I burst into tears when I found out that Jack Layton had died. My reaction caught me by surprise. It was much more emotional than I would have ever expected it to be and deeply felt.
I quickly realized that what I was feeling was being experienced, in equal measure, across the country. The eulogies and the tributes started pouring in and Layton's face made the front pages of pretty much every Canadian daily. When word on Twitter got around that his family would soon be releasing a final goodbye letter to his fellow Canadians I braced myself. His words of hope, optimism and pure love for his country exceeded my expectations of what one expected to hear from a dying man who left so much unaccomplished.
In predictable fashion, albeit way too soon, the hyenas came out and columns were soon printed (the most heinous ones, in my opinion, by the National Post's Christie Blatchford and Barbara Kay, throwing stereotypes out the window and proving that women can be just as cut throat as men) questioning this outpouring of grief. With unwarranted cynicism, Blatchford called the vigils a "public spectacle", referred to Layton as "canny, relentless, and consumed by politics," and went on to mock the public's reaction as over the top and mawkishly sentimental.
The very next day, while Layton's body lay in state in Parliament Hill, and while long lines of ordinary Canadians waited patiently to pay their final respects, Barbara Kay followed up Blatchford's commentary with her own venomous column, questioning the necessity of a state funeral. While I don't have a problem with that, I do have a problem with her self-important, condescending tone.
Referring to public displays of mourning as "teddy bear grief", she insisted they were inappropriate and disproportionate, silly and unbecoming. Forgive me, but who exactly appointed these two women as purveyors and adjudicators of what's appropriate? What makes them think so highly of themselves that they mock a nation's genuine sadness at the loss of a man we all admired and respected, irrelevant of political allegiances? Even les Jeunes Patriotes du Québec issued a press release expressing their sadness and they're rabid angry all the time! The man was loved.
Their insinuation that they were somehow the "cooler heads that prevailed", as mass hysteria gripped the simpletons - who can't possibly know better - insults me greatly. -
Their insinuation that they were somehow the "cooler heads that prevailed", as mass hysteria gripped the simpletons - who can't possibly know better - insults me greatly. It smacks of elitism and snobbery! People respond to what's genuine; to what they know - in their gut- to be true.
People weren't lining up to pay tribute to some rock star they had never met. They were saying goodbye to a man they felt they knew. A man who, in a world rife with cynicism and political apathy, had managed to give them a sliver of hope, a possibility that some politicians are out there fighting the good fight, waging a war against corruption, inequality and opportunism.
No one will ever know what Layton would have accomplished as leader of the Official Opposition (and maybe some of the pundits are right, and it wouldn't have been much), but, there's no denying he left a resounding legacy. He changed the political landscape in this province and this country, and he changed the way the younger generation perceives of politics. Time and time again, I heard this past week from young people who voted for the very first time, because of Layton. That's something worth celebrating.
It's beyond presumptuous for Blatchford and Kay to question the level of people's grief. So this country took a few days to fawn and grieve over him. So what? Most of our politicians lack dynamism and personality; they lack conviction. In a world devoid of philosopher kings, Layton was "un bon Jack", a man who inspired hope in the political process. How is that even remotely something to scoff at?
