Should Justin Trudeau have to step down for saying David Suzuki is full of sanctimonious crap"?

Mon, 2015-09-28 12:10

DaveW

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I guess I'm just not seeing the part where Saint David of Suzuki is beyond criticism. Certainly nobody has to AGREE with Justin on this, but I think it's a bit extreme to pretend he's guilty of sacrilege. During a phone call.

way back in the 1980s I had a brief professional dealing with D.S., and he made it clear you were very privileged to be accorded time in his presence. Astoundingly self-absorbed in that encounter.

So, someone calling him sanctimonious 30 years late does not surprise me in the slightest. He is a star and lets people know it. Any number of apparently accessible CBC stars have proven to be obnoxious in private, in my experience.

Mon, 2015-09-28 12:18

#53

KenS

I disagree fundamentally with theat characterisation of Suzuki. Increasingly irritable, yes. The rest, no. And utter crap that "80% of environmentalists reject him, even with the qualifier "atsome point.

Mon, 2015-09-28 12:27

#54

Paladin1

The more I hear JT talk the more I think he's clueless and a puppet.

Aside from that this new theme of demanding someone get fired anytime they don't say bless you after someone sneezes is getting tiresome.

If you want to make politicians step down then do it if and when they don't follow through on election promises.

Mon, 2015-09-28 12:27

#55

Unionist

[url=http://www.ctvnews.ca/suzuki-slams-ndp-tories-backs-dion-s-carbon-tax-1.... slams NDP, Tories, backs Liberals' carbon tax[/url]

Mon, 2015-09-28 13:02

#56

mark_alfred

Unionist wrote:

[url=http://www.ctvnews.ca/suzuki-slams-ndp-tories-backs-dion-s-carbon-tax-1.... slams NDP, Tories, backs Liberals' carbon tax[/url]

I don't recall Layton declaring that Suzuki was spouting sanctimonious crap at that time. I believe he was still respectful.

From the Macleans article, Suzuki seems to favour the Greens in this election.

Mon, 2015-09-28 13:04

#57

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

Unionist wrote:

[url=http://www.ctvnews.ca/suzuki-slams-ndp-tories-backs-dion-s-carbon-tax-1.... slams NDP, Tories, backs Liberals' carbon tax[/url]

I don't recall Layton declaring that Suzuki was spouting sanctimonious crap at that time. I believe he was still respectful.

I believe Suzuki was still being respectful as well... not blabbing to the media about a private phone conversation.

Did I mention this was a stupid thread?

Mon, 2015-09-28 13:23

#58

mark_alfred

Unionist wrote:
I believe Suzuki was still being respectful as well... not blabbing to the media about a private phone conversation.

Suzuki has always been outspoken. He's never shied away from expressing his dismay. Even from the link you gave, he used rather strong language in expressing his dismay about the NDP position: '"To oppose (the carbon tax plan), its just nonsense. It's certainly the way we got to go," he said Sunday on CTV's Question Period.' I think he expressed dismay specifically that it was Layton who would be doing this (since the two had worked together on occasion). I'm thinking that if there had been a similar conversation to the one he descibed having with Trudeau recently, between Layton and Suzuki at that time, that Suzuki would not have held back talking about it.

Mon, 2015-09-28 13:27

#59

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Unionist wrote:
I believe Suzuki was still being respectful as well... not blabbing to the media about a private phone conversation.

Suzuki has always been outspoken. He's never shied away from expressing his dismay. Even from the link you gave, he used rather strong language in expressing his dismay about the NDP position: '"To oppose (the carbon tax plan), its just nonsense. It's certainly the way we got to go," he said Sunday on CTV's Question Period.' I think he expressed dismay specifically that it was Layton who would be doing this (since the two had worked together on occasion). I'm thinking that if there had been a similar conversation to the one he descibed having with Trudeau recently, between Layton and Suzuki at that time, that Suzuki would not have held back talking about it.

Trudeau had the gall to phone Suzuki and speak with him personally. Did Layton?

Mon, 2015-09-28 13:32

#60

mark_alfred

Gall? I think Trudeau making a courtesy call is fine. Being discourteous during the courtesy call is weird.

Mon, 2015-09-28 13:37

#61

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

Gall? I think Trudeau making a courtesy call is fine. Being discourteous during the courtesy call is weird.

Just out of curiosity: Blabbing to the media about a personal phone call - is that "discourteous"? "Weird"?

Mon, 2015-09-28 13:47

#62

quizzical

did he call Mulcair a twerp?

Mon, 2015-09-28 14:02

#63

mark_alfred

Unionist wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Gall? I think Trudeau making a courtesy call is fine. Being discourteous during the courtesy call is weird.

Just out of curiosity: Blabbing to the media about a personal phone call - is that "discourteous"? "Weird"?

Perhaps. I don't see it that way though. I'm not surprised that Suzuki would report a potential prime minister being dismissive of his ideas in a conversation over the phone.

ETA: that wasn't well worded, but presumably you know what I mean.

ETA2: I'm being too polite here. So no, I don't think that Suzuki reporting this interaction that he had with Trudeau was discourteous or weird. He's free to report to the media that during a phone call that Trudeau made to him that Trudeau was dismissive of his ideas. In fact it's important for him to do so, I feel.

Mon, 2015-09-28 14:44

#64

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

did he call Mulcair a twerp?

They haven't spoken so the opportunity didn't come up. What difference does it make? He condemns NDP environmental policy and supports the Greens.

Mon, 2015-09-28 15:15

#65

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:
So no, I don't think that Suzuki reporting this interaction that he had with Trudeau was discourteous or weird. He's free to report to the media that during a phone call that Trudeau made to him that Trudeau was dismissive of his ideas. In fact it's important for him to do so, I feel.

I understand your point, but I find it scary. It means that people in the public eye can't speak freely in private conversations. Presumably you would have excused Trudeau for going public with this conversation if Suzuki had said something, oh, say, sanctimonious?

I think it's a rather undignified breach of privacy. Yes, Suzuki had every right to do it. No, it's not a decent and respectful thing to do. And it certainly didn't amount to a public service - revealing some crime or duplicity or even inconsistency on Trudeau's part - it was just plain fodder to cheerleaders, even though I'm sure Suzuki didn't intend it that way.

Mon, 2015-09-28 15:31

#66

mark_alfred

Talking about a phone call is scary? 1984? C'mon. It's not like it was some officially designated confidential meeting. If it was, IE if ideas expressed are deemed strictly to be "without prejudice", then maybe. But Trudeau calls Suzuki to share his campaign ideas for the environment, gets feedback he doesn't like, and then Trudeau sneers at Suzuki for this? And you think Suzuki is in the wrong for telling people about this?

We will have to agree to disagree on this.

Mon, 2015-09-28 15:32

#67

KenS

The Cubs won the game against the Pirates last night. I dont know about my connection with Lewis Carroll.

Mon, 2015-09-28 16:30

#68

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

Talking about a phone call is scary? 1984? C'mon. It's not like it was some officially designated confidential meeting. If it was, IE if ideas expressed are deemed strictly to be "without prejudice", then maybe. But Trudeau calls Suzuki to share his campaign ideas for the environment, gets feedback he doesn't like, and then Trudeau sneers at Suzuki for this? And you think Suzuki is in the wrong for telling people about this?

We will have to agree to disagree on this.

Talking about a phone call is not scary. You misunderstood what I said. It's your considering it as ok which is a bit scary. It means everyone has to watch what they say in seemingly private conversations for fear it will be repeated. If you don't see that that inhibits full and frank discussion, then we will definitely have to agree to disagree. I wouldn't go public with a private conversation with anyone. Would you?

ETA: This is actually becoming an interesting discussion. I asked if you would find it acceptable if Trudeau had gone public with this conversation, saying "I asked him to support our platform, he called me a twerp". I wouldn't.

Likewise if Mulcair had called, and Suzuki had said: "Go shove Energy East and supporting tar sands where the sun don't shine - put Linda McQuaig on the phone, please!", and Mulcair had said, "Get off your high horse, St. David!" Would that be "newsworthy"? I don't think so. People should be able to have private conversations, period.

Mon, 2015-09-28 17:49

#69

mark_alfred

Trudeau is a potential prime minister. So, it's odd. It's not the same as two peers betraying a confidence (IE, if someone here PMs me, I wouldn't go around posting that -- unless someone is a real jackass, then I may mention it to the mods).

Anyway, it's not hugely important. Sadly, most of the threads here are on stuff like this. "Mulcair didn't say...", "Should Trudeau resign for saying..." "So and so wrote some crap years ago on Facebook..."

On the environment, what's more important is what the parties are actually promoting. Mulcair announced a national cap and trade program recently along with a promise to revive the Climate Change Accountability Act. Good stuff, I feel.

ETA: If Mulcair had phoned Suzuki to share his environmental plan with Suzuki, and Suzuki said he did not agree and began laying out his case why, and Mulcair interrupted and said, "I don't need to hear your sanctimonious crap," I think it would be fine for Suzuki to mention this to the media. Mulcair is a potential prime minister, and weirdly dismissive behaviour like this would merit a mention, I feel.

ETA2: If Suzuki had been the caller, though, I feel it's a different scenario, and it would neither be proper nor would it merit a mention to the media.

Wed, 2016-03-16 22:21

#70

Unionist

Suzuki voted "strategically" for Trudeau. First time he ever voted for a winner. And much more:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/david-suzuki-turns-80-cbc-the-national-1.3... Suzuki talks Trudeau, aging and failed environmentalism as he turns 80[/url]

Wed, 2016-03-16 22:29

#71

mark_alfred

Good article.

Sat, 2016-03-19 15:39

#72

Pondering

Well then I guess the answer to the question posed by the thread is no seeing as David Suzuki himself voted for Trudeau.

Sat, 2016-03-19 16:05

#73

Mr. Magoo

Oh, but he voted strategically. The best you can take from that is that he saw a Liberal government as the least of all evils. A pretty classic example of "damning with faint praise".

Sat, 2016-03-19 16:19

#74

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Oh, but he voted strategically. The best you can take from that is that he saw a Liberal government as the least of all evils. A pretty classic example of "damning with faint praise".

Yes indeed, so what does that say about the NDP? Suzuki didn't endorsed them either. He endorsed the Greens didn't he?

Suzuki even said calling Trudeau a "twerp" was like a term of endearment compared to what he thinks of Harper. I guess he doesn't agree that Liberal Tory is the same ol story.