Tuesday, February 19, 2019

In SNC Lavalin political fiasco, no-one is even questioning the initial Globe allegations

I have avoided commenting on the whole Justin Trudeau / Jody Wilson-Raybould / SNC Lavalin fiasco thus far, mainly because there just seems to be so little in the way of actual facts to discuss.
There are still many unknowns (both known and unknown) in the affair and, while it is clear that Trudeau has mishandled it, the sheer wishy-washiness of the allegations is starting to bug me. Coming just months before the next federal election, the story is already a major election issue, even though we know next to nothing about what actually happened. If Trudeau is beaten in the 2019 elections, and we spend the next four years wandering in a Conservative wilderness under Andrew Scheer, then it will be cause if this single issue alone, and all because of a thus far completely unsubstantiated allegation.
The whole thing was generated out of nothing by a February 7th article in the Globe and Mail reporting allegations from an unidentified anonymous source. We don't know if it was a reliable source; we don't even know if it was a source that was in a position to know such intimate details of cabinet discussions. It was one of those "sources say" articles - that's all we were given. But the Globe, and then everyone else, ran with the story, and it took on a life of its own. It has been repeated in the press ad nauseam as a bald fact, and often does not even get the label of "allegations". No-one seems to be even questioning that.
Yes, the reactions of all concerned suggest that there may well be fire behind the smoke. But, at the moment, all we have is some smoke from an unidentified anonymous source. Let's not lose sight of that fact.
And, while I am about it, I would also like to put to rest another allegation that is being proposed and repeated with little or no discernment: the idea that because Jody Wilson-Raybould is female and "racialized", any decision or opinion that may operate against her is automatically sexist and racist. Just one example of this is the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs characterization of the debate as "sexist and racist innuendo", when all they were responding to was the report (from another"insider who didn't want to be identified") that Wilson-Raybould "was difficult to get along with, known to berate fellow cabinet ministers openly at the table, and who others felt they had trouble trusting". That does not paint a very complimentary picture, to be sure, but nothing in it is specifically sexist or racist. And let's not confuse that either.

No comments: