Thursday, February 23, 2006

In praise of . . .

Pierre Trudeau.

The CBC link above, linking to the "just watch me" interview with Trudeau, is amazing. A totally unscripted interview by a very confrontational reporter with the Prime Minister. I note that this is pre-Charter, and imposing martial law is almost uncertainly unconstitutional. However - could you imagine a President facing something like this? It's an amazing interview. Trudeau's absolute lack of equivocation is breathaking. I wish politicans now would do this (well, non-Republicans). Now, it seems (especially on the left) we speak in a way that will piss of as few people as possible. Here, Trudeau is so clear with his convictions. I mean, "A lot of bleeding hearts who don't like the sight of people in helemts. Well, go on and bleed." Wow. Watch it.

And listen to this speech. Again - could you see Dubya making this speech? Or even Harper? Or Martin? Strangely, I can see the Jeanfather making it.

I can't find a link right now, but the greatest speech by Trudeau was when he stepped down. It is burned in my mind:

Our hopes are high. Our faith in the people is great. Our courage is strong, and our dreams, for this beautiful county, will never die.

We are free, finally, wonderful free, free after centuries, because of him. We have rights. Nothing else matters and every step it took to get there is worth it.

5 comments:

audacious said...

A true icon of Canada!

Carrie said...

That is one of my personal favs. Thanks for the links :)

Elizabeth said...

That is breathtaking. Wow ! I had almost forgotten how he dealt with things and I do agree I have not seen another quite like him. There is one close to him ideologicaly, and that is Michael Ignatieff, who was put in the wrong place in the caucus. What a waste.

OttawaCon said...

How the hell can you praise him for putting the Charter and for one of the grossest, most arbitrary, and unnecessary violations of the basic norms it represents in Canada's history?

If Trudeau actually believed in rights, he would have enacted them as a restraint on his own powers, not just his successors.

Dean P said...

At the time, OttawaCon, what he did was legal (it's not now). I don't know if I agree with the substance, but I do agree with the decisiveness. The lack of equivocation. The clear articulation of why and what he was doing. The express statement that he was going to sit down and try to figure a way for it to be less intrusive. He used the full legal power available to him (as opposed to going extra legal like Bush).