Some progressives attempted to smear him by claiming he didn’t
When a political leader makes a statement on the record, it’s always been historically regarded as an official response. It could pertain to an individual, group, country, business, war, controversy – or something entirely different. Regardless, if the leader made their position known in public, then it has to be interpreted as such.
Yet, some individuals on the political left seem to believe a leader’s official response doesn’t have to be regarded as an official response if it doesn’t fit their definition of what an official response is or should be.
Confused? Let’s examine things further.
Alexei Navalny, a lawyer and Russia’s most significant opposition leader, had sat in prison off and on for several years. He had strongly criticized President Vladimir Putin on numerous occasions, including his well-known description of Putin’s United Russia as “the party of corruption, the party of crooks and thieves.” He was then poisoned in 2020 during a flight from Tomsk to Moscow with a Novichok nerve agent. He ended up in a hospital, survived by the skin of his teeth and ultimately pointed the finger (without proof) at Putin and Russia’s Federal Security Service.
 |
| Related Stories |
| How Pierre Poilievre is winning over female voters
|
| Trudeau apologists putting a target on Poilievre
|
| Pierre Poilievre’s prospects and perils
|
Navalny was arrested again in Jan. 2021. He was sentenced to over two-and-a-half years in detention a month later. This was increased in Aug. 2022 by an additional nine years after being found guilty of embezzlement and contempt of court. A further 19 years related to political extremism was added to his already-lofty sentence in Aug. 2023.
These charges were obviously complete nonsense. No one has ever suggested Navalny was a perfect angel. He had previously been a strong nationalist and held anti-immigration views but had recanted those positions (and others). It was clear to most political observers and laypeople that Navalny’s fierce opposition to Putin’s tyrannical leadership was the one and only reason why he was incarcerated.
Which led to the final dramatic moments of his life.
Navalny went missing from his jail cell in Dec. 2023 for roughly three weeks. He turned up in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug in pretty rough shape. Russia’s Federal Penitentiary Service then announced on Feb. 16 that he had passed away. No cause of death has been revealed at the time of this writing.
Many political leaders released statements about the news out of Russia. This included Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.
“Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny has died in prison,” Poilievre posted on X on Feb. 16. “Putin imprisoned Navalny for the act of opposing the regime. Conservatives condemn Putin for his death.”
Whether you like or dislike Poilievre, his official response was crystal clear. Yet, some progressives bizarrely tried to claim he had actually said and done little to nothing.
“Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre delivered a statement so dishwater grey, so thin and colourless and frankly strange, that it stood out,” Toronto Star columnist Bruce Arthur wrote on Feb. 17. “If any major political leader made a weaker statement – and there was a kaleidoscope of statements to choose from – it was hard to find.”
There was also longtime political cartoonist Michael de Adder’s Feb. 19 post on X, “Pierre Poilievre said nothing.” No matter how many people tried to point out Poilievre had made a statement – including Brian Mulroney’s former chief of staff Norman Spector, StrategyCorp. vice president Garry Keller and me – he just kept doubling and tripling down. Other than one teenie tiny post, where he claimed, “It was the bare minimum.”
Arthur and de Adder’s analyses were equally strange and said absolutely nothing.
Polievre’s statement was the most strongly worded of Canada’s three major political leaders. NDP leader Jagmeet Singh’s post on X was certainly comparable, to his credit. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s post (and video message) was by far the weakest of the three – but that’s no surprise.
The language that Poilievre used in his post also clearly emphasized the Conservatives were furious with Navalny being imprisoned – and directly blamed Putin for his death. While it may not have been as direct as Conservative MP Garnett Genuis’s post, as Arthur noted, the difference between the two was far more minuscule than the former Star sports columnist had attempted to suggest.
What was the point of all this? As a guess, it’s probably related to something else.
Liberals and progressives have repeatedly tried to tie in Poilievre and the Conservatives with so-called far-right leaders and political parties. This strategy has been a complete failure – Conservative support in polls keeps rising, while the Liberals keep falling – but they’re not giving up.
Liberals and progressives were also frustrated the Conservatives wouldn’t support updating the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. In spite of the fact that Poilievre and the Conservatives have repeatedly spoken in favour of free trade with Ukraine and continually said their opposition was related to the Liberals forcing “carbon pricing” provisions into the bill. This strategy has also been a complete failure, but they won’t let it go.
Since the two-fold strategy has been a bust, some progressives may have felt that creating confusion related to Poilievre’s statement about Putin-Navalny could get the wheels back in motion.
Looks like that’s going to be a total bust, too.
Michael Taube, a Troy Media syndicated columnist and Washington Times contributor, was a speechwriter for former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He holds a master’s degree in comparative politics from the London School of Economics.
For interview requests, click here.
The opinions expressed by our columnists and contributors are theirs alone and do not inherently or expressly reflect the views of our publication.
© Troy Media
Troy Media is an editorial content provider to media outlets and its own hosted community news outlets across Canada.
