Post 146—The PM on Violence against Women

Many of my posts are critical of our young PM, though not because of his age. Of course, his age may have something to do with it, for during the last Federal campaign did we not frequently here that he was not yet ready?  In other words, not experienced enough; not old enough.  I do believe that to be the case. He is far too rash and does not think things through adequately. I’m hardly the only one to talk this way, of course. It is frequently repeated even in the liberal press.

But credit to whom credit is due. I will give him credit when he deserves it, since, like some people, I do not get paid to oppose him no matter what he says or does. The item I am sharing with you today has been on my “to do” or “to write” list ever since end November last year, but other things were always crowding it out. They still do, even today, but this time I’m elbowing them out of the way and let the PM have his say on a very important subject. 

On November 25, 2016, the PM’s office published the following statement:

Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women

The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women:

“An estimated one in three women around the world experience violence in their lifetime. This statistic is unacceptable. It is crucial for all of us – women, men, and youth – to work together to put an end to this violence.

“Violence against women is the world’s greatest and most persistent violation of human rights, leaving women and girls vulnerable and unable to fully participate in society. It damages families, communities, and countries.

“Violence against women is not a women’s issue. Men must boldly work alongside women to combat this violence – and not simply because they have wives, daughters, or sisters. Women deserve the full depth of respect, safety, and dignity, regardless of their relationships with men.

“To change the prevalence of this violence, we must first challenge the attitudes and behaviours that allow this violence to exist, and that allow disrespect for and abuse of women to become commonplace. We must teach our daughters and sons the importance of gender equality and the need to treat everyone with equal respect.

“That is why the Government of Canada is investing in several programs both in Canada and around the world to help promote gender equality, support efforts to prevent gender-based violence, and stop human trafficking.

“Today and throughout the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence, I encourage all Canadians not only to think about how their actions matter, but also to stand up against gender-based violence. Get started by joining the conversation online using the hashtag #ActionsMatter. Together, we can create a world that does not tolerate violence against women.”

Mostly well spoken, PM.  Thank you.  But it raises a question….

I’m back to make one comment on the above. I’m a missionary and we missionaries are often accused of imposing our religion and culture on other peoples. My point today is not to argue against that, but, rather, to indicate that our Federal Government does the very thing we are accused of. It tells other cultures what to do, impose western values on non-western people.  To oppose gender violence is a good thing, no matter where it occurs. However, when you start talking about gender equality you are talking about the basics of a culture and you are telling those “others” that they must change their culture. Has anyone invited the PM in to undermine their culture?  Just because he thinks genders should be equal, does that give him the right to force that on others?  Of course, if it is accompanied by dollars, then other nations often pretend to agree just to get access to those dollars, but they often get diverted to a cause the men can accept!

Just askin’.

Post 94 Trudeau: Due Diligence? (1)

Religion and Politics

"Religion and politics" is such a huge subject that it will never be exhausted, no matter how many tomes or conferences are devoted to it. Though it is the subject for a couple of initial paragraphs in this post, it is not our main subject today.

Post 93 deals with what might be considered a “purely” religious and spiritual topic:  Ash Wednesday.  And now, immediately, right after it a dive into politics?  Federal politics even?  That will seem like an awfully wide leap to some, from the sublime to the shady.

Actually, it’s not as big a leap as you may think.  “Purely” religious or spiritual topics are meant to improve your relations with God and man—your neighbor, as per the name of this blog. And it is with this improved or strengthened relationship with both God and your neighbor that you then go forth into the world of culture, including politics. Anyone with poor or absent relations with God or neighbor is likely to pursue unhealthy politics, being guided by all sorts of shady motives and unhelpful worldviews.

So, here I am, unabashed and unapologetic for this move from high spirituality to high politics—that of our Prime Minister (PM).  That’s as high as you can go in our country—but perhaps at the same time as low!  You can go either way. The lowest motives may be the most dominant at the highest or vice versa.

I should hasten to indicate my awareness that the PM of Canada is not the Head of State and that, officially, his is not the highest status, which is reserved for the Governor General, who is appointed by his “inferior,” the PM.  True, but the PM certainly is the highest in terms of political power, influence and responsibility.

PM Trudeau and Due Diligence

My question is whether our new PM is doing due diligence.This question arose first arose during his campaign before Trudeau was “enthroned.” I’ve had no reason to put my mind at ease on this score and note that I am by no means the only one to have a suspicion here. From before his installment to the end of his hundred honeymoon days, I have detected a consistent pattern that keeps the question at the forefront.

Before proceeding, though, I want to praise the PM for some of his earliest actions that delighted my soul. The first one was the composition of his Cabinet. His 50-50 gender cabinet appointments. The second was his racial or ethnic inclusiveness, also in the context of the Cabinet. That was just such a refreshing change from history.  There was his “march” to the Governor General’s mansion in the company of his cabinet, all on foot instead of an ostentatious automobile entourage. And then there was his unfeigned and spontaneous reaction to the unexpected meeting with his daughter who ran into her parents arms during that march. It was all so delightful and different. I initially accepted it all in pure delight. This was going to be a different PM, no doubt about it. The MacLean’s cover photo of the surprised look of the Prime Ministerial couple upon seeing their young daughter run into their arms is pinned to a wall in our apartment. It’s bound to become a classic.

Spontaneity vs Due Diligence

That pattern of seeming spontaneity continued on. With the tremendous pressure of Syrian refugees dominating the news towards the end of the PM’s campaign, he bravely announced that Canada would welcome 25,000 refugees by the end of 2015, a period of just a couple of months. How spontaneous was that?  Or was it?  You may remember previous posts on this blog on the subject of refugees. I pointed out that even under more normal circumstances, those responsible for vetting refugees admitted that it is virtually impossible to do it thoroughly according to established protocol, let alone under the pressure of the moment.  25,000 within the space of a couple of months? I loved the sentiment behind it. But was it feasible to do it within the protocol?  I judged “no.”  Not possible. Only if various steps were ignored or omitted, even if those chosen would already have been vetted by the UN.  Canadian officials sent to the Middle East to sort them out would hardly be capable of reading between the lines of the oral and written claims of Third World refugees, whose logic, culture, religion and, not to forget, their interests are so radically different from their own. 

Populism vs Due Diligence 

The question of due diligence bubbled to the surface. Was this true spontaneity, genuine spontaneity?  Does spontaneity exclude or bypass due diligence?  Of course, the PM himself recognized his decision for what it was and moved the deadline for the 25,000 forward several times. Or was this populism?  That is, playing on the emotions of the public that was exposed regularly to the pitiful scenes of hordes of refugees, women, children and the elderly, making their way across seas and land borders in their search for safety. Playing on their emotions without doing due diligence?  And let the chips fall where they may?  Like spontaneity, populism, that is, listening to the hearts of the people is good democracy, but not without due diligence.  It is the duty of our politicians to listen to the people and to practice due diligence at the same time.

(To be continued in Post 95)