My mother-in-law is the Governor General

I have a confession to make: my mother-in-law is the Governor General of Canada.

There. I said it. I wouldn’t normally begin a column by announcing who my mother-in-law is. Frankly, it feels like an obnoxious name-drop. But apparently this is something I am supposed to disclose whenever I write about anyone who has ever said negative or positive things about the government, so here we are.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column for Canadian Lawyer criticizing Ezra Levant social media posts about Ontario Crown prosecutor. A few days later, I received an email from Tom Korski of Blacklock’s Reporter, asking me to explain what he seemed to think was a serious conflict of interest.

Korski began by noting that my column had included a disclosure about my relationship with the prosecutor. In the piece, I had explained that I knew him, had litigated against him for years, and had acted in some of the cases Levant was mischaracterizing. Those seemed like relevant facts for readers to know.

But according to Korski, I had overlooked something much more important.

“You are the Governor General’s son-in-law,” he wrote. He then suggested that my column “appears to be a gratuitous expression of disapproval for a frequent critic of the government that appointed your mother-in-law as representative of the head of state.”

He ended with four words: “You see the problem.”

I did not.

There was something else that caught my attention: “gratuitous.” That word is doing quite a bit of work.

My column criticized Levant for publicly attacking an Ontario Crown prosecutor, mischaracterizing protesters as “Hamas activists,” and accusing a Muslim lawyer of “clearly pursuing a Muslim Brotherhood agenda.” I called out what could easily be perceived as a racist dog whistle, challenged arguments I thought were made in bad faith, and defended a good man against accusations I believed were false and unfair.

Korski is free to disagree with any of that. But describing my criticism as “gratuitous” without engaging with what I actually wrote is an interesting choice. Particularly when the alternative explanation is that I secretly dislike Levant because he has been mean to the federal government.

My column had nothing to do with the federal government. It concerned a provincial prosecutor I have litigated against for years, including in some of the cases Levant was discussing. That was relevant, so I disclosed it. My mother-in-law seemed somewhat less relevant.

For the record, I know my mother-in-law quite well. We have watched Jeopardy together. I have fixed cottage stairs for her. But we have never sat around talking about Ezra Levant.

Blacklock’s theory, as I understand it, goes something like this: my mother-in-law is the Governor General. The Governor General was appointed on the advice of the prime minister. Levant criticizes the federal government. I criticized Levant. Therefore… mother-in-law.

I may have skipped a step, but I think that is because there isn’t one.

Blacklock’s has now published its story, and I am pleased to report that the missing connection remains missing.

Having suggested that my failure to disclose my mother-in-law was a serious problem, Blacklock’s then published an article in which my mother-in-law was practically the main character. My actual criticism of Levant was relegated to a supporting role.

The article opens by identifying me as “Governor General Louise Arbour’s son-in-law” and describes my column as “a rare political commentary by a Rideau Hall family member.” It then informs readers that my wife is a “longtime New Democrat organizer,” and quotes my mother-in-law talking about freedom of expression.

The article even quotes my invitation for Blacklock’s to explain the supposed conflict. It doesn’t answer the question. Instead, it supplies more dots and leaves readers to connect them.

Rebel News then picked up the story, publishing an article headlined “Governor General’s son-in-law attacks Rebel News, Ezra Levant over coverage of anti-Israel protesters.”

And just like that, my criticism of specific accusations against an Ontario prosecutor became a political confrontation between Rideau Hall and Rebel News. Quite a promotion for a criminal lawyer from Ottawa.

There is also the slightly inconvenient constitutional fact that the Governor General is not the government. But if Blacklock’s theory is correct, my disclosure obligations are enormous. Must I disclose my mother-in-law whenever I criticize Pierre Poilievre? A Conservative MP? Someone who retweeted Levant? What if I, as I am wont to do, criticize the government myself? What if I compliment someone who once said something nice about Mark Carney?

At some point my columns are going to need a conflicts appendix. Give me enough red string and pushpins and I can probably connect my mother-in-law to most of Canada by Thursday.

Blacklock’s, incidentally, has a colourful history of copyright litigation involving access to its paywalled journalism. So if you want to read its story about me, exercise appropriate caution. I would explain the rules, but I’m a criminal lawyer, not a copyright lawyer. And before recommending one, I would obviously need to investigate whether they have ever criticized Justin Trudeau.

There is, however, a less amusing development.

Since Rebel published its story, I have received several anonymous telephone calls. The callers have directed some fairly vulgar abuse at me, along with comments about Mark Carney, Justin Trudeau and Gerald Butts. Apparently, my secret Liberal conspiracy has a larger cast than I realized.

I have no idea who these people are, and I cannot say what prompted them to call. But the timing is hard to ignore, as is the fact that their political grievances have almost nothing to do with what I actually wrote.

I have spent much of my career criticizing the justice system, governments, politicians and prosecutors. Sometimes harshly. I expect people to disagree with me, and I don’t particularly mind when they do. That’s part of public debate.

But there is a difference between disagreement and inventing a political conspiracy to explain why someone has an opinion you don’t like. And there is a difference between criticizing someone’s argument and encouraging a public conversation in which the argument itself disappears beneath insinuation and personal attacks.

That was really the point of my original column. Public criticism matters, but so do facts, context and a little intellectual honesty.

Anyway, now you know. My mother-in-law is the Governor General. Going forward, perhaps I should include a standard disclaimer at the bottom of everything I write:

Michael Spratt’s spouse is the daughter of the Governor General of Canada. This relationship may be relevant whenever he expresses an opinion about anyone who has ever expressed an opinion about the federal government, or anyone connected to such a person, apparently forever.