1  2  3  Next

<strong>Written By:</strong> Robin Mathews
<strong>Date:</strong> 2006-09-06 11:44:00
<a href="/article/22442961-outing-a-stephen-harper-reactionary-or-terry-glavin-canadian-journalist-goes-so">Article Link</a>

Where does such conviction come from among well-informed, active Canadians? Though it’s hard to give a solid answer, and though a person can only guess (what follows is speculation), let me try. Some good, warm, nice, caring Canadians have devoted themselves to personal advocacy, to liberationist work and thought whenever they have run into stupid bureaucracy, insensitive administrators, racist policy, and wanton agendas that destroy people and nature. Of course, all those things can be found in Canada. And in the USA.

But fighting those things doesn’t necessarily give nice people a larger analysis, a picture of the way the world is being manipulated for power and profit beyond the apparently local stupid systems and people. Western World indoctrination has bitten deeply into the psyches of many of those caring Canadians. They believe, almost atavistically, the world is divided into good peoples and bad peoples. They assume they live among the good peoples. Canada follows the U.S. because the U.S. is essentially good (though sometimes flawed), essentially caring, democratic, liberating, principled.

If the U.S. decides to destroy the legitimate government of Nicaragua, or Chile, say, Canadian government agrees aloud or nods silently in agreement. If the U.S. says Hesbollah is a terrorist organization, Canada says so, too, and that makes Hesbollah a terrorist organization. Caring people begin to absorb the contradictions present in those situations.

Those nice people know that the U.S. – as well – has territorial, trade, oil and other reasons for interfering in other countries (and helping other people to do so). But, essentially, the good people know (?) the U.S. is moved by human compassion and a desire to see free peoples thriving everywhere. In Afghanistan, for instance, democratic government, women’s liberation, decent education, and a free society are the goals driving the daily murder and destruction being wreaked there.

People like Terry Glavin and Michael Ignatieff don’t ask why the “good” Western forces have let Nicaragua, for instance, become an unemployed swamp, a destitute society, suffering huge hardship since the U.S. warred against it, destroyed its legitimate government, and set up a puppet regime. Why aren’t we there building infrastructure, erecting schools and hospitals, providing opportunity for women who are lashed to a male-absent, desperately poor country?

Colombia is a criminal, terror-wracked country in the hands of narco-thugs. We are doing nothing there to provide the help we want to provide (we say) in Afghanistan. Why not?

I could go on, and on. The point is simple. The “moral” Western powers choose carefully the countries in which to involve themselves with killer-agents, killer weapons, killer improvement plans. All the countries interfered with connect to Western (mostly U.S.) strategies of domination and wealth gathering. Nicaragua began the move that has appeared in Venezuela and Bolivia, and so the U.S. destroyed it. But Nicaragua has no oil, no major raw materials, and an unstrategic position.

So forget it.

In Venezuela and Bolivia masses of people were permitted to suffer, to die, to waste in countries fully wealthy enough to care reasonably for all. The moral Western powers did nothing in those countries. (No Afghanistan treatment for them.) Power in Venezuela and Bolivia, however, has recently been won legitimately by determined reformers.

Does Canada assist them now? No. Canada lines up (media, government, private corporations) with the U.S. to call those countries every name that suggests they are illegitimate, brutal, repressive, and otherwise inhumane. Canadian government is not even vaguely interested in helping the long-oppressed people of those countries to find their feet.

To reasonable people, I suggest, those facts have to be present every time Western governments call upon us to support their latest “good works” in foreign countries. To the people atavistically driven, deeply indoctrinated, their reaction is always pre-made.

Such seems to be the case with Terry Glavin. Like a spawning salmon leaping out of a river onto the dry bank, Glavin leapt from his usual, familiar environment some weeks ago to enter the Middle East (and Afghanistan) controversies. Respondents to The Georgia Straight’s “Letters” column corrected him and corrected him on facts. Some wondered why he chose to savage “left” groups dedicated to peace and anti-war activism. Others wondered at his passion to defend U.S./Israeli policies. Responses to his columns were muted mostly, engaged in correcting the errors of a neophyte in a new field.

The moderation wasn’t wholly, I suspect, a function of Canadian balance and wisdom. It was probably more a function of the censorship pencil of the Straight’s editors. By my last count fully two-thirds of the Straight is made up of paid advertising. Mustn’t bite the hand that feeds…. And so we can’t really know what the response was to Glavin’s new image. Nor will we know more when the Straight publishes responses to Glavin’s latest pandering, error-afflicted, puff piece for (not about) Liberal leadership doll Michael Ignatieff. You trust The Georgia Straight to give you an honest representation of reader response? That’s good of you.

What’s the story? A Liberal gathering/retreat was just held in Vancouver. You can guess many leadership candidates were there. Glavin interviewed one. Michael Ignatieff. Why one? Why him? The interview - a full page – tells all. (Georgia Straight, Aug 31, 2006, p.14)

The sub-headline tells us reactionary Ignatieff is the “left-wing intellectual icon”. Will all left-wingers for whom he is that, please say so. I don’t know one. Called by Glavin a “dashing 57-year-old,” Ignatieff is close to 60. (He was born on May 12, 1947.) Funny mistake. Funny, too, Glavin forgets to say this person he calls the “fastest-rising star in Canadian politics” and “novelist and a scion of Russian aristocracy” got his nomination for a Liberal seat in Ontario by a process of rigged nomination, a high-speed nomination deadline to keep out other aspirants, and the locking of Liberal office doors so others seeking nomination couldn’t register. The two opponents of Ignatieff who managed to get all their papers in order despite a rigged nomination race couldn’t get into the office to register – because it was closed and the doors locked before the deadline.

Why didn’t Glavin ask about what most would call Ignatieff’s fraudulent nomination? Glavin dances over difficulties and papers over all the cracks he can. Ignatieff’s support of the George Bush illegal invasion of Iraq was, we must understand, a moral choice on Ignatieff’s part. Glavin says nothing about the morality of backing an illegal war conducted brutally from the start and entered into on grounds that were deliberately falsified. (This, incidentally, is the Michael Ignatieff who very recently said he wasn’t “losing any sleep” over the civilian deaths in Lebanon. Whatever one’s “moral choice” about that war, Ignatieff’s comment can hardly be called moral).

“Shucks”, Glavin might say, “don’t ask me to embarrass Michael, my friend and soul-mate”.

Let us not leave the matter just there. Ignatieff and Glavin spend time thumping anti-Americanism and anti-Americans. It won’t wash. Ignatieff calls the legitimate criticism Canadians make of U.S. brutality, violation of torture laws and conventions, illegal invasions - and more - the “patriotism of fools”. Read Ignatieff’s book Empire Lite in which he argues, in effect, that the U.S. is a good imperial power and Canada’s job is to support the U.S. Maybe that explains his support for the U.S. and U.S. torture – the latter which he now denies.

The “patriotism of fools” argument is a nasty one. It’s an attempt to shut up criticism of the U.S. by calling anti-American anyone who criticises U.S. behaviour - for whatever good reason. Ignatieff, it would seem, has taken a page from the book of other reactionaries who say people who don’t like Israeli government actions are anti-semites. People who call upon Israel to honour U.N. resolutions are anti-semites. And so on. Ignatieff argues that Iraq HAD TO BE invaded. To argue against that Universal Truth, for Ignatieff, is obviously anti-Americanism and the “patriotism of fools”.

Glavin goes on, and gets worse. People get a lot wrong about Ignatieff. “Like the bit about him being in favour of torture”, Glavin writes. Then he does a long whitewash of Ignatieff, all of it hot air, all beside the point, and wrong. Before being a Liberal MP, while in the U.S., when he had no reason to fake or lie, Michael Ignatieff supported torture. Period.

His words are not being twisted now. He is not (despite Terry Glavin’s false reporting) being misreported. The accusation that he is in favour of torture, Glavin writes, "arises mainly from a purposeful misreading of a 2004 Financial Times article … along with sections of a chapter in his book, The Lesser Evil."

Sorry. That statement by Glavin is false.

To begin, when the U.S. was lobbying hard to have its permission to torture ratifed widely, Ignatieff set out alone, unsolicited, to redefine torture, removing mental and psychological torture from the definition. He did so against legal decisions, consensus, Geneva Conventions, and simple common sense. The fact that Ignatieff tried to reconstruct the meaning of torture does not excuse him. For he wanted to leave out of the definition activities that are deemed torture, and have been so, almost universally.

In his book, The Lesser Evil, he writes “The interrogation method of which the Americans have been accused since 9/11 are held [by the Americans presumably] to include nothing more than sleep deprivation, permanent light or permanent darkness, disorienting noise, and isolation. If this were true, if interrogation remained free of physical duress or cruelty, it would amount to coercion, rather than torture…. “ (p. 138) Apart from the known devastation of such mental and psychological torture, keeping someone in isolation in permanent darkness (or permanent light) with on-going disorienting noise is physical torture. Ignatieff’s pretence that it isn’t has to be staged ingenuousness – unless he is a fool. Elsewhere he says that as long as those kinds of treatment cause no permanent physical harm, they are okay. But who measures? Who decides once torture has begun? Ignatieff doesn’t say.

Anyhow, he wrote that special pleading against accumulated law, theory, and observation. No one misreads what is written in The Lesser Evil, though Michael Ignatieff is now (with Terry Glavin’s help) acting the poor, wretched, misunderstood boy who has – he is quoted by Glavin as saying – a “really deep and abiding horror of torture”. He doesn’t say he developed that response after becoming a Liberal leadership candidate.

At the end of the paean of praise and distortion (the long interview) Glavin and Ignatieff go really fuzzy and foggy and unclear. B.C.’s economy is “somehow tied up to China and India”. Those kinds of developments mean we face (?) security threats. And so, it follows by a piece of illogic, we should support the U.S. War in Iraq (which Glavin generously calls “the Anglo-American invasion”), the war in Afghanistan, in Lebanon, and - who knows – a U.S. war against Iran or anyone else it chooses to war against as an assault on “Terror”.

Glavin’s article closes by falling into nonsense after having been buoyed up with facile or false argument.

Is it the case that Glavin looked into the blue eyes of the “scion of Russian aristocracy” and was hypnotized? Alas, no. Glavin had already crossed the House, joined the reactionaries, and openly embraced U.S. policy for the world. His meeting with Michael Ignatieff was simply a fortuitous moment, allowing Glavin to declare his reactionary position for all to see.

As someone said to me recently: “What is Ignatieff doing running for the Liberal leadership? He should be in the Stephen Harper party.” True. And he should take Terry Glavin with him as head of his personal Public Relations.







[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on September 7, 2006]

   

Robin:

You’re perfectly entitled to wring your hands and lament about all the “well-informed Canadians” and activists and “progressive, caring” people who aren’t smart enough to see how right you are about everything. You’re even entitled to count me among them.

But you should really know better than to concoct complete fiction about me, about my work, or about my views.

In order to write that screed, you had to pretend as though I was a completely different person. Only a few weeks ago you actually reviewed my recent book, which wasn’t about “fish” at all, but was about the relationship between cultural and ecological collapse around the world. I’m a “neophyte” on these issues? I suspect I’ve written more on these subjects than you’ve ever read, judging by your comments.

For most of my working life, I’ve been concerned with the way the struggles of marginalized communities are manipulated by pseudo-leftists and by right-wing religious fundamentalists. Almost half my life has passed since I started writing stories for the Columbian, the Vancouver Sun, and later the Globe and Mail, from India, about the roots of what ended up being the worst act of terrorism in North American history, pre-911. I saw the same kind of dynamics in Belfast in the 1980s. And I’m seeing it all repeated, and no, I’m not going to be quiet about it.

I’m not going to ignore Canada’s young and vibrant Afghan community just because their views are inconvenient to certain sections of the pseudo-left in this country. I’m not going to go along with 9-11 conspiracy theories. I’m not going to pretend that anti-Semitism doesn’t exist in Canada, or that Hezbollah is just an unfairly-maligned and poorly-understood association of social workers, or that it’s okay to hide alliances with Islamist reactionaries behind an “anti-war” mask.

And I’m certainly not going to ignore the calls of encouragement and support I get from the very same trade unionists, feminists, and all those other “progressive, caring” people you’re so upset about.

You’re perfectly welcome to your own parochial hatred of the United States, and your bitterness over the fact that it's shared only by a tiny minority of Canadians. You’re perfectly entitled to publicly embarass yourself by suggesting that the Georgia Straight, which you have hated from the beginning for being “pro-American,” decides what goes on its letters page according to some influence wielded by its advertising revenue.

But nothing in what you wrote makes me in “error” about anything. It certainly doesn’t make me a “Stephen Harper reactionary.”

Now that I think about it, there is an error I made: Michael Ignatieff is 59, not 57.

Sincerely,

Terry Glavin

   

I was disgusted by your article, Terry. Iggy is a farce, an apologist for the neo-fascist Empire and a perfect example of an ex-pat Canadian who is suffering from American exceptionalism.

You wrote:
"You’re perfectly welcome to your own parochial hatred of the United States, and your bitterness over the fact that it's shared only by a tiny minority of Canadians. You’re perfectly entitled to publicly embarass yourself by suggesting that the Georgia Straight, which you have hated from the beginning for being “pro-American,” decides what goes on its letters page according to some influence wielded by its advertising revenue. "

As an American Canadian who is fighting for the planet and the world's people (and yes, that includes Afghans as well as Latinos) I am anti-tyranny. Unfortunately, that means I have to struggle against the U.S., the Harper government and, now, Michael Ignatieff as well.

As for the Georgia Straight, they have never printed anything I have sent them, even though one of the Straight's editors once sent me an e-mail saying he liked my commentary. I am certainly not the greatest writer around, but I had some important things to say then, and I have had lots of letters printed over the last few years in local newspapers in the Fraser Valley. I think the Straight's editors are influenced by their advertisers, and I formed that opinion before Iggy came back to Canada. I also formed my opinion about Iggy before he returned to Canada.

As for Robin being only one of a tiny minority of Canadians with these opinions, even if that were true, so what? You think that someone can't take the moral position on issues unless they are in the majority or at least have lots of numbers? How many people agree with Robin is irrelevant. What is important is that he is interpreting the issue correctly, and that he is speaking his mind to try to make a difference.

Of course, Terry, you are trying to make a difference, too, but it's the wrong kind as far as I am concerned.

---
Michael

   

I almost forgot, Terry. The fact that you firmly believe in the "official U.S. government 9/11 conspiracy theory" shows you definitely have a problem thinking logically.

---
Michael

   

With all the hard evidence available and building up against the US government's version of 9/11, anybody who still believes it does indeed have a serious problem.

Where's the Pentagon plane wreckage, Terry, or when did kerosene fire ever melt steel beams, especially when people are shown standing in the holes cut by the plane? Why didn't they melt?

Ed Deak, Big Lake.

   

I'm interested in where you got the idea that Iggy was some sort of left-wing intellectual icon, Terry. Everybody I know on the left considers him to be at least as far to the right as Paul Martin, many of us would put him closer to Stephen Harper.

Considering his convoluted views on torture and the war in Iraq, I would even question his credentials as an intellectual. "Stupid is as stupid does," is the phrase that comes to mind.

   

I agree with Reverend Blair in his evaluation of Ignatieff.

Ignatieff is primarily neo-conservative in his world view. In fact his characterization of the Afghanistan invasion as a "moral promise" reflects that way of thinking. He uses the same language as Harper by drawing on ill-defined terms such as "Canadian values and Canadian interests" in his support of Canada's role in Afghanistan. Much of his language reflects the same capitalist extremism and fundamentalism, including the elitism of both ideologies, that characterizes the language used by people like Paul Martin, Stephen Harper and George W. Bush. It is political "double-speak" couched in vague terms meant to play on the emotions rather than the intellect.

How can you claim on one hand that you are fighting for "freedom," "democracy" and a "moral promise" and on the other hand claim to be fighting to impose your concept of "Canadian values and Canadian interests?" What arrogance!!!!

   

agreed Michael and Ed. If people are ignorant enough at this point to use the blanket "conspiracy theory" to dismiss the dismantling of the official 911 myth they need calling on it each and every time. I too am waiting for a more precise detailing of how the official version is physically possible.

   

We can debate the differences between the Libs and Cons forever but the reality is that we live in a one party state. It's not quite as obvious as the U.S. example but let's not kid ourselves.

When Mulroney brought in Free Trade and the the Liberals opposed it, what did the liberals then do when they got in to power? Ditto for the GST.

People think that Martin was a hero because he defied the U.S. in '03 when Canada refused to go to Iraq. Martin liked being Prime Minister and didn't want to take the fall, that's why we didn;t go to Iraq. Martin is a wealthy millionaire and has ALL of the corporate interests at heart. If he thought he could have gotten away with it, of course our boys would have been sent to their deaths in Iraq.

All the parties are playing the same game. There are superficial differences, but when it comes down to it, the United States owns us.(literally)

   

An interesting exchange of views, so I have to add mine.

Regarding Michael Ignatieff's support for the Iraq war:

Well informed researchers knew that the US/British position was backed by lies only. The US decided to go to war first and created the pretexts to justify the slaughter. This was of course contrary to their public position which was, war as an absolute last resort. Almost all the damning facts about foreknowledge by Blair and Bush concerning WMD after the war were known before the war.

Did Ignatieff not know this? I knew, so he should have as well, with his contacts.

Ignatieff co wrote the book on Haiti, the overthrow of a legally democratically elected government. (The most democratic on record for Haiti)

I’m sure he is no idiot so the conclusion is that he supports illegal wars, the murder of civilians, the overthrow of democratically elected governments and the rejection of international law. In short I see him as an unsavory, although nicely dressed, thug.

And Mr. Glavin, anyone who uses the phrase “conspiracy theory” in an attempt to dismiss their critics is a coward who is unwilling or too lazy to look at or discuss the evidence.

Mike
Winnipeg

   

Michael Ignatieff's politics are repulsive and in a weird way is the dream candidate for both Jack Layton and Stephen Harper.
He is gaffe prone, and so drunk on his own koolaid that if he should win the Liberal leadership, Harper will eat him alive.

For those of us concerned with Canadian sovereignty in the Left nationalist camp, nothing is more frightening than a Harper majority. Whether the official opposition is lead by Layton's NDP or Ignatieff's Liberals is of barely any consequence in our electoral system.
A Harper majority means Deep Integration into the USA, lightening quick.
Dion or Rae have enough campaign experience to at least hold Harper to another minority, and could possibly form a government themselves, depending on events.
Anybody but Iggy makes the most sense.
Keep the focus on exposing Ignatieff for being the quisling with a parachute that he is.
If he loses, he'll surely leave the country.
If we're lucky, he'll take Glavine with him

   

And furthermore, I'm finding it distressing to see the number of people on this site who are buying into conspiracy theories.
The crimes of Bush et al that are right out in the open are so heinous one doesn't need to venture into alternative narratives, or whatever you want to call them.

   

You are correct, notacolony, they have many crimes to answer for. 9/11 is the big one, though, kind of a keystone.

---
Michael

   

"As someone said to me recently: What is Ignatieff doing running for the Liberal leadership? He should be in the Stephen Harper party.” What makes you think he ISN'T part of the Harper party? Kevin said it best: we live in a one party state.

After reading Terry's response to Robin's essay, Terry is obviously just as proficient with words as he is with numbers (59 going on 57?). Good job by Robin of cornering a toothless tiger who cannot seem to fight his way out of a paper bag.

   

notacolony, you may well be disappointed in certain posters to this sight but I’m not sure what you mean by using the term “conspiracy theory”, or why the official 911 story makes sense to you and the “alternative narratives” are incorrect. You are right that Bush's bad deeds number enough you certainly won't run out of more overt misdeeds to focus on. If it is a tactical strategy to choose a more mainstream focus to oppose Bush and co., fine, but why try to define a strategy for others with similar goals. To steer away from topics that have certain conspiracy stigma baggage on board may well be wise, and I’m not saying there is anything wrong with making a tactical decision on how you want to take a stand, but I do have issues with perpetuating the taboo around questioning the official version of 911. I see 911 as a linking pin. Topple the myth is a good starting point. To “fight” strictly within the mainstream parameters is OK, but I’m not convinced it will be any more successful that pursuing “alternative narratives”. You can vote, you can run for office, you can use the MSM, the judicial system, but ultimately, you are confined to a playing field that “they” dominate

   

1  2  3  Next