Faux outrage should be left to the Liberals
Schoolmarm role doesn’t suit Conservatives
Justin Trudeau’s somewhat revamped office continues to make it abundantly clear that there will be no revamping of the basic strategy heading into the next election: Pierre Poilievre is Donald Trump, so say goodbye to gay rights, say goodbye to abortions, and Pierre Poilievre is Donald Trump.
Trudeau dusted off another hoary Liberal cliché in his arch-thespian speech to his caucus this week, accusing various Conservative candidates of being “insiders” — some brave line coming from the son of Saint Pierre Elliott, and whose cabinet currently includes two members of his wedding party — and “ideologues.” If an ideologue is someone with a rational world view and set of beliefs to which they hew strongly enough not to abandon in a hot second when it’s expedient, all I can say is we could use a few of those in Ottawa.
Then Trudeau got that look on his face indicating he thinks he’s about to say something really clever, and this was it: “Pierre Poilievre’s new candidate in Durham is a twofer. He’s an ideologue and an insider.” He was referring to Jamil Jivani, the Conservatives’ nominated candidate in the Toronto-area riding.
In the pantheon of political candidates, Jivani strikes me as conspicuously not an insider. Nor have I seen any signs of conspicuous ideology. In a video posted online Thursday night, the 36-year-old Black former columnist, author, broadcaster and non-practising lawyer, saying he wasn’t “sure what (twofer) means in reference to a human being,” nevertheless effortlessly dunked on Trudeau’s characterization over and over and over again — including the notion that he had been parachuted into Durham from parts unknown.
“I’m recording this video where I live, a place I rent in Oshawa. I’ve lived in Durham Region for years . ... This is a place that I’ve planted roots in; it’s a place I care about; it’s a place I hope to represent in Parliament,” he told viewers. “Now I wish I could tell you I own a home here. I’m a renter because like many Canadians my age, I can’t afford a home. That’s one of the reasons I’m running for office: we need generational, transformational change.”
His campaign may well be ahead of the game now, thanks to Trudeau’s speech writer.
Then, alas, certain Conservatives decided they wanted to play in Trudeau’s sandbox.
“Another racist comment from a leader who has an ugly racist past,” Poilievre tutted on X, which is what we now have to call Twitter. Veteran Conservative strategist Jenni Byrne, who is expected to run Poilievre’s campaign in the next election, accused Trudeau of blowing a “racist dog whistle.” “I am disgusted,” Edmonton MP Ziad Aboultaif declared.
Now let’s get one thing entirely clear: If Poilievre had used the term “twofer” to describe a non-white Liberal candidate, the Liberals and many in the media would be exploding in faux indignation. They would be gesticulating frantically at the Collins dictionary’s third definition of “twofer,” which is “a person who belongs to two minority or underprivileged groups and can satisfy two quotas or appeal to two political constituencies.”
(The most famous Toofer seems to be James “Toofer” Spurlock on 30 Rock, a comedy writer so dubbed because he’s both Black and went to Harvard — though that doesn’t really jibe with the Collins definition.)
The fact the context was clearly non-racist wouldn’t matter. It never does — as Conservatives know very well. Liberals still bring up Poilievre’s non-racist use of the term “tar baby” in the House of Commons, and that was almost 15 years ago. Just like “parents’ rights” never simply refers to the rights of parents — say, to know whether something life-altering is happening to their kid at school. It’s always a giant knowing wink to virulent transphobes.
Remember when Stephen Harper used the term “oldstock Canadians” and the roof blew off the Parliamentary Press Gallery? The term doesn’t even have a racist connotation — “designating people whose ancestors have lived in a certain place for several generations,” per my Canadian Oxford Dictionary. It wasn’t racist when Stéphane Dion used it in 2014. It wasn’t racist (though it did annoy some Quebecers) when Trudeau used it in 2007. With Harper, though, it was another one of those ghastly “dog whistles.” The controversy, such as it was, went on for days.
Look, turnabout’s fair play in politics. It’s understandable Conservatives want to hoist the Liberals with their own petard. But the woke schoolmarm pantomime act looks terrible on them. It makes one wonder what other Liberal-style excesses they might adopt in government, just because nobody complained much when the other guys did it. And it won’t do them any good, besides. Jivani’s rebuttal was all the stronger for not accusing Trudeau of anything more sinister than saying something really dumb and insulting about him.
“Common sense Conservatives led by (Poilievre) will put an end to this nonsense,” Jivani wrote on X, by way of introduction to his video. It’s not clear exactly which sort of nonsense he’s referring to, but if I were a Conservative voter, I would certainly hope cartoonish reactions to anodyne statements were on the chopping block.