Another day, another dollar, another political misstep by Justin Trudeau.
It’s reached the point where I can almost set my watch to the Liberal leader either going off script, badly misreading public opinion or putting his foot in his mouth. (As Paul Tuns, The Interim’s editor-in-chief and author of an upcoming book on Trudeau, nicely put it, “I want [to] thank Junior for being both a joy and pain to delve into.”)
In this case, it was Trudeau’s recent speech to the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada that raised many eyebrows.
Trudeau’s strategy was to create an “us vs. them” scenario with the Tories. For example, he claimed Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s approach “to politics might work in the short term, but it is corrosive over time, especially in a diverse country like Canada. It stokes anxiety and foments fear. Instead of encouraging Canadians to fight for one another’s liberty, it tells us to be suspicious of each other’s choices.”
These lines, which contain many inaccuracies, can be easily written off as political rhetoric. All parties engage in these tactics. It’s part of the game we play. We’re used to it.
Here’s where things started to go downhill, however. Trudeau correctly mentioned that former prime minister William Lyon Mackenzie King had set up Japanese internment camps during World War II “because they were popular… despite evidence from the RCMP and defence that they were unwarranted.”
Then, he made this statement: “So we should all shudder to hear the same rhetoric that led to a ‘none is too many’ immigration policy toward Jews in the ’30s and ’40s, being used to raise fears against Muslims today.”
Hold on. Did Trudeau juxtapose the Harper Tories’ relationship with the Muslim community with the King Liberals’ horrendous handling of Jewish immigration during the rise of Germany’s Nazi party?
I’m sorry, but that’s nuts!
First, there’s a huge difference between Islam and Islamism.
The Tories strongly oppose the brutal, violent actions of Islamists, or Muslim extremists. There has never – repeat, never – been any opposition to the vast majority of moderate Muslims, who are peaceful, hardworking and benefit our society. We want to work with them, not against them.
Second, Trudeau’s statement is clearly linked to the controversy involving Muslim women wearing niqabs and whether they should briefly remove them when taking our citizenship oath.
I believe they should. It would ensure that their full facial features are properly viewed for identification purposes. It’s not an attack on their religious faith: they’re free to wear a niqab in Canada. Rather, it’s a small, insignificant way to maintain a degree of safety and security in our country.
Third, Trudeau has a severely skewed vision of what liberty means.
Canadian conservatives strongly believe in the important principles of liberty, democracy and freedom. Our liberties remain as strong as they were when the Tories were first elected in 2006.
The difference is our world is far less safe. The Tory government has to deal with the constant threat of terrorism, both at home (Ottawa shootings) and abroad (ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram). By making tiny adjustments to personal freedom and liberty, the government has increased the overall freedom and liberty that all Canadians share.
Hence, Trudeau’s decision to weave the niqab controversy with King’s openly racist policy on Jewish immigration was disgraceful. Combining it with an imaginary Tory campaign against the entire Muslim community was beyond the pale.
Here’s some final food for thought.
A recent Global News/Ipsos Reid poll showed 88 per cent of respondents strongly or somewhat supported the “requirement that people show their faces during Canadian citizenship ceremonies.” Meanwhile, 72 per cent strongly or somewhat agreed with the PM’s position that niqabs and burkas are “symbols of oppression rooted in a culture that is anti-women.”
Looks like the people have spoken. Care to comment, Justin?
Michael Taube is a Washington Times columnist, and a former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.