An interesting case of political fear-mongering, civil servant edition. The SNC-Lavalin Scandal is in full damage control.

I

II

I find this article and this one to be very instructive in terms of subtext. This is pure strategy, and old-school patriarchal at that.

The SNC-Lavalin Debacle is still alive and kicking the pants of the federal Liberals with reckless abandon. This is not something this regime is accustomed to handling, and the usual Justin Trudeau cocky virtue-signalling put-downs aren’t making things go away.

So it is up to a civil servant — Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick — to try to regain control of the narrative, but it is interesting how this is rolling:

Canada's top civil servant insists there was no inappropriate pressure on Jody Wilson-Raybould to override a decision to prosecute SNC-Lavalin, but says he warned her about the dire economic "consequences" of criminal proceedings.

So this is a denial that confirms the allegations. She was “warned” of the dire economic “consequences” if she followed the Rule of Law. That is tantamount to the content of the allegations. That is one-step away from blackmail: if you prosecute, there will be dire consequences for Canada! This is precisely the kind of veiled “warning” I would expect from someone in power who is not used to being challenged.

So forget the law. It is all about the Benjamins, and while we are on the subject, how is it that one company can economically blackmail an entire country? Why is Canada that dependent on this corrupt company — and why do they hold nuclear power here?

There is distancing, of course, spinning and parsing, and trying to cut and blunt whatever will be said to counter this narrative — that there are “defamatory” allegations, but not being specific, and that is a red flag of trying to make any counterclaims seem illegal.

But it is this allegation that is a classic case of political fear-mongering:

In his opening remarks to the committee, Wernick said he's worried about the state of politics in Canada right now, citing the threat of foreign interference in the coming election and the use of words like 'treason' and 'traitor' in political discourse.

"Those are the words that lead to assassination," he said. "I'm worried that somebody's going to get shot this year during the political campaign."

Assassination? Nice try. This is classic trying to make any opposing voices be seen as murderous and evil. This is classic demonization. This is not some jittery wonk being paranoid. This is the kind of talk I expect of someone trying to establish a narrative and make any dissenting voices seem as if they were anarchists.

In other words, don’t buy the hype. If this were a boyfriend making threats to an ex-girlfriend if she revealed what went on in a relationship, we’d call it gaslighting.

In politics, it is business as usual…