Is it possible for the maker of a message to botch his own work as he tries to embellish and purvey it? Well, two situations developed lately that have the potential to give some kind of answer to that question.
The first situation
was generated by an encounter between the Prime Minister of Canada and the
leader of the opposition. The second was generated by the arguments that
Clifford D. May who wrote an article that was meant to be on a different
subject, but got involved in this one.
Clifford May
told what he knows about the Russian dissident Alexei Navalny whom he describes
as being Putin’s only serious rival.
Given the
amount of knowledge about Russia that Clifford May has displayed mastery of as
shown in his past writings year after year, it is surprising that his current
attempt at explaining who the Russian dissident is, and what happened to him,
falls short of what’s expected of Clifford May. Of course, it could be that (a)
dissent in Russia is of little concern to him, or it could be that (b) he saw
in the current story, an aspect that’s more compelling than dissent in Russia.
In fact, a
serious analysis of Clifford May’s article, which came under the title: “Murder
in the Gulag,” tells more about the American messenger Tucker Carlson who
brought the story to light, than the message of the Russian dissident who,
according to May, was murdered in a Russian gulag precisely because his message
offended the high and mighty of that unhappy place.
Reflecting
the (a) possibility, it can be said that by the time we wrap your heads around
all of that, and come to read the subtitle of the article, we get shocked by
what Clifford May is trying to do. Look what the subtitle of the article says:
“Alexei
Navalny, Putin’s only serious rival, has been eliminated,” which means that May
is tickled more by the entertainment value that’s displayed in the rivalry of
two “political gladiators” — a rivalry that ended in the disappearance of one
rival — than May is preoccupied with the ramifications of the message which the
“eliminated” left behind.
Reflecting
on the (b) possibility, it can be said that Clifford May concluded that telling
the story of the living American Tucker Carlson, will garner him a bigger
audience than that of the dead Russian Alexei Navalny. And so, May went all out
to tell, dissect and criticize the dispassionate manner by which Carlson told a
Russian story; one that should have awakened his patriotic sentiment and
compelled him to show the many ways by which the American system of governance
is said to be superior to the Russian.
Failing to
do this, Clifford May only managed to produce yet another ho-hum article to add
to his pile of boredom. As to the situation that was generated by an encounter
between the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, it shows clearly
how a born loser draws defeat from the jaws of victory.
What
happened that brought those two men into conflict, was the revelation by the
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that he will table legislation in Parliament on
Human Rights next week. This prompted the Leader of the Opposition to point out
the irony in the violator of Human Rights pretending to protect what he
violates. It is like the fox who sits on the eggs of chicken to incubate them.
You know what happens next.
Still, Trudeau
responded by saying that the Opposition did not read the legislation it is
criticizing, and must wait till it is tabled before raising objections. Well,
this is the kind of give-and-take that happens all the time between two who are
at loggerhead. Understanding why they happen can be more beneficial than
dismissing the arguments altogether.
Well then,
when the Leader of the Opposition criticized the Prime Minister, he was saying
that on the basis of the available prima facie evidence, a Prime Minister that
lived in violation of Human Rights, is one that cannot protect Human Rights. In
pointing this out, the Opposition gave the Prime Minister the opportunity to
show regret, if not contrition for what he did in the past, and go on from
there toward a future that will help him amend his prior failures.
The Prime
Minster failed to do any of that in the distant past as well as the recent past,
thus let stand the accusation concerning the slow-motion rape and murder to
which he subjected and continues to subject his own citizens.
In fact, what
Trudeau did instead, was that he wrapped himself with the customary defensive
shield of accusing the Opposition of attacking him for being the least credible
advocate of Human Rights to succeed at protecting Human Rights. And that did
not sit well with the Prime Minister who believes he is so perfect, he cannot
be criticized for anything.
The
conclusion is inevitable, the Opposition is saying: Get out of this
hypocritical mode, Justin; let someone else do the job you’re about to botch
yet again; let someone credible fix what you never knew was so important,
violating it as you’ve been doing, was sacrilegious through and through.
Step aside Justin, and let Canada start a new day in the glory of being a true defender of Human Rights.