Categories: Andrew Coyne, Capital Read

If de Gaulle were speaking today

by Andrew Coyne on Thursday, December 3, 2009 1:59pm - 68 Comments

Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition reacts:

Today’s statement by the President of France is a stinging indictment of Prime Minister Pearson’s provocative refusal to engage with France on the question of Quebec’s liberation.

His petulant insistence on the unity of Canada could surely have been predicted to offend President de Gaulle.

It is clear we have much work to do to repair relations.

Etc etc.

Tags: China, human rights, spinelessness

More by Andrew Coyne

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

I fail to see the equivalence.

Harper's letter was criticizing the government of the day. Which our opposition leaders do each and every day.

This particular incident is cheering on criticism from China. China, a land of oppression and dictatorship.

There is a difference between the opposition criticizing the government, and a foreign country criticizing Canada.
Chuck vs. Macleans

I am still missing what the big deal is.

From what I got out this so called dress down was this.

Wen – "Harper where the hell you been the last 5 years?"

Harper – "Me? where you been?"

Both – "Lets have a drink"

Oppistion – "Harper is the devil and eats kittens"
http://notquiteunhinged.blogspot.com Catelli

Liberals eat kittens, Conservatives eat seals.
User-Content

"I fail to see the equivalence. "

I'm shocked.
http://www.googwesadgt.com Janet

Could you be anymore supine in your quest for a Senate seat Coyne?

User-Content

Coyne has both short term and long term horizons in mind with respect to his Senate ambitions. You should be more complimentary about how enterprising Coyne is being. Remember, he only has to be "an idea that's lying around when the time comes," to borrow from Milton Friedman's metaphor.

http://www.googwesadgt.com Randy

The Mike Duffy apologists all said the senate talk was just a bunch of Liberal bluster. How wrong they were.

http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

Suggesting Andrew shills for anything political makes me wonder if you've read him all that often.
http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

Mac Harb eats carrots.
Lord Kitchener's Own

That "evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet" thing really has legs eh?

Mulletaur

Yeah, and look what it did for Ernie Eves !

Anon Liberal

Not according to the National Post? How shocking! The question is not whether Canada-China trade is growing it's whether its growing quickly enough and how we're doing compared to other countries. We continue to be dangerously dependent on trade with the U.S. and it would be wise to spread our risk to other trading partners such as China, India and the EU.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

"User-Content" is our friend Tiggy's latest pseudonym – he rarely misses one of Coyne's posts.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

Is that really him? I thought there was something familiar about that very peculiar style of humourlessness. Likely he's having all kinds of problems expressing himself now that the commenting system filters out profanity. It must be very frustrating for him. He's very limited that way.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

Did you even read what the article said? It is the Nat Post, but it still puts the lie to the assertion that our economic relationship with China is damaged.

In 2007, two-way trade between the two countries was up 13 per cent. In 2008, two-way trade was up 11 per cent. In the first six months of this year, two-way trade is up by about 3 per cent — despite a recession.

If you dispute those figures, please enlighten us.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

When he referred to Harper's sniping at the Opposition as "trash" two days ago, was he gunning for a Senate seat then too? Get a life. And find some new smears. "Senate seat" is getting old, just like "talking points" is.
User-Content

I said I was being charitable.
Anon Liberal

For your enlightenment Raging Ranter (even better its based on research from the Fraser Institute of all places)…

http://www.chineseinvancouver.ca/2009/02/stats-sh…
http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

De Gaulle's comments were outrageous because they were made on Canadian soil, violating the law of hospitality and threatening the unity of the nation which invited him.

The Chinese have every right to say whatever they like in their own nation. The scolding Harper received in no way threatens our existence, and there is therefore no moral need for the Opposition to stand in Parliamentary solidarity with the prime minister.

The only relevant question is whether or not the scolding was logically and diplomatically defensible. Some Opposition members appear to think that it was. That's fair enough and hardly an act of treason. Given the rancid partisan ambience on Parliament Hill (for which the eternally petty and childishly combative CPC is largely responsible), one cannot have expected anything more magnanimous.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

"The only relevant question is whether or not the scolding was logically and diplomatically defensible. Some Opposition members appear to think that it was."

I just don't grasp why the NDP, say, would be going to bat for China. China represents everything the NDP is supposed to be against, first and foremost the annihilation of Canadian manufacturing, but also authoritarianism etc. (Note to rabid anti-communists: please spare us another round of hysterically equating Jack Layton with Jane Fonda.) It does seem that they would applaud Harper's looking foolish anywhere in the world — China, India, Russia — to score a few cheap points. As you put it perfectly, that's the "rancid partisan ambience," our new normal.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

I just don't grasp why the NDP, say, would be going to bat for China…. As you put it perfectly, that's the "rancid partisan ambience," our new normal.

From a purely ideological point of view, there's very little about Harper's neglect of our Chinese relationship that should irk the NDP–though the latter's oft-stated wish to see us weaned off the industrial teat of Fortress America necessarily forces it to advocate for larger volumes of trade with some fairly shady customers–like China and India.

Really, though, Layton's jibes were motivated by sheer opportunism, prompted (and, in Layton’s mind, justified) by whatever grain of truth Wen's chiding contained.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Layton's jibes were motivated by sheer opportunism, prompted (and, in Layton’s mind, justified) by whatever grain of truth Wen's chiding contained.

That's the problem, wouldn't you say? Whatever Harper's faults, the Oppostion's jibes seem to be motivated by sheer opportunism, rather than principle. Perhaps this is part of the reason why our prime minister enjoys such a commanding lead in the polls.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

It does seem that they would applaud Harper's looking foolish anywhere in the world — China, India, Russia — to score a few cheap points.

At this point, if Ahmadinejad were to criticize Canada, I have a feeling that Layton, Rae et al would be lustily cheering him on, claiming that Harper's Canada has sacrificed its moral credibility on the world stage.

Hyperbole, you say? Just wait.

Dot

Way over the top, AC. You need to keep the deGaulle analogy for more relevant issues. Your passion, however misdirected, is appreciated.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

DeGaulle seized being relevant shorty after the liberation of France.

Mulletaur

I believe you meant 'ceased'.

On the contrary, just like Nixon was the only one who could go to China, De Gaulle was the only one who could reunify France after the Second World War. He did this by including many of the same high officials in his post war administration as had served in the Vichy regime, of which Maurice Papon was only the most outrageous example.
Mulletaur

I believe you meant 'ceased'.

On the contrary, just like Nixon was the only one who could go to China, De Gaulle was the only one who could reunify France after the Second World War. He did this by including many of the same high officials in his post war administration as had served in the Vichy regime, of which Maurice Papon was only the most outrageous example.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

It's really him. He always graces us with his best behaviour over here.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

I did. My mind ~~seizes~~ ceases to function after 10 p.m. I should know better than to be posting right now. As for De Gaulle, he was significant mostly for his ability to sweep the grotesque atrocities of the collaborators under the rug and keep them there until long after his death. Even Mitterand was a collaborator, though he never admitted it until he was on his deathbed.
jonboy

Andrew our government can seek results and be true to our principles.
We do not have to humiliate a emerging country by being nonconstructive.
The Chinese are not telling Canadians how to run our country it is the other way around.
We could recognise their progress and offer to help them become more progressive.
We could assume that they are not inherently evil or inferior and seek ways to encourage them to progress.
If their legal system is not functioning we could convince them of the benefits that they will achieve by making changes.
An open dialog which includes listening and explaining will allow both sides to achieve their goals without being unprincipled.
Dee

This is one of the most ridiculous and false analogies I have seen posted by a Maclean's pundit. Take a holiday Coyne, you're clearly in need of a rest.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

Perhaps this is part of the reason why our prime minister enjoys such a commanding lead in the polls….

…because Canadians prefer Harper's crass opportunism to Ignatieff's and Layton's? Perhaps because Canadians are less disappointed by it (it being less unexpected)? Hmm. That’s entirely possible.

I shall have to drop into one of those "Tim Hortons" I've heard so much about and talk the matter over with some of the salt-of-the-earth lumber-jacketed chaps who now serve, so the PMO would have it, as our tribuni plebes and censurae.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

There, I fear, you wound find few people knew who he was, and that would be your answer. We politically-minded folk judge contemporary politicians in the light of history, and the mediocre ones, the ones whom history shall neglect, like Harper, are thus found wanting; but for Tim Horton's customers, in politics as in coffee, adequacy suffices.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I'm not sure that history will neglect Harper. I suppose history's verdict will hinge on whether Harper is able to achieve his much-coveted majority in the next election. Who knows? He could turn out to be a long-serving, legacy PM.

Kat

I think the real problem here is that nobody in the opposition parties seems to recognize what it looks like to take a position on a subject and then stand firm.

A slight rebuke maybe but I would say he got his point across. And a good point it was.

We should, however, run to applaud the Chinese because it is so very important that we allow them to come to Canada and relieve us of our natural resources and in turn replace it with poisoned food product (for dogs or babies – no matter) and lead tainted toys.

Way to go Bob et al!
Cash

The Chinese leadership thinks Canadian leaders should come to them with bowed heads and pay homage because they are after all the rising superpower. And who are we in comparison to China with our miniscule population and nonexistent military? Our protectors, the Americans, are in decline and China is the new imperial intimidator. We have to know our place in the new world order. They are whipping us into line.

Richard

The Chinese leadership thinks Canadian leaders should visit.That was the extent of their rebuke. Maybe it's a fair one.

If you have a basis for your dramatic extrapolation, i.e. the bowed heads, our place in the world, imperialist masters, etc. I'd sure like to see it.

Richard

Wait a second. Andrew, what happens when a member of the Opposition goes to New York and calls Canada a two-bit socialist state?

I guess that's to be condoned? Applauded?