force a vote in the House of Commons “at the earliest possibly opportunity.”
“I’m asking Jagmeet Singh and the NDP to commit unequivocally before Monday’s byelections: will they vote non-confidence to bring down the costly coalition and trigger a carbon tax election, or will Jagmeet Singh sell out Canadians again?” Poilievre said.
“It’s put up or shut up time for the NDP.”
While Singh rejected the idea he would ever listen to Poilievre, he did not say how the NDP would vote on a non-confidence motion.
“I’ve said on any vote, we’re going to look at the vote and we’ll make our decision. I’m not going to say our decision ahead of time,” he said.
Singh’s top adviser said on Tuesday the NDP leader is not particularly eager to trigger an election, even as the Conservatives challenge him to do just that.
Anne McGrath, Singh’s principal secretary, says there will be more volatility in Parliament and the odds of an early election have risen.
“I don’t think he is anxious to launch one, or chomping at the bit to have one, but it can happen,” she said in an interview.
New Democrat MPs are in a second day of meetings in Montreal as they nail down a plan for how to navigate the minority Parliament this fall.
The caucus retreat comes one week after Singh announced the party has left the supply-and-confidence agreement with the governing Liberals.
It’s also taking place in the very city where New Democrats are hoping to pick up a seat on Monday, when voters go to the polls in Montreal’s LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. A second byelection is being held that day in the Winnipeg riding of Elmwood—Transcona, where the NDP is hoping to hold onto a seat the Conservatives are also vying for.
While New Democrats are seeking to distance themselves from the Liberals, they don’t appear ready to trigger a general election.
Singh signalled on Tuesday that he will have more to say Wednesday about the party’s strategy for the upcoming sitting.
He is hoping to convince Canadians that his party can defeat the federal Conservatives, who have been riding high in the polls over the last year.
Singh has attacked Poilievre as someone who would bring back Harper-style cuts to programs that Canadians rely on, including the national dental-care program that was part of the supply-and-confidence agreement.
The Canadian Press has asked Poilievre’s office whether the Conservative leader intends to keep the program in place, if he forms government after the next election.
With the return of Parliament just days away, the NDP is also keeping in mind how other parties will look to capitalize on the new makeup of the House of Commons.
The Bloc Québécois has already indicated that it’s written up a list of demands for the Liberals in exchange for support on votes.
The next federal election must take place by October 2025 at the latest.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.
Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante is defending her decision to turn off comments on her social media accounts — with an announcement on social media.
She posted screenshots to X this morning of vulgar names she’s been called on the platform, and says comments on her posts for months have been dominated by insults, to the point that she decided to block them.
Montreal’s Opposition leader and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have criticized Plante for limiting freedom of expression by restricting comments on her X and Instagram accounts.
They say elected officials who use social media should be willing to hear from constituents on those platforms.
However, Plante says some people may believe there is a fundamental right to call someone offensive names and to normalize violence online, but she disagrees.
Her statement on X is closed to comments.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.
