Writing in Maclean's Magazine, Andrew Coyne comments on Michael Ignatieff's recent suggestion that Prime Minister Stephen Harper should re-appoint Governor General Michaelle Jean, and draws a sobering conclusion:
Ignatieff may only be doing so as a culture war tactic. And Coyne is not amused.
Speaking about why he thought Jean should be reappointed, Ignatieff emphasized that Jean is a francophone, a woman, and is black.
"As a francophone woman who overcame great obstacles to get where she is today, and as the first black Canadian appointed as governor general, I can’t imagine a better role model for young Canadians, particularly young girls," Ignatieff announced.
"Michaëlle Jean has served her country with distinction and honour,” Ignatieff added. "She deserves our thanks and our gratitude."
Ignatieff, of course, is right that Jean has served Canada with distinction adn honour. But in his emphasis of her gender, and ethnic and lingual background, Coyne detects the lingering stench of Frank Graves.
"In mounting this highly public lobby for her to be retained, the Liberals have chosen to emphasize her demographic credentials: as a woman, black, francophone and immigrant," Coyne writes. "These were in large part why she was appointed, of course, and perhaps that’s fair enough, though some of us grumped at her signal lack of other qualifications to the job. But to invoke these in the debate over whether she should be reappointed is deliberately to suggest that the government’s decision to replace her is an insult to these groups — making whoever replaces her, should they happen to be white or male or some other genetically incorrect makeup, the embodiment of that insult. That’ll do wonders for his or her legitimacy."
Frank Graves, of course, is the pollster who advised the Liberal party to "invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia".
In emphasizing Jean's demographic qualities, Coyne infers that Ignatieff is using the appointment of the Governor General as a political tactic in just such a culture war.
He also condemns the act as an unprecedented attempt to politicize the appointment of a Governor General.
"It’s always a political appointment, to a greater or lesser extent," Coyne admits. "But it has not previously been a point of partisan controversy, and on such calculatedly divisive lines. The appointment is entirely within the purview of the prime minister, and as long as that power was not abused via a manifestly unsuitable appointment, opposition parties have always gone along with it."
Prime Minister Harper could, of course, cut Ignatieff's efforts off at the knees by perhaps appointing someone like Herb Carnegie to the office of Governor General, provided that the 91 year-old former Quebec Aces star -- whose dreams of playing in the NHL were curtailed by racism -- wouldn't have his health curtailed by the travel.
Like Jean, Carnegie is black. He was born to parents who had immigrated to Canada from Jamaica.
Moreover, appointing Carnegie as the Governor General would not only impart to this great Canadian the respect he deserves, but would also give Stephen Harper the opportunity to appoint Michaelle Jean to a post more suiting her talents -- such as Canada's Ambassador to France.
A younger candidate -- like 65-year-old Phil Fontaine -- could be just as well-suited to a possible appointment. Fontaine, an Aboriginal leader, is also a survivor of the residential school system.
Needless to say, if Michael Ignatieff is really using the appointment of the next Governor General to invoke a culture war, Prime Minister Harper should be able to do him one better no matter how Ignatieff may try to exploit the process.
Showing posts with label Andrew Coyne. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Coyne. Show all posts
Sunday, May 02, 2010
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sometimes You Really Can't Go Home Again
Harper's former contemporaries unimpressed by Senate appointments
The question that has been on the minds of many Canadians since Prime Minister Stephen Harper's recent appointment of nine new Senators this week, has been this:
What would his old Reform party contemporaries think of this?
In fact, that question has been on the minds of many since last December, when Harper appointed another 18 Senators to Parliament's upper chamber.
Fortunately, many of Harper's Reform party colleagues have been vocal on the subject, and they aren't entirely happy.
"It does look a little top-heavy, inside out, shall we say," said Deborah Grey, the MP for whom Harper went to work for upon her election to Parliament. "That will rankle lots of people."
"You better be ready to run for an elected seat," she added, referring to Harper's new batch of Senators.
Myron Thompson admitted to sympathizing with Harper for the position he's been in, but doesn't accept that as an excuse. "We don't like to see him go that route at all," he said. "The average strong conservative would say, 'Stay the course.'"
Former MPs Bob Mills and Ray Speaker seem much more comfortable with the appointments.
Tom Flanagan admitted that even he was taken by surprise when Harper appointed Carolyn Stewart-Olsen.
Naturally, Harper's political opponents have been quite vocal on the subject of these appointments. As Maclean's magazine writer Andrew Coyne notes, Harper's appointments may well have given them something to cry about. That may have even been the intent.
Yet the one individual who has been oddly quiet on the issue is former Reform party leader and Harper mentor Preston Manning. It was Manning's dedication to the issue of Senate reform that put, and has kept, it as a substantive issue in Canadian politics.
One would think that Manning would have something to say about Harper's Senate appointments, but has all along declined to comment.
Ever since Harper became Conservative party leader and Prime Minister, however, Manning has made a point of restraining his criticisms of Harper to those that are constructive and not damaging.
It isn't inconceivable that Manning's silence on the matter is indicative that he takes significant umbrage with it. A Manning 20 years younger may have even leaped back into the political fray over the issue.
It's all enough to make one wonder what would be said if Harper and his former colleagues sat down over a private dinner. Sometimes, one really can't go home again, and it isn't outrageous to wonder if Stephen Harper's former Reform party colleagues would welcome him as enthusiastically as once before.
The question that has been on the minds of many Canadians since Prime Minister Stephen Harper's recent appointment of nine new Senators this week, has been this:
What would his old Reform party contemporaries think of this?
In fact, that question has been on the minds of many since last December, when Harper appointed another 18 Senators to Parliament's upper chamber.
Fortunately, many of Harper's Reform party colleagues have been vocal on the subject, and they aren't entirely happy.
"It does look a little top-heavy, inside out, shall we say," said Deborah Grey, the MP for whom Harper went to work for upon her election to Parliament. "That will rankle lots of people.""You better be ready to run for an elected seat," she added, referring to Harper's new batch of Senators.
Myron Thompson admitted to sympathizing with Harper for the position he's been in, but doesn't accept that as an excuse. "We don't like to see him go that route at all," he said. "The average strong conservative would say, 'Stay the course.'"
Former MPs Bob Mills and Ray Speaker seem much more comfortable with the appointments.
Tom Flanagan admitted that even he was taken by surprise when Harper appointed Carolyn Stewart-Olsen.
Naturally, Harper's political opponents have been quite vocal on the subject of these appointments. As Maclean's magazine writer Andrew Coyne notes, Harper's appointments may well have given them something to cry about. That may have even been the intent.
Yet the one individual who has been oddly quiet on the issue is former Reform party leader and Harper mentor Preston Manning. It was Manning's dedication to the issue of Senate reform that put, and has kept, it as a substantive issue in Canadian politics.
One would think that Manning would have something to say about Harper's Senate appointments, but has all along declined to comment.
Ever since Harper became Conservative party leader and Prime Minister, however, Manning has made a point of restraining his criticisms of Harper to those that are constructive and not damaging.
It isn't inconceivable that Manning's silence on the matter is indicative that he takes significant umbrage with it. A Manning 20 years younger may have even leaped back into the political fray over the issue.
It's all enough to make one wonder what would be said if Harper and his former colleagues sat down over a private dinner. Sometimes, one really can't go home again, and it isn't outrageous to wonder if Stephen Harper's former Reform party colleagues would welcome him as enthusiastically as once before.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Joyce Arthur Speaks for Herself
Canadians have the right to debate abortion, no matter how terrified the pro-abortion lobby may be
Despite numerous efforts by the pro-abortion lobby -- and by politicians too afraid to stand up to them -- it seems there are still MPs on Parliament Hill who want to debate the issue of abortion.
And Joyce Aurthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada doesn't like it.
For her own part, Aurthur blames it on the Conservative party. Most of the Conservative party's MPs, she insists are "publicly anti-choice" (buy which she actually means anti-abortion).
"It's something that the Conservative party is out of touch with because Canadians don't want to go back to the abortion debate," Arthur insists. "People are happy with the status quo. It's working well."
But what she must mean by that is that she and her cohorts in the pro-abortion lobby are happy with the status quo and don't want to go back to the abortion debate. Some of them steadfastly insist that there is no debate.
But they and Aurthur are wrong. There are a great many Canadians who recognize the necessity of finally having this debate in Canada.
Rod Bruinooge, the Conservative MP for Winnipeg South, is much closer to the truth when he notes that this debate hasn't really ended. No matter what individuals such as Aurthur may prefer, this debate is ongoing. "I think the debate is ongoing," Bruinooge said. "We need to have a starting point of debating whether or not abortion should be legal right up until the moment of birth."
Bruinooge notes that there are members of each party on what he describes as an informal Parliamentary committee, although we won't identify any of them, insisting that each member should "present their personal philosophy on this issue."
Not that such an act wouldn't be politically perilous for these particular individuals. One may recall the outrage directed at NDP Peter Stoffer when he voted in favour of Bill C-484 -- the Fetal Homicide Bill -- being referred to committee for discussion.
Some of the most fervent believers in the pro-abortion lobby insisted that Stoffer should be cast out of the NDP caucus -- and this was just for voting in favour of the bill in questions -- which actually contained protections against the bill being applied to cases of abortion -- should be talked about.
The mini-controversy that emerged when Macleans Magazine columnist Andrew Coyne wrote a column advocating the reopening of the abortion debate.
Coyne never really advocated a particular stance on the issue -- he only noted that democratic debate is necessary to establish a legitimate consensus.
Yet the response to Coyne's column alluded to a significant fear of an actual debate. Robert Baglow, for example, ruled debate out of the question because to do so would be to "gamble on a woman's right to choose".
As Coyne himself noted, a debate on abortion would be emotional to the point of sheer savagery. It would give the most irrational denizens of each side -- the pro-abortion and anti-abortion lobbies -- an opportunity to seize the spotlight and draw attention to themselves.
And it's almost certain that many from each side simply will not tolerate a "third-way" abortion debate.
But Canadians have the right to debate abortion -- whether it's under rational pretenses or otherwise -- if they so choose. That's part and parcel of living in a democracy wherein our freedoms of speech and expression are legally protected.
To allow the pro-abortion lobby -- who are so content to slur their opponents with meaningless and nonsensical epithets such as "anti-choice" -- to curb sucha debate out of simple fear of losing would be unconscionable.
Rod Bruinooge's courage in raising the issue should be recognized and saluted, just as Joyce Aurthur's intellectual cowardice should be recognized and condemned.
Other bloggers writing on this topic:
Nick Taylor-Vaisey - "Abortion: Why Not Open the Debate?"
Jesse Ferreras - "MP Wants to Put Abortion Back in Limelight
Justin Hoffer - "Abortion Debate Reopening"
Despite numerous efforts by the pro-abortion lobby -- and by politicians too afraid to stand up to them -- it seems there are still MPs on Parliament Hill who want to debate the issue of abortion.
And Joyce Aurthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada doesn't like it.
For her own part, Aurthur blames it on the Conservative party. Most of the Conservative party's MPs, she insists are "publicly anti-choice" (buy which she actually means anti-abortion).
"It's something that the Conservative party is out of touch with because Canadians don't want to go back to the abortion debate," Arthur insists. "People are happy with the status quo. It's working well."
But what she must mean by that is that she and her cohorts in the pro-abortion lobby are happy with the status quo and don't want to go back to the abortion debate. Some of them steadfastly insist that there is no debate.
But they and Aurthur are wrong. There are a great many Canadians who recognize the necessity of finally having this debate in Canada.
Rod Bruinooge, the Conservative MP for Winnipeg South, is much closer to the truth when he notes that this debate hasn't really ended. No matter what individuals such as Aurthur may prefer, this debate is ongoing. "I think the debate is ongoing," Bruinooge said. "We need to have a starting point of debating whether or not abortion should be legal right up until the moment of birth."
Bruinooge notes that there are members of each party on what he describes as an informal Parliamentary committee, although we won't identify any of them, insisting that each member should "present their personal philosophy on this issue."
Not that such an act wouldn't be politically perilous for these particular individuals. One may recall the outrage directed at NDP Peter Stoffer when he voted in favour of Bill C-484 -- the Fetal Homicide Bill -- being referred to committee for discussion.
Some of the most fervent believers in the pro-abortion lobby insisted that Stoffer should be cast out of the NDP caucus -- and this was just for voting in favour of the bill in questions -- which actually contained protections against the bill being applied to cases of abortion -- should be talked about.
The mini-controversy that emerged when Macleans Magazine columnist Andrew Coyne wrote a column advocating the reopening of the abortion debate.
Coyne never really advocated a particular stance on the issue -- he only noted that democratic debate is necessary to establish a legitimate consensus.
Yet the response to Coyne's column alluded to a significant fear of an actual debate. Robert Baglow, for example, ruled debate out of the question because to do so would be to "gamble on a woman's right to choose".
As Coyne himself noted, a debate on abortion would be emotional to the point of sheer savagery. It would give the most irrational denizens of each side -- the pro-abortion and anti-abortion lobbies -- an opportunity to seize the spotlight and draw attention to themselves.
And it's almost certain that many from each side simply will not tolerate a "third-way" abortion debate.
But Canadians have the right to debate abortion -- whether it's under rational pretenses or otherwise -- if they so choose. That's part and parcel of living in a democracy wherein our freedoms of speech and expression are legally protected.
To allow the pro-abortion lobby -- who are so content to slur their opponents with meaningless and nonsensical epithets such as "anti-choice" -- to curb sucha debate out of simple fear of losing would be unconscionable.
Rod Bruinooge's courage in raising the issue should be recognized and saluted, just as Joyce Aurthur's intellectual cowardice should be recognized and condemned.
Other bloggers writing on this topic:
Nick Taylor-Vaisey - "Abortion: Why Not Open the Debate?"
Jesse Ferreras - "MP Wants to Put Abortion Back in Limelight
Justin Hoffer - "Abortion Debate Reopening"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)