Look, I've read some stupid takes in my time. I've seen people argue that water isn't wet, that the sun rises in the west, and that pineapple belongs on pizza. But Yves Engler's recent hit piece on Jack Layton? That's a special kind of stupid, the kind that makes you want to tear your hair out, set it on fire, and then blame the nearest passing stranger for the arson.
According to Engler, the late NDP leader was apparently a "warmonger" whose veneration “highlights the party's militarist ethos.” Jack Layton, the guy who inspired a generation of young people to give a damn about politics, that guy was a militarist? Sure, and I'm the Queen of England. Thomas Mulcair's probably spinning in his grave, and he's not even dead.
Let's break down this garbage, shall we?
Engler Drags Out The Tired Old Libya Critique
Layton supported the 2011 NATO bombing campaign, you see. And now, with the benefit of fifteen years of hindsight, we know it didn't turn out great. No kidding, Yves. That's what hindsight is. It's the world's most perfect vision, unclouded by the fog of the moment.
Back in 2011, there was a guy named Muammar Gaddafi, who was threatening to massacre his own citizens in Benghazi. He said he would show “no mercy.” The international community, including human rights organizations, was screaming for someone to do something. Layton, like the overwhelming majority of people, thought stopping a potential massacre was appropriate.
Wow, what a monster, right? How dare he respond to a rapidly unfolding humanitarian crisis instead of consulting a crystal ball and Yves's 2026 editorial calendar? What a bloodthirsty ghoul he was!
This is the intellectual equivalent of criticizing someone in 1940 for supporting the war against Nazi Germany because, decades later, we'd learn about some unpleasantness with post-war reconstruction. It's lazy, it's dishonest, and it's the kind of argument someone makes when they've already decided on the conclusion and are just shopping for evidence.
Then We Get To Haiti
Engler actually has the nerve to say Layton “wasted an opportunity” because he didn't dominate an election debate question about Canada’s role there.
Let me tell you something about politics, which Yves seems to know the way a fish knows about bicycle maintenance: Jack Layton raised the issue. His foreign affairs critic demanded an investigation right in the House of Commons. They pushed. But in a federal election debate, when you're trying to actually win votes and, you know, form a government that can do something about Haiti, you sometimes have to pick your battles.
You can't spend the entire ninety minutes screaming about every single injustice abroad while the other leaders talk about issues the majority of voters care about, like healthcare and the economy. But to Yves, this is a moral failure. The guy's modus operandi is simple: find a moment, strip it of all context, ignore the constraints of reality, and then scream "HYPOCRITE!" at the top of his lungs. He even goes as far as to cite a National Post columnist to make his point about the NDP’s supposed militarism.
When you're quoting the right-wing establishment media to prove a left-wing party is too hawkish, you're either lost or you're building a very weird coalition.
And What’s The Point Of All This?
This blog post is why this pantomime villain was never a serious leadership candidate.
Yves never wanted to lead the NDP; he wanted to burn it down so he could dance in the ashes and declare himself the mayor of nothing. He struts around like he's owed the party, like the NDP is just a fancy hat he gets to wear because his ideology is the purest. But look at his supporters; they're not New Democrats. They're radical leftist tourists with torches who view the party as a puppet that wouldn't dare speak unless Yves pulled the strings.
He thinks he's a gift to the movement, but he's really just a guy holding a blueprint for a building he's never had to lay a brick on. You want to know why he lost? Because real leadership isn't standing on the sideline screaming “I told you so!” fifteen years after the fact.
This is the politics of the perpetual purist; the person who has never been in a position of responsibility, never had to choose between a bad option and a worse one, never had to respond to a crisis with incomplete information. From the cheap seats, it's easy to boo. From the peanut gallery, every decision looks simple.
But Jack was trying to actually do something, to move the goddamn ball forward. Sometimes you fumble. Sometimes you make the wrong call. But you don't get to sit in the stands sixteen years later with a stat sheet and yell about how you would have done it better.
Jack wasn't a warmonger. He was a human being, a politician operating in a messy, complicated world. He made compromises. He made calls that, in hindsight, might look bad. That’s called being alive. That’s called being in the arena.
The spirit Jack Layton left behind—the one of hope, of building something better, of getting people to the table—that's still worth something. And all the cherry-picked, context-free, hindsight-soaked hit pieces in the world from radical leftist morons aren’t going to change that.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need a drink. Reading that thing dehydrated me.
This piece is an archival work of the author, originally published elsewhere, and is presented here for historical record. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of the Provincial Times. Read our Content Policy here.
