Cotler may be greatest Jewish parliamentarian ever
It's no great secret that your not-so-humble scribe supports the federal Conservative Party. But not in the "my party, right or wrong" manner by partisan hacks operate.
The Conservative Party has been wrong about some issues before, and will likely be wrong about some issues again.
A classic example of this is their treatment of Liberal MP Irwin Cotler. In 2009, the Tories mailed 10% flyers to households in Cotler's riding suggesting that Cotler had sympathized with anti-Semites by attending the notorious Durban conference, organized by the UN, which provided an international soapbox for anti-Semitic remarks.
In particular, Israel -- the country with the best human rights record in all of the Middle East -- was unfairly singled out for attack.
To accuse Cotler of being soft on anti-Semitism or disloyal to Israel based on his presence at Durban is purely unfair. Cotler attended Durban in order to speak out against the anti-Semitic and anti-Israel comments made at the conference.
This is all before one considers that Jews anywhere in the Commonwealth may never have had a more loyal advocate in Cotler. Except, of course, Winston Churchill himself.
As Churchill was not Jewish, this would make Cotler the greatest Jewish Parliamentarian in the history of the Commonwealth.
It was Cotler, in his work Justice Delayed -- a copy of which your not-so-humble scribe is proud and honoured to have in his possession -- who brought the intolerable presence of Nazi war criminals in Canada to public attention. Cotler's children are members of the Israeli Defence Force (something Antonia Zerbisias seemingly took exception to.)
Now, it seems that Cotler is fighting for his political life, on the back of suggestions that he hasn't been loyal enough to his Jewish constituents. Any such suggestion is pure rubbish.
“It causes me deep, personal anguish,” Cotler remarked. “The Conservatives utterly misrepresent my record and put me in the docket of the accused on the issues where I have been at the forefront.”
Cotler accuses the Tories of Karl Rove-like tactics, focused on attacking the individual and spreading fear.
Cotler's primary opponent, Conservative Party candidate Saulie Zajdel, objects to Cotler's assessment.
“Where is the fear?” he asked. “Are we trying to scare anybody? We’re trying to engage in the issues.”
For most of the 2011 election campaign, this has been the case. But in the two years leading up to this election, the party has managed to confuse the issues as they pertain to Irwin Cotler.
If Cotler goes down to defeat on May 2, it won't be because the Conservatives deserve to beat him. It will be because the thinly-veiled accusations of racism levelled at Cotler were successful.
And it will be a crying shame. It will be a profound loss to Jewish citizens throughout the Commonwealth. Irwin Cotler would deserve better.
Showing posts with label Anti-semitism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anti-semitism. Show all posts
Monday, April 25, 2011
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Coming Clean(er) on Antonia Zerbisias
Fair is fair.
Recently, in a post here at the Nexus about Antonia Zerbisias challenging Liberal MP Irwin Cotler's loyalty to Canada, Zerbisias was unfairly credited for making the following comment on her Facebook page: "It doesn't seem possible for Jewish people to have a RATIONAL discussion about Israel!"
As it turns out, Zerbisias did not make the comment in question.
Although the comment was made by another individual (who is, and will remain, unidentified) she did express agreement with it, writing: "I agree. It's almost existential for some of them."
Evidently, this is what Jonathon Kay actually meant when he suggested Zerbisias "endorses" those views. As Zerbisias' Facebook profile is set to private (it can be viewed by her Facebook friends only), it's actually an easy mistake to make, as her comments were made very difficult to verify.
To some, it would seem entirely natural to attribute anti-Semitism to the comments of both individuals. Attributing irrationality to an entire ethnic group of people could certainly be viewed as a racially inflammatory comment. In the case in question, it could be viewed as anti-Semitic.
But rushing to that conclusion admittedly overlooks the rash hastiness of such comments. In the heat of a blogosphere controversy such comments can be uttered in undue haste -- and interpreted equally hastily.
In hindsight -- as due restraint often restores itself once the heat of the moment has passed -- one would like to be able to attribute Zerbisias' comments to that kind of hastiness. But Zerbisias has made it rather difficult to do so.
Even though she has been asked to elaborate on the sentiments behind her actual comments -- once again, expressing agreement with the original comments -- she has declined to share them.
Which is unfortunate. Zerbisias could very well have not meant to attribute irrationality to Jewish people as a whole, but rather to a particular group of pro-Israeli Jews. Truth be told, she would be right about that. There's little question that some Jews -- as well as some non-Jews -- cast aside the burdensome chore of critical thinking in all matters related to Israel. It's a sad truth.
Likewise, Zerbisias could very well have meant to attribute that to Jewish people as a whole. Her comments, even if uttered in haste, seem to suggest that (they also seem to suggest that for many Jews this irrationality is "existential").
If she refuses to elaborate on her comments, it would be impossible to know for certain.
It's on this note that Zerbisias may entreat herself to an apology for the misquote. Fair, after all, is fair.
But it's hard to leash suspicions of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism if Zerbisias herself won't explain some comments that seem like they allude to it. If Zerbisias doesn't like it, there are actually very simple remedies as her immediate command:
Don't say things that may make people suspect you're an anti-Semite. For most people, that seems simple enough.
Recently, in a post here at the Nexus about Antonia Zerbisias challenging Liberal MP Irwin Cotler's loyalty to Canada, Zerbisias was unfairly credited for making the following comment on her Facebook page: "It doesn't seem possible for Jewish people to have a RATIONAL discussion about Israel!"
As it turns out, Zerbisias did not make the comment in question.
Although the comment was made by another individual (who is, and will remain, unidentified) she did express agreement with it, writing: "I agree. It's almost existential for some of them."
Evidently, this is what Jonathon Kay actually meant when he suggested Zerbisias "endorses" those views. As Zerbisias' Facebook profile is set to private (it can be viewed by her Facebook friends only), it's actually an easy mistake to make, as her comments were made very difficult to verify.
To some, it would seem entirely natural to attribute anti-Semitism to the comments of both individuals. Attributing irrationality to an entire ethnic group of people could certainly be viewed as a racially inflammatory comment. In the case in question, it could be viewed as anti-Semitic.
But rushing to that conclusion admittedly overlooks the rash hastiness of such comments. In the heat of a blogosphere controversy such comments can be uttered in undue haste -- and interpreted equally hastily.
In hindsight -- as due restraint often restores itself once the heat of the moment has passed -- one would like to be able to attribute Zerbisias' comments to that kind of hastiness. But Zerbisias has made it rather difficult to do so.
Even though she has been asked to elaborate on the sentiments behind her actual comments -- once again, expressing agreement with the original comments -- she has declined to share them.
Which is unfortunate. Zerbisias could very well have not meant to attribute irrationality to Jewish people as a whole, but rather to a particular group of pro-Israeli Jews. Truth be told, she would be right about that. There's little question that some Jews -- as well as some non-Jews -- cast aside the burdensome chore of critical thinking in all matters related to Israel. It's a sad truth.
Likewise, Zerbisias could very well have meant to attribute that to Jewish people as a whole. Her comments, even if uttered in haste, seem to suggest that (they also seem to suggest that for many Jews this irrationality is "existential").
If she refuses to elaborate on her comments, it would be impossible to know for certain.
It's on this note that Zerbisias may entreat herself to an apology for the misquote. Fair, after all, is fair.
But it's hard to leash suspicions of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism if Zerbisias herself won't explain some comments that seem like they allude to it. If Zerbisias doesn't like it, there are actually very simple remedies as her immediate command:
Don't say things that may make people suspect you're an anti-Semite. For most people, that seems simple enough.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
This is Nothing a Sheeny Curse Wouldn't Fix
Antonia Zerbisias tips her anti-Semitic hand
This post should probably start off with an apology to any Jewish readers -- or just Jews in general -- if they're offended by the title. Please forgive.
Recently, Toronto Star columnist and blogger Antonia Zerbisias sparked another blogosphere controversy when she twittered the following:
As many Canadians would also know, Zerbisias has been far from quiet on the topic of Israel. Recent screeds against Israel include a column applauding a Toronto LGBT group protesting "Israeli Apartheid" (despite the fact that Israel has a far superior record in regard to its treatment of homosexuals than any other Middle Eastern country) and applause of the insipid boycott of the Toronto International Film Festival over its "city to city" program with Tel Aviv.
So it's clear that Zerbisias is a critic of Israel. There's actually nothing wrong with that -- there's plenty of room for constructive criticism of any state, especially Israel.
But to target Irwin Cotler and challenge his patriotism because his children -- who are dual Canadian-Israeli citizens, by virtue of Cotler's marriage to an Israeli woman -- is far, far beyond the pale.
To impugn Cotler's citizenship based on the actions of his children is nothing short of irresponsible.
It could even be interpreted as a form of neo-McCarthyism, as Dr John Baglow accuses Kay of in noting that Zerbisias' comments at least reinforce the impressions of Zerbisias' well-known anti-Zionism.
The problem for Zerbisias and her thinly-veiled threat to sue another blogger (who has actually taken quite a trip over the matter) is that her rhetoric seems to suggest that her anti-Zionism has bled into anti-Semitism.
As Kay notes, Zerbisias recently noted, on her Facebook page, that "it doesn't seem possible for Jewish people to have a RATIONAL discussion about Israel!"
So it would seem that Zerbisias insists that Israel is the problem. But more than that, she infers, the real problem is the Jews.
As the aforementioned Backseat Blogger notes, accusations of mixed loyalties have often been levied against Jews.
At a certain point, a spade just has to be called a spade. Zerbisias' criticisms of Israel themselves are far short of malignant. But when mixed with the kind of rhetoric she's indulged herself in, it becomes clear that there are darker motivations underlying her criticism.
Which brings one back to the Sheeny Curse.
Who knows? Perhaps Antonia Zerbisias would be surprissed to learn that the Sheeny Curse doesn't actually exist. Stranger things have been published in the pages of the Star -- often by Zerbisias herself.
This post should probably start off with an apology to any Jewish readers -- or just Jews in general -- if they're offended by the title. Please forgive.
Recently, Toronto Star columnist and blogger Antonia Zerbisias sparked another blogosphere controversy when she twittered the following:
"MP Irwin Cotler's children join IDF. http://bit.ly/1Ttsq0 Which country are you loyal to, sir?"Irwin Cotler, as Kay notes, is known around the world for his work fighting anti-Semitism. He has also been instrumental in highlighting Canada's past failure to detect and deport Nazi war criminals.
As many Canadians would also know, Zerbisias has been far from quiet on the topic of Israel. Recent screeds against Israel include a column applauding a Toronto LGBT group protesting "Israeli Apartheid" (despite the fact that Israel has a far superior record in regard to its treatment of homosexuals than any other Middle Eastern country) and applause of the insipid boycott of the Toronto International Film Festival over its "city to city" program with Tel Aviv.
So it's clear that Zerbisias is a critic of Israel. There's actually nothing wrong with that -- there's plenty of room for constructive criticism of any state, especially Israel.
But to target Irwin Cotler and challenge his patriotism because his children -- who are dual Canadian-Israeli citizens, by virtue of Cotler's marriage to an Israeli woman -- is far, far beyond the pale.
To impugn Cotler's citizenship based on the actions of his children is nothing short of irresponsible.
It could even be interpreted as a form of neo-McCarthyism, as Dr John Baglow accuses Kay of in noting that Zerbisias' comments at least reinforce the impressions of Zerbisias' well-known anti-Zionism.
The problem for Zerbisias and her thinly-veiled threat to sue another blogger (who has actually taken quite a trip over the matter) is that her rhetoric seems to suggest that her anti-Zionism has bled into anti-Semitism.
As Kay notes, Zerbisias recently noted, on her Facebook page, that "it doesn't seem possible for Jewish people to have a RATIONAL discussion about Israel!"
So it would seem that Zerbisias insists that Israel is the problem. But more than that, she infers, the real problem is the Jews.
As the aforementioned Backseat Blogger notes, accusations of mixed loyalties have often been levied against Jews.
At a certain point, a spade just has to be called a spade. Zerbisias' criticisms of Israel themselves are far short of malignant. But when mixed with the kind of rhetoric she's indulged herself in, it becomes clear that there are darker motivations underlying her criticism.
Which brings one back to the Sheeny Curse.
Who knows? Perhaps Antonia Zerbisias would be surprissed to learn that the Sheeny Curse doesn't actually exist. Stranger things have been published in the pages of the Star -- often by Zerbisias herself.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Ahenakew Walks Free
A difference in venue can make all the difference in the world
In what will certainly wind up being an extremely controversial decision, David Ahenakew has been acquitted of inciting hatred against Jews.
In the trial, stemming from a 2002 speech and media interview given by Ahenakew, Justice Wilfred Tucker found that Ahenakew hadn't intended to incite hatred in his comments.
Reading the news coverage of the decision seems to indicate a will on Tucker's part to find Ahenakew not guilty.
In his ruling Tucker echoed Doug Christie's extremely curious reasoning, agreeing that Ahenakew couldn't have intended to promote hatred of Jews if he hadn't planned to speak about that topic.
"There was no consent to an interview about Jews or the question of whether they started the Second World War. That is not the subject that anyone would have foreseen," Christie reasoned. "He consented to an interview about the consent form that Natives were required to sign in order to get medical treatment. And that was the thing that got him and a lot of other Native people very upset and he expected to talk about that, and that's what the judge found."
Reportedly, Ahenakew tried to end the interview before he made the comments, but Star Phoenix reporter Betty Ann Adam insisting on asking him about his previous speech, in which he accused Jews of starting the second world war.
That's when Ahenakew uttered the infamous words.
"How do you get rid of a disease like that, that's going to take over, that's going to dominate?" Ahenakew asked. "The Jews damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war. That's how Hitler came in. He was going to make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany or Europe."
"That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know," Ahenakew insisted. "Jews would have owned the God-damned world."
Christie's argument -- clearly accepted by Tucker -- regarding whether or not Ahenakew's comments were premeditated is complete and utter nonsense.
For one thing, Canadian criminal law doesn't require premeditation in order to prove intent. Second degree murder, for example, requires an intent to kill but not necessarily premeditation.
In other words, premeditation doesn't define intent.
It's hard to imagine that anyone who would describe another group of people as a "disease" doesn't intend for other people to view them with similar revulsion. The words really do speak for themselves.
But Ahenakew's acquittal also speaks for itself. It also speaks for the extremely tenuous nature of Canada's hate crime laws, and speaks to very different results attained in very different venues.
In a Human Rights Commission Ahenakew would have had no right to legal counsel and his complainants would have been subject to extremely lax rules of evidence. In a Human Rights Commission, Ahenakew would have very likely been convicted.
Of course, Tucker's decision shouldn't be confused for condonation of Ahanakew's remarks.
"The opinions distorted historical facts and general views expressed by the accused can only be viewed with revulsion and disgust by ordinary Canadians," Tucker announced. "That anyone would characterize the murder of millions of innocent human beings as 'getting rid of a disease,' or 'trying to clean up the world' is incomprehensible to decent people."
In contrast to rulings by Canada's various Human Rights Commissions, Ahenakew has walked away from this one without even having to apologize.
"I'm still the same guy that was born, that served the world, that served the army, that served the people. I'm still that same guy," Ahenakew said. "And I'm too damn old now to change anyways."
That's a far cry from the mandated apology and ban on commenting on Jews that could have been ordered by a Human Rights Commission.
Whether or not Ahenakew's acquittal is a setback for Canada's hate speech legislation is something that will remain to be seen, as those facing similar charges in future will almost certainly look to it as a precedent under which they, too, can be acquitted.
In the meantime what will almost certainly fall into greater question is whether or not these laws should be kept at all.
Other bloggers writing on this topic:
Zach Bell - "Jewish Thoughts On David Ahenakew"
Rob Harvie - "Saskatoon Provincial Court Finds Ahenakew 'Not Guilty' of Hate Crime And Probably Unintentionally Does the Right Thing"
Shmohawk - "revolting, disgusting and untrue"
In what will certainly wind up being an extremely controversial decision, David Ahenakew has been acquitted of inciting hatred against Jews.
In the trial, stemming from a 2002 speech and media interview given by Ahenakew, Justice Wilfred Tucker found that Ahenakew hadn't intended to incite hatred in his comments.Reading the news coverage of the decision seems to indicate a will on Tucker's part to find Ahenakew not guilty.
In his ruling Tucker echoed Doug Christie's extremely curious reasoning, agreeing that Ahenakew couldn't have intended to promote hatred of Jews if he hadn't planned to speak about that topic.
"There was no consent to an interview about Jews or the question of whether they started the Second World War. That is not the subject that anyone would have foreseen," Christie reasoned. "He consented to an interview about the consent form that Natives were required to sign in order to get medical treatment. And that was the thing that got him and a lot of other Native people very upset and he expected to talk about that, and that's what the judge found."
Reportedly, Ahenakew tried to end the interview before he made the comments, but Star Phoenix reporter Betty Ann Adam insisting on asking him about his previous speech, in which he accused Jews of starting the second world war.
That's when Ahenakew uttered the infamous words.
"How do you get rid of a disease like that, that's going to take over, that's going to dominate?" Ahenakew asked. "The Jews damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war. That's how Hitler came in. He was going to make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany or Europe."
"That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know," Ahenakew insisted. "Jews would have owned the God-damned world."
Christie's argument -- clearly accepted by Tucker -- regarding whether or not Ahenakew's comments were premeditated is complete and utter nonsense.
For one thing, Canadian criminal law doesn't require premeditation in order to prove intent. Second degree murder, for example, requires an intent to kill but not necessarily premeditation.
In other words, premeditation doesn't define intent.
It's hard to imagine that anyone who would describe another group of people as a "disease" doesn't intend for other people to view them with similar revulsion. The words really do speak for themselves.
But Ahenakew's acquittal also speaks for itself. It also speaks for the extremely tenuous nature of Canada's hate crime laws, and speaks to very different results attained in very different venues.
In a Human Rights Commission Ahenakew would have had no right to legal counsel and his complainants would have been subject to extremely lax rules of evidence. In a Human Rights Commission, Ahenakew would have very likely been convicted.
Of course, Tucker's decision shouldn't be confused for condonation of Ahanakew's remarks.
"The opinions distorted historical facts and general views expressed by the accused can only be viewed with revulsion and disgust by ordinary Canadians," Tucker announced. "That anyone would characterize the murder of millions of innocent human beings as 'getting rid of a disease,' or 'trying to clean up the world' is incomprehensible to decent people."
In contrast to rulings by Canada's various Human Rights Commissions, Ahenakew has walked away from this one without even having to apologize.
"I'm still the same guy that was born, that served the world, that served the army, that served the people. I'm still that same guy," Ahenakew said. "And I'm too damn old now to change anyways."
That's a far cry from the mandated apology and ban on commenting on Jews that could have been ordered by a Human Rights Commission.
Whether or not Ahenakew's acquittal is a setback for Canada's hate speech legislation is something that will remain to be seen, as those facing similar charges in future will almost certainly look to it as a precedent under which they, too, can be acquitted.
In the meantime what will almost certainly fall into greater question is whether or not these laws should be kept at all.
Other bloggers writing on this topic:
Zach Bell - "Jewish Thoughts On David Ahenakew"
Rob Harvie - "Saskatoon Provincial Court Finds Ahenakew 'Not Guilty' of Hate Crime And Probably Unintentionally Does the Right Thing"
Shmohawk - "revolting, disgusting and untrue"
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Of Professional Hatemongers and Professional Whores
Kenney and Arab Groups face off over funding
In a country where people can be haouled in front of a Human Rights Commission for saying this that others believe express hatred or contempt, it only seems logical that the government would deny funding to groups that express hatred or contempt.
Interestingly enough, some individuals have a problem with such a move.
Among them is Khaled Mouammar, who accused Kenney of being a "professional whore" for Israel.
Kenney recently identified the Canadian Arab Federation, a group in which Mouammar serves as President and the Canadian Islamic Congress as groups which promote hatred for Jews.
"There are organizations in Canada, as in Britain, that receive their share of media attention and public notoriety, but who at the same time as expressing hateful sentiments, expect to be treated as respectable interlocutors in the public discourse," Kenney explained. "These and other organizations are free within the confines of our law and consistent with our traditions of freedom of expression, to speak their mind, but they should not expect to receive resources from the state, support from taxpayers or any other form of official respect from the government or the organs of our state."
"I would encourage all other governments to take a similar approach to organizations that either excuse violence against Jews or express essentially anti-Semitic sentiments," Kenney continued.
"We do see the growth of a new anti-Semitism, the anti-Semitism predicated on the notion that the Jews alone have no right to a homeland," Kenney explained. "The argument is with those whose premise is that Israel itself is an abomination, and that the Jews alone have no right to a homeland. And in that sense anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism."
Of course, what Kenney really should have said is that this particular brand of anti-Zionism is< anti-Semitism. It would be foolish to heap those who object to the conduct of the Israeli state in with those who believe that it has no right to exist in the first place.
For his own part, NDP Finance Critic Thomas Mulcair seems to agree with the principle behind the decision. "I agree that people shouldn't get money from the federal government if they say hurtful things about any group," Mulcair said.
However, one also has to keep in mind that organizations such as the Canadian Arab Federation often provide services to immigrants that aren't only valuable to themselves, but to society as a whole. In particular, Kenney's move would deny the CAF $447,297 for language training and assistance with job searches.
If the CAF is to be denied this funding, the federal government will have to take responsibility for providing those services.
But even then, the government providing such services direclty is infitely preferable to providing funding to groups that can be said to violate -- ironically groups that often seek to exploit -- Canada's hate speech laws.
Other bloggers writing on this topic:
Peace, Order and Good Government Eh? - "Be Nice to Jason Kenney. Or Else."
Yaya Canada - "Political Whore Kenney Won't Put Out"
Calgary Rants - "Excellent Work by MP Jason Kenney"
In a country where people can be haouled in front of a Human Rights Commission for saying this that others believe express hatred or contempt, it only seems logical that the government would deny funding to groups that express hatred or contempt.
Interestingly enough, some individuals have a problem with such a move.
Among them is Khaled Mouammar, who accused Kenney of being a "professional whore" for Israel.
Kenney recently identified the Canadian Arab Federation, a group in which Mouammar serves as President and the Canadian Islamic Congress as groups which promote hatred for Jews.
"There are organizations in Canada, as in Britain, that receive their share of media attention and public notoriety, but who at the same time as expressing hateful sentiments, expect to be treated as respectable interlocutors in the public discourse," Kenney explained. "These and other organizations are free within the confines of our law and consistent with our traditions of freedom of expression, to speak their mind, but they should not expect to receive resources from the state, support from taxpayers or any other form of official respect from the government or the organs of our state.""I would encourage all other governments to take a similar approach to organizations that either excuse violence against Jews or express essentially anti-Semitic sentiments," Kenney continued.
"We do see the growth of a new anti-Semitism, the anti-Semitism predicated on the notion that the Jews alone have no right to a homeland," Kenney explained. "The argument is with those whose premise is that Israel itself is an abomination, and that the Jews alone have no right to a homeland. And in that sense anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism."
Of course, what Kenney really should have said is that this particular brand of anti-Zionism is< anti-Semitism. It would be foolish to heap those who object to the conduct of the Israeli state in with those who believe that it has no right to exist in the first place.
For his own part, NDP Finance Critic Thomas Mulcair seems to agree with the principle behind the decision. "I agree that people shouldn't get money from the federal government if they say hurtful things about any group," Mulcair said.
However, one also has to keep in mind that organizations such as the Canadian Arab Federation often provide services to immigrants that aren't only valuable to themselves, but to society as a whole. In particular, Kenney's move would deny the CAF $447,297 for language training and assistance with job searches.
If the CAF is to be denied this funding, the federal government will have to take responsibility for providing those services.
But even then, the government providing such services direclty is infitely preferable to providing funding to groups that can be said to violate -- ironically groups that often seek to exploit -- Canada's hate speech laws.
Other bloggers writing on this topic:
Peace, Order and Good Government Eh? - "Be Nice to Jason Kenney. Or Else."
Yaya Canada - "Political Whore Kenney Won't Put Out"
Calgary Rants - "Excellent Work by MP Jason Kenney"
Monday, February 11, 2008
Really Not Funny
South Park Conservativism run tastelessly amok
So, one may wonder what this particular post is about.
It turns out that Kate McMillan managed to pull one over on Warren Kinsella recently, as she managed to convince Kinsella to display a cleverly-doctored photograph on his blog.
Presumably, it was of a numbered tattoo on the arm of a Holocaust survivor. Instead, it turned out to be the serial number off the engine block of McMillan's motorcycle photoshopped onto a photo of someone's arm.
At first glimpse, it almost seems like an amusing prank.
But the Holocaust isn't something people should be making light of. Six million human lives snuffed out in the name of mere hatred: it's not a laughing matter.
Kinsella asked for permission to post the photo on his blog, as it would encourage others to "fight the good fight".
Well, as someone who has fought the good fight, I find it necessary to take exception.
McMillan's prank is juvenile, and at first glance, seems like it should be written off as such. Then one remembers what is at stake.
When the historical memory of travesties such as the Holocaust begin to fade, we put ourselves at risk of allowing such atrocities to reoccur. It all relates to one of western society's most basic proverbs: history, forgotten, repeats itself.
Ridiculing such episodes has the precise same effect. McMillan really ought to be ashamed of herself. Whether this was meant as a joke or not, it simply isn't funny. As a matter of fact, it's the exact polar opposite from funny.
So, one may wonder what this particular post is about.
It turns out that Kate McMillan managed to pull one over on Warren Kinsella recently, as she managed to convince Kinsella to display a cleverly-doctored photograph on his blog.
Presumably, it was of a numbered tattoo on the arm of a Holocaust survivor. Instead, it turned out to be the serial number off the engine block of McMillan's motorcycle photoshopped onto a photo of someone's arm.
At first glimpse, it almost seems like an amusing prank.
But the Holocaust isn't something people should be making light of. Six million human lives snuffed out in the name of mere hatred: it's not a laughing matter.
Kinsella asked for permission to post the photo on his blog, as it would encourage others to "fight the good fight".
Well, as someone who has fought the good fight, I find it necessary to take exception.
McMillan's prank is juvenile, and at first glance, seems like it should be written off as such. Then one remembers what is at stake.
When the historical memory of travesties such as the Holocaust begin to fade, we put ourselves at risk of allowing such atrocities to reoccur. It all relates to one of western society's most basic proverbs: history, forgotten, repeats itself.
Ridiculing such episodes has the precise same effect. McMillan really ought to be ashamed of herself. Whether this was meant as a joke or not, it simply isn't funny. As a matter of fact, it's the exact polar opposite from funny.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Michael Ignatieff & Stephen Harper: Their Feet & Their Mouths
Open mouth. Insert foot. Repeat as necessary.
Michael Ignatieff is not a happy man. This may have something to do with the fact that he’s had a very rough week.
On monday, Ignatieff was criticized for not attending a leadership debate. On Tuesday, Ignatieff accused Israel of war crimes. On Thursday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper used Ignatieff’s comments to (perhaps unwisely) label the candidates in the Liberal leadership campaign as “Anti-Israel”. On Friday, Ignatieff responded to Harper, but also lashed out at the media.
“Yesterday, Stephen Harper used my statement that war crimes were committed in this (Mideast) conflict to launch a personal attack on me and on my colleagues running for the Liberal leadership of Canada,” Ignatieff complained. “Mr. Harper's comments were a disgrace, a disgrace for a man who holds an office that is supposed to represent all Canadians.”
“There is no basis whatever for Mr. Harper to suggest that the Liberal party is biased against Israel.,” Ignatieff insisted. “The prime minister showed a profound lack of respect to the Official Opposition and a profound lack of respect to the Canadian people who elected them."
"Being a friend means speaking honestly and this week I did that, I spoke honestly about this summer's terrible conflict," he said. "It was a conflict provoked by Hezbollah and its backers to lure Israel into a wide war, it was a conflict in which Israel exercised its right to respond and to send a terrorist militia a clear message that its actions cannot and would not be tolerated."
However, on October 10, in a Radio-Canada interview, Ignatieff said, "I was a professor of human rights, and I am also a professor of the laws of war, and what happened in Qana was a war crime."
So, to recap, on Tuesday, Israel is a war criminal. On Friday, Hezbollah are war criminals.
In any conventional sense of the term, this would be a huge flip-flop.
On Thursday, Stephen Harper described Ignatieff’s previous accusations as “consistent with the anti-Israeli position that has been taken by virtually of the candidates for the Liberal leadership.” However, on Friday he noted that Joe Volpe and Scott Brison were exceptions to his assertions.
Now, what Harper said was inflammatory, but was it accurate?
Ignatieff’s aforementioned comments on Israel, and subsequent flip-flop on the issue, demonstrate that he is merely doing what he can to exploit the Israeli issue for political gain.
Gerard Kennedy issued the standard promises to recognize Israel’s right to exist and defend itself, but his supporters have been more vocal, accusing Israel of conducting ‘state terrorism’.
"We don't want to see any more terrorism, whether the terrorism of suicide bombers or launching rockets or state terrorism. This is state terrorism," said Kennedy supporter Boris Wrzesnewskyj.
Even more interesting are the comments of Kennedy supporter Thomas Hubert, who advocated eliminating all “Zionists” from the Liberal party. "The Liberal Party is stronger without these violent Zionists in our party. I am glad for them to cease influencing our foreign policy so we are free to promote Canadian values of peace. It amazes me that this community is so absurdly selfish. The only issue that matters to them is the defence of a "state" that survives on the blood of innocent people. Shameful.”
Harper has already admitted that Stephan Dion is not anti-Israel.
But as it relates to Bob Rae, Harper may be a little bit off. In a 2002 opinion article entitled “Parting Company with the NDP”, Rae (who is of Jewish descent) criticized what he believed to be a strong anti-Israel bias in the NDP.
On his website, www.Bobrae.ca, Rae even issued the following statement, “The issue is not simply Israel's right to defend itself - it is how to police a border, how to reduce tension, how to create the preconditions for dialogue. Israel has a right to live in peace within secure, internationally recognized borders. At the moment this clearly requires the presence of peace monitors. Lebanon cannot and will not do it and has called for a UN presence on its soil to assist in this. The UN must respond."
"Canada's further efforts need to focus on the refusal of both Hezbollah and Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. These radical groups, clearly fuelled by money and other assistance from Iran and Syria, point to the biggest obstacle to peace: an inability to accept Israel as a legitimate country in the region. Ideologies that cannot accept the presence of other people, with different religions, languages, and loyalties, are a profound threat to the peace of the world."
That is not, by any means, an anti-Israel statement.
For Harper, the leader of the federal Conservative party, commenting on the statements of the leading candidate for the Liberal leadership is perfectly legitimate. However, Harper needs to keep one important fact in mind.
In Canada, conservatives do not win on rhetoric. They have to win on facts.
Labelling all the candidates for the Liberal leadership as “anti-Israel” takes an issue that should be discussed in terms of fact, and transforms it into a rhetorical issue.
He should, at the very least, avoid making comments he can’t defend. As it pertains to two of the four frontrunners for the Liberal leadership, Harper can’t defend these comments.
However, in the cases of Ignatieff and Kennedy, defending their own comments (and those of their supporters) is a matter they should be good deal more concerned with. As the frontrunner, Ignatieff needs to be doubly concerned.
Michael Ignatieff is not a happy man. This may have something to do with the fact that he’s had a very rough week.
On monday, Ignatieff was criticized for not attending a leadership debate. On Tuesday, Ignatieff accused Israel of war crimes. On Thursday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper used Ignatieff’s comments to (perhaps unwisely) label the candidates in the Liberal leadership campaign as “Anti-Israel”. On Friday, Ignatieff responded to Harper, but also lashed out at the media.
“Yesterday, Stephen Harper used my statement that war crimes were committed in this (Mideast) conflict to launch a personal attack on me and on my colleagues running for the Liberal leadership of Canada,” Ignatieff complained. “Mr. Harper's comments were a disgrace, a disgrace for a man who holds an office that is supposed to represent all Canadians.”
“There is no basis whatever for Mr. Harper to suggest that the Liberal party is biased against Israel.,” Ignatieff insisted. “The prime minister showed a profound lack of respect to the Official Opposition and a profound lack of respect to the Canadian people who elected them."
"Being a friend means speaking honestly and this week I did that, I spoke honestly about this summer's terrible conflict," he said. "It was a conflict provoked by Hezbollah and its backers to lure Israel into a wide war, it was a conflict in which Israel exercised its right to respond and to send a terrorist militia a clear message that its actions cannot and would not be tolerated."
However, on October 10, in a Radio-Canada interview, Ignatieff said, "I was a professor of human rights, and I am also a professor of the laws of war, and what happened in Qana was a war crime."
So, to recap, on Tuesday, Israel is a war criminal. On Friday, Hezbollah are war criminals.
In any conventional sense of the term, this would be a huge flip-flop.
On Thursday, Stephen Harper described Ignatieff’s previous accusations as “consistent with the anti-Israeli position that has been taken by virtually of the candidates for the Liberal leadership.” However, on Friday he noted that Joe Volpe and Scott Brison were exceptions to his assertions.
Now, what Harper said was inflammatory, but was it accurate?
Ignatieff’s aforementioned comments on Israel, and subsequent flip-flop on the issue, demonstrate that he is merely doing what he can to exploit the Israeli issue for political gain.
Gerard Kennedy issued the standard promises to recognize Israel’s right to exist and defend itself, but his supporters have been more vocal, accusing Israel of conducting ‘state terrorism’.
"We don't want to see any more terrorism, whether the terrorism of suicide bombers or launching rockets or state terrorism. This is state terrorism," said Kennedy supporter Boris Wrzesnewskyj.
Even more interesting are the comments of Kennedy supporter Thomas Hubert, who advocated eliminating all “Zionists” from the Liberal party. "The Liberal Party is stronger without these violent Zionists in our party. I am glad for them to cease influencing our foreign policy so we are free to promote Canadian values of peace. It amazes me that this community is so absurdly selfish. The only issue that matters to them is the defence of a "state" that survives on the blood of innocent people. Shameful.”
Harper has already admitted that Stephan Dion is not anti-Israel.
But as it relates to Bob Rae, Harper may be a little bit off. In a 2002 opinion article entitled “Parting Company with the NDP”, Rae (who is of Jewish descent) criticized what he believed to be a strong anti-Israel bias in the NDP.
On his website, www.Bobrae.ca, Rae even issued the following statement, “The issue is not simply Israel's right to defend itself - it is how to police a border, how to reduce tension, how to create the preconditions for dialogue. Israel has a right to live in peace within secure, internationally recognized borders. At the moment this clearly requires the presence of peace monitors. Lebanon cannot and will not do it and has called for a UN presence on its soil to assist in this. The UN must respond."
"Canada's further efforts need to focus on the refusal of both Hezbollah and Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. These radical groups, clearly fuelled by money and other assistance from Iran and Syria, point to the biggest obstacle to peace: an inability to accept Israel as a legitimate country in the region. Ideologies that cannot accept the presence of other people, with different religions, languages, and loyalties, are a profound threat to the peace of the world."
That is not, by any means, an anti-Israel statement.
For Harper, the leader of the federal Conservative party, commenting on the statements of the leading candidate for the Liberal leadership is perfectly legitimate. However, Harper needs to keep one important fact in mind.
In Canada, conservatives do not win on rhetoric. They have to win on facts.
Labelling all the candidates for the Liberal leadership as “anti-Israel” takes an issue that should be discussed in terms of fact, and transforms it into a rhetorical issue.
He should, at the very least, avoid making comments he can’t defend. As it pertains to two of the four frontrunners for the Liberal leadership, Harper can’t defend these comments.
However, in the cases of Ignatieff and Kennedy, defending their own comments (and those of their supporters) is a matter they should be good deal more concerned with. As the frontrunner, Ignatieff needs to be doubly concerned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)