I didn’t rob a bank yesterday.
I wanted to.
But it’s against the law. So I didn’t.
Very reluctantly … well, not very … somewhat reluctantly I left the money in the bank.
Saw a lovely new Tesla, all silvery and shiny, the quiet battery at full power, owner inside a shop. Didn’t steal it. I like those new Teslas. (Very smart cars. They can read Latin.) Still didn’t steal it. (I love Latin.) Against the law. Can’t really say some part of me didn’t want to steal it. But, reluctantly, I didn’t.
Now, according to our new legal ethics instructor-in-chief, Justin Pierre James Trudeau, though the bank is safe and the car untouched, my lack of enthusiasm is worrisome. Perhaps even morally disqualifying.
Mr. Trudeau has gloriously expanded the idea of the law-abiding citizen.
Speaking in British Columbia on the jumped-up controversy the Liberals have sprung on Andrew Scheer, on the frightfully current topics of abortion and same-sex marriage, the legal-ethicist PM had this to say: “It’s not enough to reluctantly support the law because it’s a law.” (The italicizing is mine; the stress on reluctantly was his.)
Now there’s something Blackstone overlooked.
[Read It All]
See Also:
(1) Trudeau’s mea culpa over his electoral reform debacle is truly mind boggling
(2) Beware of endless deficits, especially now
(3) Trudeau isn’t what he claims in standing up for women or minorities
(4) Time for legal gun owners to work together
(5) Kim Campbell not losing Supreme Court adviser position following Mar-a-Lago hurricane tweet
Rex Murphy, as usual, debunks the myths of Justin Trudeau’s limitless compassion, integrity, competence, and leadership qualities, myths created by himself, his entourage, and his media acolytes, the latter on retainer now that the Liberals openly promised them financial support — quid pro quo.
Andrew Scheer, on the other hand, not only has to break through his own timid presentation of issues supposedly important to a majority of Canadians, issues like the economy, jobs, bringing resources to markets, and dealing with the double-edged sword of freedom of expression in this current atmosphere of mob mentality … but he also has to contend with so-called allies of the Conservative Party.
Witness Rachel Curran’s comment re: Andrew Scheer not clarifying how his position on gay marriage has “evolved”.
https://twitter.com/PnPCBC/status/1167203495755296769?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
A similar criticism by a former Stephen Harper communications director:
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/if-im-listening-to-justin-trudeau-it-means-others-are-too/
“I just wish Scheer could be more at ease telling people he’s not bigoted toward gay people.”
Does MacDougall actually believe that if Andrew Scheer jumped on a table like Beto O’Rourke, professing his love for the gay community, doing a boffo rendition of “YMCA” progressives’ hearts would mellow enough to vote for Scheer & his Conservatives?
And why does Rachel Curran insist that Scheer expound how his thinking on SSM has evolved? Methinks she and others who demand such explanations or clarifications on SSM & abortion do not believe Scheer’s POV has evolved. What they want him to do is renounce his apparently devout religious beliefs.
Strange, that. In my province, Quebec’s recently passed Securalism Law has drawn much criticism from liberals & other progressives because in their view it discriminates against religious minorities, primarily Muslim women who want to wear a hijab or a niqab. In progressives’ eyes, the law is seemingly xenophobic, preventing them from exercising their freedom of religion. Yet those same progressives condemn politicians like Scheer because they may not feel comfortable celebrating at Pride parades.
So my question is: why can’t politicians be allowed to be faithful to their religion — whose tenets they do not impose on others — and vote their conscience? Isn’t diversity supposed to be our strength?