Revolution?
I’ve
never been one for politics. To be honest, I know far less about politics than
a responsible adult should. It’s something I’ve been thinking I need to
re-study and learn – not because it intrigues me, but more because it
infuriates me. Too often it feels like my job as a Canadian citizen is to vote
for which pile of poo stinks less.
When
the whole #elbowgate fiasco erupted yesterday, I posted this on Facebook:
I can only imagine the uproar of the
Liberals if a Conservative Prime Minister had taken a man by the elbow and
escorted him away from a conversation - elbowing a woman in the chest as he did
so.
Prime
Ministers aren't supposed to be bouncers.
Turns out
the uproar is pretty much exactly the same as it would have been if any party’s
winning Prime Minister had done this.
I stand by
my Facebook post. I watched the video, like many others did. I watched some
reporting on it, but that just exasperated me further. In the first video I watched
the reporter say Trudeau “almost brushed” the lady standing behind him.
I have a fairly
good grasp of the English language (so long as I’ve had some coffee). Almost
means it did not in fact happen. Almost means no contact happened. Also,
brushed implies he “barely” touched her. Neither of those words belong in
reporting that story.
However.
Neither do the words trauma or assault belong in the news story. It seemed to
me that at first the media tried to downplay the event, and once they realized
the uproar the incident caused, rolled with it and helped pour gasoline on the
fire.
Did Trudeau
walk purposefully down an aisle, take a man by his arm and escort him away from
a group of people, accidentally elbowing a woman in the chest as he did so?
Um, yes.
Watch the video. Come on. He didn’t just brush against her, he didn’t bump her.
Her startled reaction and a hand reaching out to steady her testifies to that.
Did he show
his true colours as a woman hater, push and shove his way through a group of
people, grab and drag a man by the arm, and angrily backhand a woman who wouldn’t
get out of the way?
Um, no. No,
he didn’t. But by people using adjectives and verbs that paint a very different
picture rather than the event that actually took place, they shout “victim” and
change the direction of the conversation. We shouldn’t be sitting here
wondering if our Primer Minister is about to become the Hulk and start a war
against women and democracy. We should be wondering about how our government is
run and if we, the people who the government was created for, want it to
continue to run this way.
Should he
have left his seat? Should he have touched another person with the intent of “moving
them along”? Should he have been so exasperated he wasn’t aware of his
surroundings and elbowed a person? No, he shouldn’t have. It showed immaturity,
it showed a lack of control, it showed disrespect, it showed arrogance. It did
not show that he is some sort of misogynist.
He
apologized. He said he regretted his actions and that they shouldn’t have
happened.
And they
shouldn’t have. But there’s more to this that bothers me.
Is this
seriously how our country is run? By people who shout and boo when others are
speaking? By people who block the passage of a man to delay a vote? By such
childish and disrespectful antics that the leader of our country is so
exasperated and aggravated that he loses his common sense and awareness of proper
behavior, and ends up delaying, even further, a controversial vote he was originally
intending to hurry along? (Ironic, no?)
Our country
is run, (and it doesn’t seem to matter who is in power) by people who willingly
and self-righteously will use any ammo to further their own interests. The government
was created for the people. If the government is meant to serve the citizens of
its country, why would the government fail in the “satisfaction of service”
department of any survey, ever?
Comments
Post a Comment