It couldn't have been staged better. We have to assume they were just waiting..The story could have written itself, then sat on a shelf somewhere just waiting to be dusted off when some ne'er-do-well stepped into the fray with his inappropriate, problematic, no-place-for-it-in-Canada anger..“Freeland was called a b—ch, a f---er, and a traitor”..And the whole communications team goes nuts..Here's the headline from a prominent CBC article: “Chrystia Freeland latest target of public threats, intimidation against women in Canadian politics.".Subtext: Something must be done. This is happening all the time. Poor Chrystia..And it's packed with keywords:.“The latest” (intimidation is a recent phenomenon. Freeland is not just one of hundreds of Canadian politicians over the years who have been threatened)..“Target” (this is war)..“Threats and intimidation” (in Canada, this is violence. But note: Governments' messaging such as “for the unvaccinated there will be consequences” are not threats and intimidation)..“Women” (this is a women's issue. Men in Canadian politics don't get intimidated)..Of course from just the headline we know the culprit: a big violent man who hates gays, vaccines, and progress. We don't have to be told..Then there are the photos which we must assume are spontaneously chosen, just whatever was lying around someone's desktop. The first shows Freeland airbrushed and thoughtful, giving a speech. Great shot, good angle, could be from a magazine. The next shows Freeland with her family, in a never before seen pose and a posse. She's just a happy frumpy mom out for a hike with her kids, not the World Economic Forum trustee who, according to the WEF website, led Canada's pandemic response. Just a mom..C'mon, insulting violent brute, leave the poor woman alone..The article then showcases a podcast from 'The House,' with interviews of two journalists of colour and an activist, and quotes like this one from Erica Ifill of The Hill Times: “People don't like journalists, they don't like women, they don't like people of colour.”.By now the link to Chrystia Freeland is making sense. The podcast highlights growing and intentional online intimidation in which some have taken to psychological warfare, researching their prey and using their history and loved ones as bait. Its true, the internet amplifies hate, and The House episode raises the spectre of online intimidation against not only women but celebrities everywhere..Linked to the podcast then is the example of Elizabeth May who, having asked the RCMP what she should do about threats, was told that she should put a pair of worn out work boots at the front door. She now has a panic button in her house and hired a security team..Notably, never are any numbers given with the “rise” in intimidating behaviour. No specific comparisons are made with with threatening messages issued in other years. Moral readers are so morally outraged by the topic we should not expect numbers..So, scaffolded onto the Freeland story is a host of other stories the CBC and good Canadians will all see as related. We even get links to the chiding Jagmeet Singh took a couple months back in Peterborough, and Trudeau having no choice but to cancel an engagement because protesters were expected..Then this gem: "Threats, violence, intimidation of any kind are always unacceptable, and this kind of cowardly behaviour threatens and undermines our democracy and our values of openness and respect.".We are told Trudeau said this at the launch of Canada's first Federal 2SLGBTQI+ Action Plan in Ottawa. "As leaders, we need to call this out and take a united stance against it.".Wow..Are you keeping track? One vitriolic sentence by one man and we get all this: A profile of Deputy Prime Minister Freeland as thoughtful and professional, as well as a fun-loving, mountain-hiking mom and a dyed-in-the-wool Albertan; Freeland becomes the poster child for oppressed women and blacks and all members of the LGBT community everywhere who suffer under patriarchal, colonialist, fascist, toxically masculine mindsets (I don't know her, but I think its safe to assume she doesn't exactly live the experience of a truly oppressed person); we get the sudden and rising spectre of intimidation against women journalists and MPs (a new phenomenon to be blamed on the internet and 'The Right.').We also get experts who say legislation will not solve the entire problem, but there obviously should be some legislation..And, we get the brand new, hot-off-the-press federal 2SLGBTQI+ Action Plan..Not a bad bang for your buck. Fear galore. Trudeau gets his weapons of mass intimidation and War on Terror. Pink-shirted and stylishly socked, the Prime Minister of the Strong and Free valiantly sallies forth calling one and all to arms: We have a problem in this country and it's angry people calling other people names..And that's to say nothing of the diversion: Two weeks ago Rupa Subramanya broke what should have been an-earth shattering story in which court documents had shown Trudeau's travel ban had no scientific basis or backing. Canadians, having patted our own backs ad nauseum with the follow-the-science mantra, should have shown widespread moral outrage at Trudeau's blatant lies..Nope. But name-calling? Now you've stepped on a Canadian virtue..The greatest victim in all this framing is this: The question “Why?”.When one of your kids comes to you and tells you their brother or sister has called them a nasty name, what's the first thing you do? Do you go immediately and punish the offending child? Or might you ask, “Why do you think they called you that?”.You of course do the latter and you do that because, as one mother of six I know well says, “It always takes two to tango.” You know that something sparked the insult, even if you really don't like the words used. Context matters, and you've learned that, “Well, I only pinched him” — or the like — is usually the answer. Furthermore, we want the offending child to recognize they played a part, and share some responsibility..None of that here..Trudeau, Jagmeet, and Freeland — nobody asks what they have done to earn the shocking ire of otherwise agreeable Canadians. And what is perhaps most infuriating is they get lumped in with people who do legitimately suffer at the hands of online bullies — be they male or female. The poor politicians do not belong in that group..The most glaring weakness among our activist journalists today is that they refuse to ask 'Why?' They do not dig into why those they disagree with, do the things they do. Initial causes do not exist among the demonized. Instead, journalists use innuendo: We're just supposed to know. That demon of a bearded man and all those far-righters like him are evil and must be stopped. Only those whom we say are oppressed have reason to feel that way and to react (for example) by burning towns, calling for people to be cancelled, or worse..Consolidate power, turn anyone who disagrees with the regime into terrorists and enemies of the state, then purge..Its classic. And we keep on falling for it.
