Political Commentary: Trudeau vs. Scheer

Read this article and I am STUNNED at what is printed by people who claim to be journalists.

Let's get the simplest point out of the way first. Why can't we threaten to sue Trudeau the way that he threatened Scheer? None of the things she listed in the article are illegal. The entire article is founded on... NOTHING. It is PURE nonsense. Why can't I sue this author for the article? Because, IT ALSO is NOT illegal.

But, amusingly, the fact that it is purely based upon nothing but a hatred for Trudeau isn't even the weakest element of it. We can evaluate the meat of the article while assuming that there exists an alternate universe where it ever had a case to begin with.

Firstly, she calls the move "Trumpian". I assume this is a reference to Trump's frequent threats of prosecution. But, there is a difference. Used, as used in this article, would basically imply that any one who sues anyone is Trumpian. Because, as far as I can tell, while I don't believe Trudeau would succeed the lawsuit, it is not frivolous or baseless. I would have to say that those kind of set the bar for something being "Trumpian" though.

Why do I think this isn't baseless? Scheer has done the only thing he can. Call the PMs bluff. The PM won't win a suit not because Scheer hasn't said things which may be provably false. But rather because it would be difficult, if not impossible to PROVE damages. Libel, slander and the likes require proof of damage. It isn't enough to have false words thrown at you. Seeing as he is still PM he hasn't yet lost anything. And, even if he loses the election it would be difficult to prove that Scheer's statements had any impact in the outcome.

If Scheer's had the moral high ground, it would mean he KNEW and had proof of the things he was saying. In which case, he could simply present those and sink Trudeau immediately.

Scheer welcomes the threat because he knows; even though he IS just mud slinging, even if the courts could prove this, it likely wouldn't mean ANYTHING to Scheer. If it turns out he is right though, by going through the courts, Trudeau could be compelled to offer up the exact evidence he needs.

In short, at the moment, Scheer is acting TOTALLY UNETHICALLY. He DOES NOT have sufficient proof to be making these statements. He welcomes the lawsuit because it is a win-win for him. By going public he has made Trudeau look bad (somehow) and if Trudeau even follows through, it is unlikely to do anything but benefit him.

If Scheer were NOT acting unethically, he would produce the evidence he has which backs his claims rather than (amusingly) stating publicly that getting information under a court order will prove him right.

I do think the move was dumb on Trudeau's part. Someone didn't consider the optics. All of this should have been obvious to Trudeau as well. But, he did so anyway. As far as the lawsuit is concerned, that is really the worst you can say about it. It was dumb. It was fair in my opinion. But, dumb nonetheless. In a different venue, a lawsuit may shut down a heckler.

But, it doesn't even end there. The article also mentions the ouster of Wilson-Raybould and Philpott, and beings up that Philpott claims it wasn't lawful, but then admits in the same paragraph that both the opposition and experts disagree. In short, the author somehow thought Philpott throwing a blatantly incorrect Hail Mary toss is somehow a blow against Trudeau.

And on that topic, the defence here from Philpott, in my opinion, exposes her as little more than a petty thug. You see, the basis for why she believes it should be illegal is because it would have required a vote to have taken place to approve a bill which was supposed to happen anyway. But, this is the first time the general public has been hearing about it. Which  means it was never a priority for members of the party, Philpott included. Either because they collectively agreed that the vote was unnecessary, or that they believe it was OK not to take the vote for their own personal gains. She never pushed for that vote to happen, she simply wants to take advantage of it after the fact. But, she is a member of the caucus and is, herself, partly responsible for the vote having never taken place.

If you can't tell, I find the article... challenging.

What Scheer did to provoke Trudeau IS unethical AND potentially illegal. Even if it is likely to never see a court room or win such a battle.

Defending Scheer's actions is unconscionable. His argument in his defence is itself a fundamental admission of wrong doing. By stating that he will be vindicated in the courts thanks to subpoenaed materials he admits he doesn't already have the evidence he needs to be lawfully making these comments publicly. And, if want to talk ethics, he really shouldn't even be making them where Parliamentary Privilege protects him from such lawsuits.

While people may disagree with Trudeau's politics, it is also true that there will always be people who disagree with whoever is in power. Just because a majority or the biggest percentage of people voted for a party, it is virtually never the case that all votes go to a single party or that party can last a full term without enacting changes outside of their original campaign. Furthermore, none of the things mentioned as reasons to sue Trudeau are actually illegal, or even questionably so.

In short, I sit here baffled.

How does a reasonable person NOT understand that Libel is a crime and that Scheer has fundamentally admitted to it and THEN call him "Prime Ministerial"? Oh, and then go onto asking why we can't sue someone, whom we have absolutely no legal case against?

I know we all have differences of opinions. But this article should simply have been titled "I hate Justin Trudeau" and then been empty.