Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Rights and Democracy: Memory lane

by Paul Wells on Saturday, January 23, 2010 1:00am - 48 Comments

On April 14, 2008, Michael Ignatieff visited Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto to apologize for his belated, muddled, hastily retracted comments from the 2006 Liberal leadership campaign about the bombing of Qana, a Lebanese village, by the Israeli air force.

At the time, in 2006, Ignatieff made no public comment for weeks after the first flareup of the Israel-Hezbollah war, before saying on Tout le monde en parle that “what happened in Qana was a war crime.” Later, he appeared on another show to insist that he hadn’t called the war crime either Israeli or Lebanese, becoming the first known proponent of the theory of virgin-birth war crimes. Compounding confusion on confusion didn’t seem to help. For a while he was promising to visit the Middle East on a fact-finding mission, before announcing his invitation was rescinded so he needn’t go. It was a huge mess.

In 2008 he began wiping the slate clean in preparation for another leadership run. He wrote a long article in the New York Times magazine apologizing for his earlier support of the Iraq war, and he visited Holy Blossom Temple to try to get the Qana business behind him.

There he is in the photo above, which accompanied this Toronto Star account of the event. The man with him is Aurel Braun, the University of Toronto law political science professor. The Star story says Braun spoke before Ignatieff and laid out the threats to the state of Israel. In this account, Braun mocks Ignatieff for having praised the authors of the book The Israel Lobby, whom Braun compares to Barack Obama’s then-nemesis, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In this account Braun presses Ignatieff on the idea of “disproportionate response” by the Israelis to enemy attack.

So Michael Ignatieff had a really difficult night at a very public event with Aurel Braun. The sort of night he would, one imagines, very much hope would be the last he’d face on these issues. Seven months later Ignatieff was leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. And four months after that, the Harper government appointed Aurel Braun as board chairman of Rights and Democracy. In the wake of the recent unpleasantness, Ignatieff called last week for an independent inquiry into the goings-on at Rights and Democracy. But if he doesn’t push very hard on the issue, nobody should be too surprised.

Tags: Aurel Braun, Michael Ignatieff, Rights and Democracy

More by Paul Wells

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Ignatieff called last week for an independent inquiry into the goings-on at Rights and Democracy.

Great. Can Sheila Fraser lead off?

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

She's busy looking into the books of the stimulus program.

Jesse

How about all their funding just gets cancelled in the next budget ?

That would solve things ratherly cleanly.
Anon Liberal

Ah I knew there was a way to turn this into a complaint about Ignatieff. Well played,sir.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

I was thinking the same thing… and I'm no fan of Ignatieff.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Thanks. I doctored the photo myself.

Anon Liberal

What would happen if Ignatieff jumped up and down on this issue?

- Suspicions about him (and the Liberal Party) would grow in the Jewish community, a relationship he's spent a lot of time trying to repair over the past couple of years. Personally I have a hard time seeing why political parties seem to spend so much time courting this one relatively small group but both the Cons and the Liberals seem to do it so there must be some compelling reason that I'm missing.

- People on the right wing would probably be delighted because it'd be an opportunity to depict Ignatieff and the Liberals as "soft on terrorism" and an enemy of Israel.

- A subset of Canadians who follow this issue closely might be following Harper's machinations and appreciate Ignatieff taking a stronger stand but how many votes would this really represent? How many are more likely to vote for the NDP regardless?

- And the vast majority of most Canadians would simply shrug their shoulders and say this issue doesn't really affect me in my day-to-day life, who cares? Why is Igantieff spending time on this instead of trying to do something about the economy?

At the end of the day I don't see this helping the Liberals politically which would just embolden Harper to keep doing what he's doing. Probably better to keep a relatively low profile and let someone else expose Harper (like, say, the media).

http://www.michaelerskine.ca Michael Erskine

For all intents and purposes, they all vote. If the poor and other disenfranchised groups in this country did the same you would see real efforts to end poverty, crime and social injustice from all political parties. We need to get the vote out!
Iccyh

"At the end of the day I don't see this helping the Liberals politically which would just embolden Harper to keep doing what he's doing. Probably better to keep a relatively low profile and let someone else expose Harper (like, say, the media)."

This sounds suspiciously like an abdication of responsibility as the Official Opposition. Political calcuations are nice, but what of the good of the country?

Anon Liberal

"This sounds suspiciously like an abdication of responsibility as the Official Opposition. Political calcuations are nice, but what of the good of the country?"
———————

The best thing that could happen to this country is for Harper to get voted out of power so political calculations are vital. This story highlights another one of the vast powers of the PM: the power of appointment. I want Harper out of there as soon as possible so that he no longer has that power.

Ignatieff has called for an independent inquiry into this. it seems to me that would be the best approach. Wells' objection seems to be that he's not doing enough to "own" the issue (because he's been burned in the past on the Arab-Israeli issue). Well if the Liberals owning the issue would only help Harper than how would that do anybody any good?

Ignatieff has to pick and choose his battles carefully. He needs to speak to issues that matter to average, middle-class Canadians. Donolo at least seems to grasp this clearly. Sorry but yet another battle between pro-Palestinians and pro-Israelis in an obscure organization most people have never heard of does not qualify.

Iccyh

Well, let's go back to your starting point: "The best thing that could happen to this country is for Harper to get voted out of power".

So long as the Bloc is strong in Quebec and the west goes solidly Conservative, the Liberals will be hard pressed to win even a minority. Stephen Harper is probably going to be Prime Minister of Canada for a long while yet, though I would think (though maybe this is wishful thinking) that a majority is out of reach for the Conservatives as well.

So, as Wells points out, the battle isn't really happening on the main stage (especially since, as far as I'm aware, we've yet to see solid proposals for Ignatieff about what he'd do as PM) but rather in the corners on things like this. I'm not going to argue that it's wrong to pick and choose your fights, but I can't help but think that maybe this and others like it should be fought, or at least that if Ignatieff has a problem with this he should say so directly rather than sidestepping the issue by calling for an inquiry.

I read your posts and I watch what Ignatieff does, and think about what the Liberal Party has done over the past number of years and I feel that in general, the Liberal Party of Canada and it's supporters don't really get it. You guys are out, and are going stay out until you stop thinking that a return to power is just an election away if you play your cards right. I truly think that the Liberal Party would be better served in situations like this by first considering what's best for the country and politics second (or at least, I'd almost certainly vote Liberal if that actually happened on a regular basis).
Anon Liberal

Thanks for your reply. You make a lot of good points and have given me food for thought. A couple of things occur to me in response.

1. Your analysis may be right and Harper may continue winning elections for many more years but I don't think it's as sure a thing as you do. I do think it's just about impossible for the Liberals to get a majority but a minority is certainly a possibility.

2. Longer-term I think as long as we retain a first-past-the-post and the current party constellation than the Cons are well positioned to win a lot more elections than they'll lose. I think it will take at least one (and possibly) two more serious electoral defeats for the Liberals before a major structural change takes place (like for instance a merger of one or more of the parties to the left of the Conservatives or some kind of collapse of BQ support).

This may seems strange but I almost hope the Liberals lose – and lose big next election – since I think it will provoke some of those structural changes but until that happens that party will continue seeing itself as a potential government-in-waiting and it's not unreasonable for them to do so (they are statistically tied with the Cons in the latest polls after all and no other party is a serious threat to the Conservatives).

3. I would argue that Dion was very much "considering what's best for the country and politics second" when he proposed the Green Shift policy last election. Where did that get the Liberals? I'll tell you I was very proud to campaign for that man – it felt really good – but at the end of the day we were killed at the ballot box and Harper stayed in power. Now THAT's not good for the country.
Iccyh

No argument at all on 2 and 3, but keep in mind that #3 reflects as much on the Liberal Party as it does on Dion and on the voting public. Dion never had the full support of the party and he was tossed under the bus at the very first possible opportunity after that election anyway.
Anon Liberal

Agreed.

political junkie

If you carefully research what Iffy actually said at Holy Blossom you’ll discover he never apologized for accusing Israel of warcrimes. He simply restated it as Israel being guilty of violating the Geneva Accords.

kcm

But was that intentional? I can never tell with Ignatieff. I'm often left with the impression that his ideas are either not thought right through, or that he doesn't know what he really believes. I realize this may be unfair to him. But impressions do tend to linger. I'd like to believe that he didn't fip flop on purpose there, but merely craftily clarified himself.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Bartolomeo Bartolomeo

Flip flop is an understatement. His "war crime" comment came out as he was apologizing for another less than sage pronouncement, i.e that he was "not losing sleep" over Lebanese civilian casualties.

"Mr. Ignatieff apologized for comments in August when he told a newspaper he was "not losing sleep" over an Israeli bombing that killed dozens of civilians in the Lebanese village of Qana.

"'It was a mistake. I showed a lack of compassion. It was a mistake and when you make a mistake like that, you have to admit it,' he told the French-language Radio-Canada program Tout le monde en parle.

"'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, and I should have said that. That's clear.'"

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.htm…

JamesHalifax

Iggy's smart.

There are more Muslim's in Canada than Jews. You go where the votes are.

He is a LIBERAL remember. Ethics and morality do not come into play when there is power to be had.

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

Meanwhile, we've got a guy who thinks shelling refugee camps isn't a war crime on the board of Rights and Democracy. How quaint.

kcm

I see that Ignatieff did at least try to state [in the Belman piece] that Canada will reserve the right to make up its own mind on the middle east. And not just feel pressured to always come down on the Israeli side of the arguement…at least i hope that's what e said. I can respect that. A fair amount of the rest of that piece was creepy for me. I don't like Ignatieffs tendancy to ingratiate himself…by personalizing,by half apoligizing for himself. Wish he would just take more positions and just live with the possible consequences of being wrong. Sorta like: that may be your position [ Israel - insert whatever other issue you care to] but it isn't mine. I'd have much preferred him to gave gone to that function and defend his view unapologetically…couse it might have helped if he hadn't gone off half cocked to begin with?
http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Quaint is that we have a cabinet full of like-minded folk.
And a media (Asper) conglomerate that will brook no opposition
to that view.
I'm sure that will change when new owners are found …… oh,never mind…
http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"Meanwhile, we've got a guy who thinks shelling refugee camps isn't a war crime on the board of Rights and Democracy. How quaint."

Where does R/D giving money to terrorists to shell Israel fall on your quaint meter?

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

Link?
Anon Liberal

jolyon is conflating groups who use the court system to challenge the Israeli occupation with Hamas militants who fire rockets into Israeli territory. His position is despicable of course but you can expect discourse on this issue to stay at that level if this becomes a bigger issue.

http://intensedebate.com/people/NorthernPoV NorthernPoV

And end up with a yet another dysfunctional public body (Military Complaints, Nuclear Watchdog, legislative committees etc) whose professional staff cannot work with the Harper appointed chair who was sent in with orders to create the chaos.

With the news that Harper has now appointed 1/3 of the judiciary, I wonder Canadians will wake up?

Remember the musing on the eve of the 2006 election about how Canadians shouldn't fear a secret agenda … cause the liberal appointed courts, senate and independent bodies would act as a check?
JamesHalifax

If the guys lobbing rockets and bombs in Israel are hiding in a refugee camp….then that's where you lob your own shells to put an end to it. You should be more outraged that terrorists are using schools, hospitals, and mosques as launch points for rockets into Israel.

You want to stop Israel from lobbing shells into Palestinian cities (because theya re NOT refugee camps regardless of the labels) …..then tell the Palestinians to stop firing rockets, and blowing up kids in pizza parlours. If the palestinians would stop doing that crap….their lives would be much better, and in many cases, perhaps longer.

If Abdullah the Hamas terrorist launches his rocket into Israel from a school filled with kids named Abdullah, Omar, or Ahmeds…..then those kids named Abdullah, Omar, and Ahmed are most likely going to be in the cross-hairs of an Israel shell. And frankly….that's exactly what the folks at HAMAS are hoping for.

Makes for good news coverage on the CBC or BBC.

hosertohoosier

Aurel Braun is not a professor of law. He is in the political science faculty and his sub-field is international relations. The Mearscheimer and Walt book, I should add, probably isn't at Jeremiah Wright levels. However, the book isn't particularly well-regarded in the literature and contradicts the core of Mearscheimer's other work, such as that explored in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

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

From his , he doesn't appear to have published a book in 20 years. Ah, tenure, it leave you so much free time to explore other interests.

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

He's a few things to all men.
kcm

Is that accusation of Belman's factual, that the libs while in govt always supported [ or didn't vote against] anti Israel motions at the UN? I thought it was more nuanced. Didn't they mostly abstain for various reasons?
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

and what a tangled web we weave.

"becoming the first known proponent of the theory of virgin-birth war crimes"

on an o/t point, this should a more recognized point of alarm.
Aongasha

"the theory of virgin-birth war crimes"
Nice turn of phrase, I like that!

Canuckistanian

gave me a good chuckle ;-)

Juliana

I really feel sorry for Canada. You are becoming an autocracy instead of a democracy. Maybe, instead of funding other countries (with taxpayers money) and teach them about " democracy" you should be the one to ask for help. There are many countries that will be willing to teach conservatives (in a kindly effort to give back all those years working for the pursuit of democracy overseas) about how to act or behave like a real democracy.
http://www.nicholastam.ca Nick

Teensy nitpick with the chronology here: I could have sworn the "I was wrong on Iraq" piece in NYT was from 2006. Looks like we'll meet in the middle: it was from 2007.
Brown Shirts

If the Libs can control the police they got my vote. Heir Harper is just to scary for me. I want a quite life in a great country not Harpers BIG C police state. Look at what is happening in BC, cops murdering, beating, using electic shocks and now riot control for the Olympics. Long strong arm of Heir Harper.

Orson Bean

Yes, you heard it here first: Harper is using the Olympics as a cover for a Nazi takeover.

We're not making this up.

Mulletaur

The best thing for all parties to do is to keep our noses out of Middle Eastern politics whatsoever. We are not a great power, we are not even a significant middle power. It's not our problem. Let them solve it.

Instead, our politicians should concentrate on problems here at home. If they have an altruistic desire to help an economically and politically oppressed people, they should start with our own First Nations. Once they have fixed that problem, they can move on to child poverty – not making demagogic symbolic gestures like Ed Broadbent did with his House of Commons motion in 1989, but real, practical measures to lift children out of poverty and give them and our country a better future. Once they have solved that one, they can move on to reduce illiteracy (and I am not just talking about the ConBots on these comment boards). I could go on, but you get the idea.
Rob in Vernon

Hey Nick, thanks for the link to the NYT piece. It makes me wonder how Ignatieff the prof. would grade his political essay. I'm no professor, but that scattershot offering is hardly the sort of work that gives me comfort about the man's judgement. Who quotes an obscure philosopher to make the point that being street-smart matters in politics? If one could draw a main theme from this essay (not easily done), it would be that Ignatieff is grudgingly admitting that he must hold his nose and wallow in "The Real World" with the likes of bus drivers. This does not inspire confidence.

My thoughts are not politically motivated. I despise the style and substance of Steven Harper's politics. I'm just disappointed that the Liberals have seen fit to hand the reins to someone with proven bad judgment and a funny way of "apologizing" for it.
http://liblogs.ca Jason Cherniak

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting that Ignatieff doesn't want to seem like he's getting even? Or are you suggesting that he doesn't want to get involved in another argument about Israel?

I had some serious concerns back in 2006, but when Ignatieff supported Israel a year ago I was convinced that he was serious about the issue. Guys like Braun, who are Conservatives, are so biased that their views aren't necessarily anything but partisan rhetoric. (I do recognize that I'm the pot here.)

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting that Ignatieff doesn't want to seem like he's getting even? Or are you suggesting that he doesn't want to get involved in another argument about Israel? "

I think the intent was just to link Aurel to Iggy in some fashion. Not sure. I'm kinda confused too on this one.

JamesHalifax

Jason…the only reason Iggy decided to "clarify" (without retracting the War Crimes accusation you may note) his comments is because he saw the Jewish population turning towards Harper, who even you must admit is the most steadfast defender of Jews and Israel in all of our Political parties.

Jason…..in my opinion, today's Liberal Party would be burning crosses on Parliament hill if they thought it would get them power. The Liberal Party has only ONE principle, and that is "do what is necessary" to win.

Too bad many Liberal supporters haven't seen it yet. Sorry Jason……the party you have supported all of these years….would ditch your single Jewish vote in a heartbeat if it thought it could get two from the muslims in exchange.
Anon Liberal

Wells' point is that Ignatieff is too weak and lacks the courage to take on Braun.

herringchoker

Thanks for the update Paul. But I don't think Iggy will "lose any sleep over it."
Casual Observer

Have you ever in your life seen a politician so look out of his element, as Iffy. He so tries to fake it, but he is a proverbial fish out of water. Iggy, for goodness sakes, go back to where you came from. You fit there, not here – not even close here! Do us all a favour, but more importantly do yourself a favour, and find a graceful escape from this "politics" thing, that probably wasn't even your own idea in the first place.
Wascally Wabbit

Here's the problem I have with personality politics!
Iggy – who should know better – has in the past prognosticated on just about every topic under the sun. As a journalist / writer, he can, like a lawyer, make the case from either viewpoint, to support a headline. As a recognized leading thinker on Human Rights, he can ruminate about what might be…
but, as a political leader, he is supposed to recognize that any positions he took in those other roles can trip him or make him appear to be duplicious or worse, vaccilating.
His only way out? Take a position Michael now – and remember – you can't please all the people all the time – but you will please a lot more people if at least you appear to be DECISIVE!
http://phantomobserver.com PhantomObserver

Decisive? Not perhaps the right word — you're decisive right up to the point where you change your mind, and then you're still decisive because you've just made another decision.

A better word, perhaps, would be principled. To date, I've yet to see a stance from Iggy that he couldn't be argued into changing.
http://intensedebate.com/people/YSP YSP

And this is the man Harper prorogued Parliament to run away from.