
Mark Carney may have a winking problem: Why PM's not-so subtle habit is risky on the world stage
Some people wink at what they say themselves. Carney just as often winks at what other people say, and not to the speaker, but to their audience.
Article content
Prest's view is that Carney's winks in Trump's presence are typical of his style, in that they operate on three levels. This offers a theoretical framework for how to understand Carney winks in general, what they mean, and who they are for, he said.
Article content
At one level, Carney is communicating with Trump, in public, quietly listening to him. At a higher level he is communicating with Macron about Trump, in a sort of privacy, signalling an internal reaction to Trump's words that Carney has decided not to vocalize. At the highest level he is communicating with the all-seeing public on the other side of the camera lens, indicating his comfort in playing all these etiquette games at the same time.
Article content
'It's a high-wire act,' said Prest. 'If it goes badly, it could go very badly.'
Article content
He needs to be careful that the wink includes the public, not excludes it. 'The subtext always has to bring the public along,' Prest said. They need to know what Carney is trying to communicate, that he is confidently in control, and they also have to believe him. Otherwise it's just a cocky facial tic.
Article content
Article content
Some winks are simple, obvious. Some winks need to be accounted for more deeply. Winks are almost always ambiguous, but sometimes they mean something important. Criminal court judges have faced this problem more than most. For example, in a 2017 murder case against a Richmond Hill, Ont., man accused of beating his roommate to death, a judge had to decide whether to let a witness testify about the meaning of a wink, and was troubled by its uncertain air of 'innuendo.'
Article content
A friend of the victim had told police he had seen bruising on the victim's ribs a couple of weeks before the killing, so he asked what happened. The victim explained he fell down the stairs, or off his bike, but then he winked, and when the friend asked what that meant, the victim said 'Kenny's got a hard punch,' referring to the accused.
Article content
The key problem, the judge said, was that it was not clear the victim winked and spoke at the exact same time, such that the wink directly contradicted the claim of falling down the stairs, and implied that the truth was Kenny punched him. It wasn't clear 'whether the wink and the comment were part of a single, ongoing transaction.'
Article content
That jury never heard the wink story, and eventually found the accused guilty of manslaughter, not murder.
Article content
Winks have been admitted as criminal evidence, however, such as in the 2017 Montreal case of the undercover police agent who testified about getting a '101 course' in robbery of shopping mall jewellery stores from the suspected culprit that was so convincing, so finely detailed, that the undercover officer asked whether the suspect had actually ever robbed the target store he was describing, in the Carrefour Laval.
Article content
The accused laughed, winked, and said 'no,' which the undercover took as 'an implicit admission that the accused had indeed robbed the store in the past.'
Article content
So sometimes a wink can mean the opposite of what was just said, that I did not fall off my bike, that I did rob this jewellery store. What I have just said is not true, wink wink. You'll just have to trust me, and I know you will.
Article content
Article content
For a national leader's voting public, that strategy works until it doesn't, Prest said. Carney is in something of a honeymoon phase, and his current winking spree coincides with surging approval numbers in his first months as prime minister. He can wink and trust that he will be understood in good faith. But that can change.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Montreal Gazette
32 minutes ago
- Montreal Gazette
Lincoln: An urgent letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney
Dear Prime Minister Carney: Your reputation for quiet competence, reasoned judgment and steady decisiveness, already tested in your previous major career achievements, has resonated both here and beyond our shores since your election as our prime minister. No doubt your overwhelming victory as leader of the Liberal party played its part, as did your winning a national election in a result that had seemed quite improbable mere months beforehand. Your presence as prime minister attracts respect and confidence, and once again Canada is viewed and listened to with deserved seriousness by your peers on the world stage. The voice of Canada as a middle power may not be prominent or especially powerful, yet it resonates far and wide as a voice of stability, fairness and peace. Your mandate begins in a world beset by the instability and insecurity caused by conflict and war, where destruction and the loss of innocent lives have become the new normal. Conflict still rages in Myanmar after four years, with over 50,000 opponents of the junta losing their lives. The Sudan civil war has directly caused more than 150,000 deaths, with another depressing number of 525,000 infants having succumbed to malnutrition. The ethno-political cauldron that is the Middle East is stoked by the raging fire of ceaseless conflict and warfare. The recognized Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs estimates a staggering 4.5 million deaths have occurred in post-9/11 war zones. Last September, the Wall Steet Journal estimated the number of those killed or wounded since the advent of the current Russo-Ukraine war at one million. How can humankind tolerate such blatant disregard for life and living? How can the dignity and security of life and living have become mere stories and statistics for nightly news? How can the profound integrity and dignity of the human person have become mere 'collateral damage'? Prime Minister, you can be that new respected Canadian leader who emulates Lester Pearson's historical call for peace, which led to the creation of the UN's first peacekeeping force and the saving of an untold number of lives. You can and should launch a peace initiative, perhaps called People Peace / Monde et Paix. You could invite eminent Canadians to join you for the launch — for instance, Céline Dion, Margaret Atwood, Roméo Dallaire, Irwin Cotler and David Suzuki. Governor General Mary Simon would provide the important presence of our First Peoples. This would not be a political initiative, but a people's one, calling all across the globe to join hands and voices for peace and the preservation of life. You could use your status as leader of a country of peace to ask Pope Leo XIV and his world faith peers to join in your call. Each day that elapses means ever more deaths and destruction. The endless calls by political leaders for 'ceasefires' and 'de-escalation' remain so many buzzwords, while the carnage rages on. (Here's hoping the Iran-Israel ceasefire will be a welcome exception and will hold.) It is high time ordinary citizens, all of us across our lands, have our turn in urging and insisting, never giving up until peace and human life win the day. Of all the causes you may champion as our prime minister, the cause of peace is the noblest. Peace has no political allegiance or religion; it protects all of us, regardless of age, race or status. It means our right to live free lives while respecting the right of our neighbours to do likewise. Peace means access to water, food and the essentials of life. Peace means the protection of infants, mothers and the most vulnerable. Peace is normalcy, and the clear possibility to anticipate a deserved future. Peace recognizes our differences, but allows us to accept them freely and willingly. Peace most certainly does not mean guns, bombs and missiles, which have no other purpose but to kill and destroy. Please, Prime Minister, please be our champion for peace. In respect and hope,


Japan Forward
40 minutes ago
- Japan Forward
Fred Fleitz on Iran, North Korea, and the Changing Security Landscape
As tensions rise in the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific, few voices are as well-positioned to offer insights as Fred Fleitz. A former CIA analyst and chief of staff to the Donald Trump administration's National Security Council, Fleitz now serves as vice chair of the America First Policy Institute's Center for American Security. During his recent visit to Tokyo, Fleitz sat down with JAPAN Forward to share his perspective on United States military strategy, Iran, North Korean provocations, and what Japan is doing to meet the demands of a shifting global order. In a wide-ranging conversation, Fleitz discussed the Trump administration's recent airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, the intelligence coup behind Israel's precision strikes, and the fragility of US-China deterrence. He also touched on Japan's growing responsibilities as a security partner. Whether on diplomacy with Pyongyang or debates over defense spending in Tokyo, Fleitz laid out a blunt but pragmatic assessment of the challenges ahead. Following a decisive US airstrike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure and a subsequent ceasefire between Israel and Iran, Fleitz emphasized that options for progress through diplomacy had been exhausted before taking military action. "Trump gave Iran sixty days to negotiate in good faith. When that failed, he extended another two weeks. But Iran refused to abandon its uranium enrichment, which is clearly linked to weapons development," Fleitz said. The strike, he argued, showcased Trump's willingness to use precision and force when necessary, sending a message not only to Iran but also to adversaries like China and Russia. Fleitz maintained that the ultimate goal was a peaceful resolution, but he expressed skepticism about the Iranian regime's willingness to negotiate in good faith. "This government is unlikely to step down or reform without significant external pressure," he noted. However, he pointed out that diminished Iranian influence could revive stalled regional diplomacy, particularly to broaden the Abraham Accords and efforts to stabilize Gaza. Fred Fleitz, Vice Chairman of the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), responds to an interview with JAPAN Forward. July 27, Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo. Asked about Israel's earlier precision attacks on Iran, Fleitz credited the Mossad for an intelligence operation of exceptional sophistication. "Mossad had agents inside Iran feeding precise human intelligence. They recruited defectors from the Iranian government and military, even setting up drone bases inside Iran," he explained. For example: "They sent fake messages to lure generals to targeted locations. The Iranian regime didn't even know it was happening. That's both a triumph for Israeli intelligence and a massive failure for Iran." According to Fleitz, the most consequential moment came when Iran fired missiles directly at Israel. That act of retaliation allowed Israel to assess and expose Iran's underperforming air defenses. "They had Russian-made systems that either didn't work or weren't deployed in sufficient numbers. Israel figured out how to neutralize them. Without that attack, they [the Israelis] wouldn't have known," he said. Japan imports roughly 80% of its oil from the Middle East, and Fleitz acknowledged Tokyo's delicate position. While Japan neither endorsed nor condemned the US strike, it called for de-escalation. "Japan wants peace in the region, understandably. But Iran may not see Japan as a neutral player due to its close alliance with the US. Still, if there's any chance Japan can help defuse tensions, it should try," he said. On the question of whether Japan should dispatch its Self-Defense Forces to the Strait of Hormuz, Fleitz was cautious. "I don't think that will be necessary. China has advised Iran not to escalate, and Iran doesn't want to jeopardize that relationship. I don't believe the Strait will be closed," he added. Turning to North Korea, Fleitz warned that Pyongyang's arsenal is already formidable and growing. "They likely have 40 to 80 nuclear weapons and solid-fueled ICBMs that can launch quickly. That's a serious threat to US national security." He expressed hope that Trump would pursue another summit with Kim Jong Un. "Trump is personally invested in resolving the abductee issue, especially after his conversations with Prime Minister (Shinzo) Abe. That will absolutely be part of any renewed talks," Fleitz affirmed. However, he also noted new complications: "North Korea resumed missile testing after perceiving US weakness under (Joe) Biden. They've grown closer to Russia, receiving satellite tech and cheap energy in exchange for weapons and possibly troops in Ukraine." Fleitz was particularly concerned about battlefield experience being gained by North Korean soldiers in Ukraine. "They're dying in large numbers, but also learning modern warfare tactics, including drone warfare. That's dangerous for global stability," he said. In conversation with Fred Fleitz (right). June 27 (©JAPAN Forward) Asked whether Japan is doing enough to deter regional threats, Fleitz urged greater defense spending and capability development. "Trump supports alliances, but he expects allies to carry their weight. Japanese officials often respond that they want to spend more, but face backlogs in US weapons deliveries. That's a fair complaint," Fleitz noted. "Japan should both buy American and increase its own defense production." He dismissed concerns that US global commitments would weaken its posture in Asia. "There's a view that we can't support Ukraine and deter China at the same time. I don't buy that. A global power like the US has to do both," he insisted. Still, he acknowledged that many Trump advisors view China as the number one threat, and that resource prioritization debates will continue. Emphasizing that he is not an economist, Fleitz briefly addressed the Trump administration's reciprocal tariff policy. This is an issue of considerable concern in Japan. "Trump wants fair trade, and that includes eliminating structural imbalances and non-tariff barriers," Fleitz said. "Whatever the friction, he values the US-Japan relationship deeply. This is a minor dispute between friends." Fleitz concluded by reaffirming Trump's hard stance on Iran's nuclear ambitions. "The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was the worst deal ever. It allowed enrichment and had weak verification. Under Trump, any new deal would prohibit both uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing. No exceptions." Author: Daniel Manning


CBC
44 minutes ago
- CBC
How the Diddy case fell apart
After a long and very public trial, producer and music mogul Sean Diddy Combs has been found not guilty of the most severe charges against him. On Wednesday he was acquitted of racketeering and sex trafficking, but found guilty on lesser charges - two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. This was widely considered as a huge victory for Diddy. During the trial, prosecutors had accused him of running an extensive sex trafficking operation. And that he did so with the help of a network of employees. Diddy's lawyers argued all the sex at issue in the case was consensual. Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty is a BBC journalist and host of the podcast, Diddy on Trial. She talks to Elaine Chau about the verdict, what led to this win for Diddy in federal court, and what it might mean for the #MeToo movement more broadly. For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: