Preview Of Exclusive Political Analysis Newsletter: October 24th – October 30th

Key issues discussed include questioning why MPs gave unanimous consent to a motion accusing Canada of ‘genocide,’ whether there’s a ‘Poilievre Pivot’ taking place, and more…

In the latest issue of my Exclusive Political Analysis Newsletter, I write in detail about the following issues:

1) Why did MPs allow a motion accusing Canada of ‘genocide’ to pass with unanimous consent?

2) A Poilievre pivot?

3) Help Ukraine now, or pay the price later?

4) What does Elon Musk’s ownership of Twitter mean for Canada?

You can read an extended excerpt below:

“Does this mean that every Prime Minister who served while Residential Schools operated was leading an ongoing genocide?

How about Lester B. Pearson?

Pierre Trudeau?

John Turner?

Joe Clark?

Brian Mulroney?

Jean Chretien?

If the residential school system was genocidal, then all those PMs – and every PM up until 1996 – was a genocidal leader.

So, what should their punishment be?

On Twitter, Oxford Research Fellow Yuan Yi Zhu asked an apt question:

“Does that mean Jean Chrétien (Minister of Indian Affairs, 1968—74) stands trial at The Hague? Or does he still get a state funeral? How does this thing work?”

Should they face justice at the International Criminal Court?

Should they be jailed?

Should they at very least be stripped of any official honours, and have their names taken off buildings?

And how about Justin Trudeau?

Shouldn’t he resign given that he owes his public profile to being the son of a genocidal leader?

Furthermore, a few years ago Justin Trudeau said Canada was committing an ‘ongoing genocide.’ Except, as the leader of the country, wouldn’t that implicate him in perpetrating genocide, or at the very least not stopping it when he has the power to do so?

What I want you to see here is that while our MPs claim Canada committed genocide, their actions don’t match the words.

So, they either believe that a genocide took place and believe nobody should be held accountable, or they believe there was no genocide but have decided it is politically expedient to say otherwise.”

Of note, those pushing the idea that Canada committed genocide are referring to the UN definition. They usually are pointing to the fifth point of what constitutes genocide:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  • Killing members of the group;
  • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

However, the following section of the UN definition of genocide is routinely ignored, and when you read it, you will see why:

“The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.”

In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s final report called residential schools “cultural genocide.” And certainly, there was an effort to wipe out Indigenous culture, which was a heinous act.

Yet, the term “cultural genocide” has rapidly been displaced, and now the word “genocide,” – the same word used to describe the most horrific events of deliberate mass murder in history – has replaced it in the Canadian lexicon when our history as a country is discussed.”

**End of preview**

Newsletter now available for half the original price on Patreon

The price of the newsletter has been reduced from $40 a month, to $20 a month, and signing up grants you full access to all past, present, and future editions.

As always, all content on will remain free, so supporting the newsletter is a way to also support my writing here.

To sign up, click the link below and select the $20 Exclusive Political Analysis Tier.

Newsletter sign up link

Spencer Fernando