There are at least four completely different questions at play here: Is there enough evidence against Trudeau stemming from his time at WPGA -
(1) to take to trial on a criminal charge of corrupting a minor? Obviously, no.
(2) to take to a professional disciplinary hearing for teachers? Obviously, yes; though whether you would get a "conviction" and if so what the penalty might be is anyone's guess.
(3) to trust your daughter with Trudeau in a private setting (when he was single, in his 20s, and not under the gaze of politics)? That, I suppose, is for every parent to judge. I wouldn't.
(4) to "disqualify" him as a candidate for political office? By Trudeau's own standards, obviously yes. He has disqualified candidates for far less than being excessively handsy with minors. This guy's character, as revealed by nearly everything he does, is so repulsive I have a hard time understanding why anyone votes for him still.
Trudeau has told so many lies it is amazing his pants have not caught fire. Only his TruAnon supporters still believe anything that comes out of his mouth. He might be worse than Trump because the media don't call Trudeau on his lies, so he gets away with it.
In the light of the China foreign interference revelations, that 7-year old Citizen article still reads distressingly accurate, other than the penultimate allowance that Trump and Trudeau would get along just fine. But that went off the rails for a different set of Trudeau character flaws.
Trudeau has always struck me as a bit of a lounge lizard. It embarrasses me that my demographic still is largely in favour of him. We know his type. I guess some of us fall for that type and some of us don't.
Wondering, is it wrong for me to enjoy Poilievre's jabs at this PM? I also quite enjoyed his answer to the questions, for it is "just a fact". And facts seem to matter little anymore in this political climate.
Yes and I enjoy Poilievre’s sarcastic cutting remarks thoroughly because they are mostly true. The Liberals consistently smear monger their opponents with impunity calling them racists, white supremacists, Nazis, misogynists and deplorables with unacceptable views. If this isn’t hate speech nothing is. Trudeau gets called out appropriately by Poilievre for his corruption scandals, coverups, lies and his hate speech against anyone disagreeing with him. Remember when Trudeau referred to Melissa Lantsman, a Jewish MP, as a Nazi sympathizer or supporter? No apology from Trudeau for his blatant hate speech. Can you imagine the fecal storm if Poilievre called Trudeau or any of his minions Nazi sympathizers? The Liberals and their fawning media sycophants hate Poilievre with a passion because his biting sarcasm exposes them for the corrupt deceitful fools they are.
I agree. The counterfactual is hard to deny. Though that doesn't mean Poilievre should go there too much. A healthy dose of snark needed to get people to listen to policy, methinks.
It's not true that the salacious conjecture is *entirely* without foundation. It arises from the yearbook photos showing an extremely handsy Trudeau groping some very young girls. In one, his blackened pinky slips down to the girl's cleavage; in another, each hand is clasped tightly around a different girl's waist, practically cupping a boob. There isn't a single other (male) teacher in Canada who could pose for pictures like this for a yearbook and not get disciplined immediately. It is entirely inappropriate, unprofessional, and creepy - whether the girls or their parents object to it or not.
The question obviously does arise: If THESE are the liberties Trudeau takes when the yearbook cameras are rolling, what would he do in a more private setting? It calls to mind the entirely well-founded allegations of Trudeau groping a young reporter in B.C. around the same time. As Trump said, celebrities are allowed to take liberties, and Trudeau was a minor celebrity in Canada even back then. Add Trudeau's outsized narcissism to his minor celebrity status, and Fanny's your Aunt.
So I reject utterly the notion that Trudeau has nothing to answer for.
Oh, but he has answered: he wanted to go back to university. It doesn't wash. There was no need to quit mid-semester to attend university in September. And his desire to return to university was pretty flakey, because he withdrew as quickly as he enrolled. No responsible, much-loved teacher would abandon his charges in the middle of a semester for such a flight of fancy.
Nor is the school's Principal's denial probative. The Principal is approximately as conflicted in this scenario as David Johnston on the China file. Nobody wants to be in charge when a scandal erupts. Of course he is going to deny that his school was a haven for child molesters!
There IS something suspicious about Trudeau's sudden departure. There is insufficient evidence for any particular conjecture to be acted upon, but in the absence of a credible account, voters are entitled to draw their own conclusions.
"The question obviously does arise." You're quite right. Indeed it does. But I have seen no answers that support the allegation, which remains unfounded.
It depends on what "the allegation" is. The allegation that Trudeau was unprofessionally handsy with his female students is fully evidenced. That's enough knowledge of his character for me to despise him. It doesn't take anything more. You? There is no *specific* evidence he did anything more than get handsy with girls (and grope a reporter); but there is an old legal adage to the effect that human nature is evidence in every case. We know what people with Trudeau's character, personality, and proven proclivities get up to when they can. I wouldn't trust my daughter around him, let's put it that way.
I know, but I don't know how reliable the "Buffalo Chronicle" is. So I go by what I can see with my own eyes, and that is plenty bad enough. The fact that Liberal supporters and mainstream media talking heads can't see it - or refuse to see it - is most appalling. You don't have to like PP or his debating tactics, but to treat him as the bad guy for noticing what everyone's own eyes can see for themselves is discrediting.
My remark was not aimed at you; but rather at the "At Issue" panel on CBC. They - especially Andrew Coyne - were an appalling disgrace for covering for Trudeau's shenanigans at WPGA. As if, "Oh, that's perfectly normal teacher behaviour! PP is disgusting for alluding to it." That episode alone tells me all I need to know about the character of the people on that panel.
I do like Pierre Poilievre. I also like the way he holds his own against the press and Trudeau. I just don't like this kind of sleazy reference especially when Clive Austin said there was nothing to the story.
Clive Austin is as conflicted on the shenanigans at WPGA as David Johnston is on the China-Trudeau file. The school Principal would say nothing happened whether or not nothing happened, so his opinion is technically worthless.
I don't know if it's sleazy, though. Trudeau initiated the negative exchange by implying that Poilievre's only job was/is as MP. My take is that if Trudeau doesn't want smart ass retorts, he probably shouldn't initiate smart-ass exchanges. In any case, it was the media who filled in the blanks as to why JT left that job. A lot of Canadians watching that exchange would not know what Pierre's comments may or may not have referred to.
Opposition leaders don't get much coverage unless they stand out somehow. I personally enjoy listening to Poilievre in the House. Sometimes he's over the top, and I cringe, but at least he isn't condescending.
You’re correct that politics is worst than it’s even been. Trudeau is a big driver of that. Watching him this morning on one of his paid networks (sidebar - we have to get back to a subscription revenue model for journalism like when news papers made their living by people throwing in 25 cents before advertisers squeezed them out and owners with other interest took over) lecture about immature people more interested in playing politics rather than getting down to the serious business of running the country was a bit much. Who does he thinks still believes anything he says?
He obviously had aspirations of being an actor, too bad he wasn’t good enough to have made it and we all could have been spared his bs.
"Who does he thinks still believes anything he says?" Well, almost a third of Canadians would still vote for him. The majority of women in some age categories.
Yes, polling shows him and Singh could possibly patch together another deal if there was an election now. I have a bet for a bottle scotch with a good Friend that nothing changes after the next election. I’m on the betting side of nothing changes. I really want to owe him a bottle, but we’ll see.
West Point Grey Academy headmaster Clive Austin “attested to complete certainty that there was absolutely nothing to the story, or conspiracy theory, or rumour, or speculation.”
Most if not all C-level executives that leave suddenly do so “to spend more time with the family”, “pursue other interests” or “for health reasons”. Rarely is the real cause disclosed.
Austin may have “attested” but that is not the same as “testified under oath”.
There could have been an NDA signed without the principal’s knowledge. Or the principal may have been paid to deny. The point of NDAs is to buy silence. Would Trudeau would admit to a thing he paid to hide?
And maybe the photo of him hugging the young woman is just a coincidence. Maybe he never went beyond that. Trump claims the same for Stormy Daniels. The effort to show otherwise in the US has been much more extensive than for more serious allegations in Canada.
Whether or not Pierre Poilievre was “acting the maggot”, which is not admitted but which I choose to specifically deny, I contend that Justin Trudeau IS the maggot.
Yes we know what it is about but when you light the fire of outrage mentioning Trudeau people respond to what outrages them the most - Trudeau’s continuous record of corruption scandals, coverups and lies. Why would anyone give Trudeau the benefit of the doubt? There has never been a PM so desperate for adulation or such a self-absorbed narcissist. Trudeau is thoroughly immoral and unethical so people naturally think the worst of him.He has zero redeeming qualities. I am not saying I believe the school scandal and never jumped to the conclusion that Trudeau is guilty. But it certainly wouldn’t surprise me if it is true.
I see I stand alone thinking Trudeau’s “ jab” was a low snotty reference to Poilievre’s humble beginnings. “You came from a little house in Calgary and like a newspaper delivery boy saved your Pennie’s went to University and wormed your way here today as leader.” “ I on the other hand had a Corvette, smoked weed, lived in expensive digs, and Dads last name got me the gig..” If I were Poilievre I would “ eat the maggot “ too. Ok ok re reading this I see I’m too sensitive. Carry on.
Given Trudeau's history of deflections, prevarications, and outright lies, and of influential people covering for him, there are many reasons to suspect that he left West Point Grey under a cloud.
Recent examples - Trudeau saying that he never disparaged the unvaccinated or the convoy protestors during the EA inquiry. Also, saying that people "experience things differently" when deflecting about the case of him making unwanted sexual overtures to a journalist before he was PM.
"They lie to us, we know they're lying, they know we know they're lying, but they keep lying to us, and we keep pretending to believe them." Alexandr Solzhenitsyn.
I have a question, Terry, about David Johnston’s Committee appearance today. I wasn’t able to watch it and have been trying to catch up. I read John Ivison’s piece and I just read Wesley Wark’s substack piece about it. Wark’s seems rather “Johnston friendly”, and John Ivison is pretty milk pudding about it as well. Do you plan to report on it?
A million and one thanks for your brilliant article in the NP, Terry. I recommended, in the comment section of the piece, that people should subscribe to your Substack TheRealStory to become more/better informed. Hopefully, the comment won't get "Deactivated" or worse yet, your exceptional article get blown off the front page by some stupid, useless Trudeau announcement.
There are at least four completely different questions at play here: Is there enough evidence against Trudeau stemming from his time at WPGA -
(1) to take to trial on a criminal charge of corrupting a minor? Obviously, no.
(2) to take to a professional disciplinary hearing for teachers? Obviously, yes; though whether you would get a "conviction" and if so what the penalty might be is anyone's guess.
(3) to trust your daughter with Trudeau in a private setting (when he was single, in his 20s, and not under the gaze of politics)? That, I suppose, is for every parent to judge. I wouldn't.
(4) to "disqualify" him as a candidate for political office? By Trudeau's own standards, obviously yes. He has disqualified candidates for far less than being excessively handsy with minors. This guy's character, as revealed by nearly everything he does, is so repulsive I have a hard time understanding why anyone votes for him still.
Trudeau has told so many lies it is amazing his pants have not caught fire. Only his TruAnon supporters still believe anything that comes out of his mouth. He might be worse than Trump because the media don't call Trudeau on his lies, so he gets away with it.
Agreed. Chapter and verse:
Seven years ago, for goodness sake. https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/glavin-chumminess-with-dictators-and-other-trump-trudeau-similarities
Three months ago: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/trudeaus-relationship-with-china-far-uglier-than-any-links-trump-had-with-russia
In the light of the China foreign interference revelations, that 7-year old Citizen article still reads distressingly accurate, other than the penultimate allowance that Trump and Trudeau would get along just fine. But that went off the rails for a different set of Trudeau character flaws.
Trudeau has always struck me as a bit of a lounge lizard. It embarrasses me that my demographic still is largely in favour of him. We know his type. I guess some of us fall for that type and some of us don't.
Wondering, is it wrong for me to enjoy Poilievre's jabs at this PM? I also quite enjoyed his answer to the questions, for it is "just a fact". And facts seem to matter little anymore in this political climate.
Yes and I enjoy Poilievre’s sarcastic cutting remarks thoroughly because they are mostly true. The Liberals consistently smear monger their opponents with impunity calling them racists, white supremacists, Nazis, misogynists and deplorables with unacceptable views. If this isn’t hate speech nothing is. Trudeau gets called out appropriately by Poilievre for his corruption scandals, coverups, lies and his hate speech against anyone disagreeing with him. Remember when Trudeau referred to Melissa Lantsman, a Jewish MP, as a Nazi sympathizer or supporter? No apology from Trudeau for his blatant hate speech. Can you imagine the fecal storm if Poilievre called Trudeau or any of his minions Nazi sympathizers? The Liberals and their fawning media sycophants hate Poilievre with a passion because his biting sarcasm exposes them for the corrupt deceitful fools they are.
I agree. The counterfactual is hard to deny. Though that doesn't mean Poilievre should go there too much. A healthy dose of snark needed to get people to listen to policy, methinks.
Aye.
It's not true that the salacious conjecture is *entirely* without foundation. It arises from the yearbook photos showing an extremely handsy Trudeau groping some very young girls. In one, his blackened pinky slips down to the girl's cleavage; in another, each hand is clasped tightly around a different girl's waist, practically cupping a boob. There isn't a single other (male) teacher in Canada who could pose for pictures like this for a yearbook and not get disciplined immediately. It is entirely inappropriate, unprofessional, and creepy - whether the girls or their parents object to it or not.
The question obviously does arise: If THESE are the liberties Trudeau takes when the yearbook cameras are rolling, what would he do in a more private setting? It calls to mind the entirely well-founded allegations of Trudeau groping a young reporter in B.C. around the same time. As Trump said, celebrities are allowed to take liberties, and Trudeau was a minor celebrity in Canada even back then. Add Trudeau's outsized narcissism to his minor celebrity status, and Fanny's your Aunt.
So I reject utterly the notion that Trudeau has nothing to answer for.
Oh, but he has answered: he wanted to go back to university. It doesn't wash. There was no need to quit mid-semester to attend university in September. And his desire to return to university was pretty flakey, because he withdrew as quickly as he enrolled. No responsible, much-loved teacher would abandon his charges in the middle of a semester for such a flight of fancy.
Nor is the school's Principal's denial probative. The Principal is approximately as conflicted in this scenario as David Johnston on the China file. Nobody wants to be in charge when a scandal erupts. Of course he is going to deny that his school was a haven for child molesters!
There IS something suspicious about Trudeau's sudden departure. There is insufficient evidence for any particular conjecture to be acted upon, but in the absence of a credible account, voters are entitled to draw their own conclusions.
"The question obviously does arise." You're quite right. Indeed it does. But I have seen no answers that support the allegation, which remains unfounded.
It depends on what "the allegation" is. The allegation that Trudeau was unprofessionally handsy with his female students is fully evidenced. That's enough knowledge of his character for me to despise him. It doesn't take anything more. You? There is no *specific* evidence he did anything more than get handsy with girls (and grope a reporter); but there is an old legal adage to the effect that human nature is evidence in every case. We know what people with Trudeau's character, personality, and proven proclivities get up to when they can. I wouldn't trust my daughter around him, let's put it that way.
There's an article in the Buffalo Chronicle about this where Trudeau's friends are quoted about it.
The Buffalo Chronicle is the Weekly World News, without bat boy.
I know, but I don't know how reliable the "Buffalo Chronicle" is. So I go by what I can see with my own eyes, and that is plenty bad enough. The fact that Liberal supporters and mainstream media talking heads can't see it - or refuse to see it - is most appalling. You don't have to like PP or his debating tactics, but to treat him as the bad guy for noticing what everyone's own eyes can see for themselves is discrediting.
I treated neither of them as "the bad guy."
My remark was not aimed at you; but rather at the "At Issue" panel on CBC. They - especially Andrew Coyne - were an appalling disgrace for covering for Trudeau's shenanigans at WPGA. As if, "Oh, that's perfectly normal teacher behaviour! PP is disgusting for alluding to it." That episode alone tells me all I need to know about the character of the people on that panel.
I do like Pierre Poilievre. I also like the way he holds his own against the press and Trudeau. I just don't like this kind of sleazy reference especially when Clive Austin said there was nothing to the story.
Clive Austin is as conflicted on the shenanigans at WPGA as David Johnston is on the China-Trudeau file. The school Principal would say nothing happened whether or not nothing happened, so his opinion is technically worthless.
I don't know if it's sleazy, though. Trudeau initiated the negative exchange by implying that Poilievre's only job was/is as MP. My take is that if Trudeau doesn't want smart ass retorts, he probably shouldn't initiate smart-ass exchanges. In any case, it was the media who filled in the blanks as to why JT left that job. A lot of Canadians watching that exchange would not know what Pierre's comments may or may not have referred to.
I see a lot of comments complaining that Poilievre acts too much like a yippy attack dog. I’d prefer he appear more primeministerial.
Opposition leaders don't get much coverage unless they stand out somehow. I personally enjoy listening to Poilievre in the House. Sometimes he's over the top, and I cringe, but at least he isn't condescending.
You’re correct that politics is worst than it’s even been. Trudeau is a big driver of that. Watching him this morning on one of his paid networks (sidebar - we have to get back to a subscription revenue model for journalism like when news papers made their living by people throwing in 25 cents before advertisers squeezed them out and owners with other interest took over) lecture about immature people more interested in playing politics rather than getting down to the serious business of running the country was a bit much. Who does he thinks still believes anything he says?
He obviously had aspirations of being an actor, too bad he wasn’t good enough to have made it and we all could have been spared his bs.
"Who does he thinks still believes anything he says?" Well, almost a third of Canadians would still vote for him. The majority of women in some age categories.
And it was a poor choice of words, I should of said, why is anyone still voting for him.
Yes, polling shows him and Singh could possibly patch together another deal if there was an election now. I have a bet for a bottle scotch with a good Friend that nothing changes after the next election. I’m on the betting side of nothing changes. I really want to owe him a bottle, but we’ll see.
Thanks Terry. Needed this laugh (and new addition to my vocabulary!) 😆🍀
I like the phrase "acting the maggot"! I may use it in the near future.
West Point Grey Academy headmaster Clive Austin “attested to complete certainty that there was absolutely nothing to the story, or conspiracy theory, or rumour, or speculation.”
Most if not all C-level executives that leave suddenly do so “to spend more time with the family”, “pursue other interests” or “for health reasons”. Rarely is the real cause disclosed.
Austin may have “attested” but that is not the same as “testified under oath”.
There could have been an NDA signed without the principal’s knowledge. Or the principal may have been paid to deny. The point of NDAs is to buy silence. Would Trudeau would admit to a thing he paid to hide?
And maybe the photo of him hugging the young woman is just a coincidence. Maybe he never went beyond that. Trump claims the same for Stormy Daniels. The effort to show otherwise in the US has been much more extensive than for more serious allegations in Canada.
Teachers who start a semester should finish it.
Whether or not Pierre Poilievre was “acting the maggot”, which is not admitted but which I choose to specifically deny, I contend that Justin Trudeau IS the maggot.
Love these examples of language which is so accurate and, indeed, should be added to our lexicon.
THANK YOU LYNNE for noticing what this newsletter was intended to be about.
Yes we know what it is about but when you light the fire of outrage mentioning Trudeau people respond to what outrages them the most - Trudeau’s continuous record of corruption scandals, coverups and lies. Why would anyone give Trudeau the benefit of the doubt? There has never been a PM so desperate for adulation or such a self-absorbed narcissist. Trudeau is thoroughly immoral and unethical so people naturally think the worst of him.He has zero redeeming qualities. I am not saying I believe the school scandal and never jumped to the conclusion that Trudeau is guilty. But it certainly wouldn’t surprise me if it is true.
Well, his roomie at the time WAS Chris Ingvaldson, after all! Google him if you dare.
I see I stand alone thinking Trudeau’s “ jab” was a low snotty reference to Poilievre’s humble beginnings. “You came from a little house in Calgary and like a newspaper delivery boy saved your Pennie’s went to University and wormed your way here today as leader.” “ I on the other hand had a Corvette, smoked weed, lived in expensive digs, and Dads last name got me the gig..” If I were Poilievre I would “ eat the maggot “ too. Ok ok re reading this I see I’m too sensitive. Carry on.
Given Trudeau's history of deflections, prevarications, and outright lies, and of influential people covering for him, there are many reasons to suspect that he left West Point Grey under a cloud.
Recent examples - Trudeau saying that he never disparaged the unvaccinated or the convoy protestors during the EA inquiry. Also, saying that people "experience things differently" when deflecting about the case of him making unwanted sexual overtures to a journalist before he was PM.
"They lie to us, we know they're lying, they know we know they're lying, but they keep lying to us, and we keep pretending to believe them." Alexandr Solzhenitsyn.
Thanks for “Acting the Maggot”, a new term to add to my lexicon. I have always been partial to
“A Shower of Bastards”, when referring to the Trudeau Liberals. An example from Father Ted.
Dougal: "Why is Jack so scared of doctors?"
Ted: "I think they just remind him of illness, he doesn't like to think of his own mortality, that's why he always hated visiting the sick"
Dougal: "Oh yeah he hates the sick, and the poor"
Ted: "Oh the poor really got on his nerves"
Dougal: "And the needy"
Ted: "Them too, what was he used to say about the needy, he had a term for them"
Dougal: "A shower of bastards!" Ted: "That was it!"
HILARIOUS.
Best show ever!
I think the only maggot in this equation is the PM.
Sorry Terry. This column is way below your usual high-quality standard.
Sorry if your sense of humour is below my standards.
Don't be so defensive, Terry. It was fine. You can't please everyone, all the time. Nobody can. People subscribe so they can kibitz.
Still eschewing obfuscation I see!
I have a question, Terry, about David Johnston’s Committee appearance today. I wasn’t able to watch it and have been trying to catch up. I read John Ivison’s piece and I just read Wesley Wark’s substack piece about it. Wark’s seems rather “Johnston friendly”, and John Ivison is pretty milk pudding about it as well. Do you plan to report on it?
Stay tuned. Johnston is an embarrassment.
I agree, Terry, Johnston is very much an embarrassment.
A million and one thanks for your brilliant article in the NP, Terry. I recommended, in the comment section of the piece, that people should subscribe to your Substack TheRealStory to become more/better informed. Hopefully, the comment won't get "Deactivated" or worse yet, your exceptional article get blown off the front page by some stupid, useless Trudeau announcement.