First, a couple thoughts on the Blatchford column, now that the funeral has passed, then some digestion of the line above, which was the central thrust of her column and those that support it.
It's not really what Blatchford wrote- Layton's letter was a political document, Stephen Lewis even referred to it as a "manifesto" yesterday- it was the timing. Most people have an internal mechanism which would prevent penning that piece, then, because the reaction was entirely predictable. Blatchford's column really was a study of her own character flaws, it wasn't "brave", it was asinine and devoid of basic common sense and compassion. The subsequent column, wherein Blatchford lists all the terrible things people said to her in response, really a validation of her horrendous judgement. The second column a now common refrain (see Coren after his Norway terrorist crack), rather than deal with the substance of complaints, you highlight the most offensive to garner sympathy for yourself and in so doing completely ignore the central problem. The real issue here is why Christie Blatchford is so bloody jaded and cold hearted that her FIRST response to this death is to lash out in unseemly and embarrassing fashion. Had Blatchford waited a few days, her column would have been seen in an entirely different light, because at the heart, there is a relevant point, which no one, including my NDP friends would deny.
"These people never stop", and they didn't stop at the funeral either, which turned into a political event, rather than a traditional funeral. One last reference to Blatchford, speaking of never stopping, I wonder if she had penned a outraged piece on our PRIME MINISTER'S weekly meeting to review where the Economic Action Plan signs were placed. I mention Harper because our political world is now dominated by 24/7 focus, everything is throw into the mix and parties have dedicated staff who's sole focus is to never stop, never let any opportunity go, never fail to calculate. Jack Layton was "on" all the time, he was a professional politician, why would anyone expect his last missive to lack this overriding characteristic? Why would anyone begrudge a dying man- and his team for that matter- a final chance to cement a legacy and provide a path forward, which of course had an element of self interest? In other words, people actually expected Jack Layton to stop being Jack Layton? Were you paying attention?
What Mr. Layton wrote, how he choose to be buried, certainly belies a motivation to push a very politicized agenda after his death. Mission accomplished Mr. Layton, one final contribution which highlights why you became Leader of the Opposition in the first place. The same spirit, the same unrelenting focus, his death mirrored his life, Mr. Layton understood this was a moment from which to capitalize. The NDP team kept their wits about them, in this fascinating attempt to turn grief and sullen resignation into a truimphant moment that will pace the party moving forward. I saw bravo to the NDP, bravo to Mr. Layton for demonstrating his political skill until the bitter end, rather than anger I commend how shrewd "these people" really were and are.
Blatchford was actually right in one limited sense, woven within a column that was ALL WRONG, on EVERY level.