Justin Trudeau gets picked apart

The groping allegations against Canada's wunderkind male feminist and oh so politically correct Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, alleged several years ago when he was about age 28, against a female reporter, are getting to be a bigger issue over in Canada.

The New York Times in its spread on the matter had Trudeau denying again that he did anything untoward, but qualifying the incident in question a little by saying everyone experiences things differently. In other words, when a woman gets a grope, from Justin's point of view, well, her boob just flew into his hand, or something. It's all the same, and we must get "our" minds around it. In other words, the Canadian king of #MeToo doesn't want to come off as declaring the woman a liar, which he should do, if in fact, she's actually lying.

Here's his doofus-y end-round:

He added, “The way the same interaction can be experienced by different people is a really important thing to get our minds around.”

But the real fun comes from an examination of the original article that triggered the controversy, it was dredged up from a provincial paper from years ago, and a brilliant Canadian columnist familiar with the lay of the land at the National Post (Rex Murphy) did the honors:

I’m sorry. If I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I never would have been so forward.”

That’s the apology Justin Trudeau gave a young woman — a “day late” (her words) — following the “not negative interactions” (his words) that allegedly included “manhandling” and “groping” (her words) at an immortal beer festival and charity day in Creston, B.C., in August 2000.

The power of a full week’s reflection on the “no negative interactions” has summoned this apology back to the prime minister’s memory. He now says he “gave (the apology) in the moment,” a combination of words I have never met before. Whatever it may be taken to mean, as an apology, given in the moment or otherwise, it’s hardly blue-ribbon repentance. It was a pure dud.

For what he apologized for was his failure to recognize her status — she was, that day, a “national” reporter.

In other words, groping is ok when it's a wench from the sticks, but not so much if she's a "national" reporter (who can report on him.)

In other words, his morality revolves around whether he can get caught.

Oh gad, what a pathetic little immature man who views being gentlemanly as not a principled thing, but something to put on like a fancy suit when going out among polite society.

Can someone ask him about where the grope-line lies between national and local?

National Post columnists, by the way, are having a field day with this, here, here and here. The Globe & Mail has skeptics, too. And Instapundit's Ed Driscoll has an impressive round-up from more Canadian sources here. Nobody seems to believe the guy. The more he talks, the deeper he digs.

Keep digging, Justin, keep digging.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com