Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Rights and Democracy: Did the right hand know what the right hand was doing?

by Paul Wells on Sunday, January 31, 2010 2:28pm - 212 Comments

In the Star, Haroon Siddiqui provides the latest update on the surreal weirdness convulsing the Montreal organization Rights and Democracy. Perhaps the most interesting part of this column is the following graf, about three Rights and Democracy grants to NGOs working in the Middle East, including Al Haq, the bête noire of the organization’s newly-installed board majority:

As it turned out, [now-deceased former R&D president Rémy] Beauregard had run the three grants by Cannon’s ministry, which approved. In fact, Al Haq had also received funding from CIDA. That was in keeping with the Canadian policy of promoting civil society in Palestinian territories to provide non-violent alternatives to terrorism. Al Haq was good enough for CIDA and foreign affairs but not [new board chairman Aurel] Braun and Co.

CIDA grants to Al Haq? I can find no direct record of that on the agency’s website (your help on this would be welcome) but I did find an awful lot of complaining about it, all from one source: Gerald Steinberg, who runs an Israeli organization called NGO Monitor. Its thesis is that international groups working to defend the rights of Palestinian Arabs are seeking to sap Israel’s defences. Steinberg’s a busy guy. He was celebrating the new direction of Rights and Democracy in the Jerusalem Post before Rémy Beauregard had even been buried, and that was only his latest contribution to the debate. Here he is in 2004, decrying CIDA’s role in “exploiting human rights to demonize Israel.” Here he is in two more recent publications, taking specific aim at CIDA funding of various terrifying groups (Oxfam! Boo!!!) including Al Haq.

But most intriguing is this direct submission to Canadian Parliamentarians, some of whom (from every party) gather occasionally as the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism. The submission dates from last August, a time when the internal conflict at Rights and Democracy was heating up considerably.

So if CIDA was funding Al Haq, and DFAIT was consenting to donations to Al Haq, the about-face at Rights and Democracy had to be driven from somewhere else. Probably somewhere whose initials were PMO. Now, as it defends its actions, the newly-appointed board majority has preferred to refer only in passing to this highly political debate. Braun and his colleagues prefer to frame this as a fight for accountability and oversight (while declining to return most reporters’ calls and issuing gag orders to staff). Here, too, they are on shaky ground. They can leak a damning 2007 report on spending practices at R&D all they want; they still can’t hide two facts. First, Rémy Beauregard was installed as R&D’s president in 2008 precisely to overhaul accountability and oversight. Second, an easy-to-find 2008 report demonstrates that he was succeeding. In other words, the management cleanup at Rights and Democracy began long before these clowns took over.

One more thing. Take this as foreshadowing. In the last paragraph of their letter to the National Post, Braun and his allies write:

“We will continue to work to govern Rights & Democracy according to the highest standards so that Canadians need not be embarrassed by, but rather can be consistently proud of the work of the organization.”

One interesting question in the days ahead: will the news coming out of Rights and Democracy make Canadians embarrassed? Or proud?

Bookmark and Share
  • Lord Kitchener's Own

    There's an awful lot of discussion of "the left" around here given that the board members that the latest Tory appointees were sent in to supposedly set straight are all Tory appointees themselves.

    It's amazing to me that one group of Tory appointees fighting with another group of Tory appointees on a board comprised ENTIRELY of Tory appointees can so quickly lead to a discussion of what's wrong with the Canadian "left". Imagine the vitriol this whole thing would inspire if there was anyone on the Board of R&D who wasn't appointed by the Harper Tories!

    • kcm

      For the truly committed, apostasy is the one unforgivable sin.

      • TedTylerEzro

        It is true. I dislike Liberals, I loathe the NDP, but I HATE Red Tories.

        • kcm

          Why would you put any stock in neo-cons? Given their record of betrayal of social cons south of the border.

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

    Tune in Monday morning for more news. I've got a .pdf I need to upload for that.

    • Reader

      Can't wait for that. D'ya think the commenters will ever get back on topic?

      • kcm

        It's freestyle after midnight…point taken though…damn that Biff :)

  • john

    Since this is an important organization set up by Canadian Parliament to promote human rights and democracy, there should be all party parliamentary group who should appoint the board members.

    You don't throw the baby out with the water!

    • wilson

      ''..Opposition parties complaining about Conservative "sabotage" of an independent rights agency were consulted on all the government's appointees last year but failed to raise objections, ministerial documents show.

      …Under Section 7(2) of the agency legislation, every opposition party leader represented in the Commons must be consulted prior to the appointment of board members by the government.

      Liberals and New Democrats both objected last September to one proposed appointee, who subsequently was not placed on the board. But they remained silent as some others with clear Conservative ties or little pertinent international human rights experience were chosen…'
      http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/758395…

      • kcm

        So, the opposition can't be wrong? But i see you're effectively shifting the blame again.

  • Wascally Wabbit

    I love the blind misinformation the biff and jarrid promulgate.
    The issue in Afghanistan is that Afghanis driving along any road anytime can be stopped – and if thought to be suspicious – detained.
    QED – not all drivers are Taliban – not all detainees are Taliban – they are all (or most of them are) Afghanis – whose hearts and minds we are supposed to be winning over. That IS what we are there for isn't it? So when NATO aerial attacks kill Afghani National Army soldiers (as they did this last weekend) or when NATO troops (Canadian, US or other national troops) harass Afghanis going about their business IN THEIR OWN country, these invaders will not be viewed in a positive manner – right?

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

      Off topic. Fail. This post and the discussion around it have nothing to do with Afghanistan or Khadr. You people do nothing useful if you feed the trolls.

      • wsam

        You think you are the boss or something?

        • mother mary

          It is his blog.

  • JamesHalifax

    2. Conservatives – don't care about a persons religion as long as it doesn't disproportionately involve bombing aircraft or machine gunning Jewish kids, as Palestinians are wont to do on occassion.

    Jack, your main delusions, er..Points are quite wrong.

    Militant Anti-Semitism (anti-Jew) would be more correct, as it is the folks who share their hatred for anything Jewish who are doing most of the killing and conducting all of the terrorist attacks. (Go to a University's "Anti-Apartheid Week" event….this is where you will find most of this crowd.

    Pacifist Anti-Semites Jack?
    I don't think so.

    As for trends Jack….the LEFT and anti-Semitism are almost synonomous today. Where you find a group of one type, you usually find the other.

    • kcm

      Bellieve whatever delusions you want re conservatives [ conspicuously missing just like everyone else at the holocaust] but lumping all progressives in with loony fringe groups and naive student orgs is insulting, hateful and frankly galactically stupid.

      • JamesHalifax

        kcm…..merely identifying yourself as a "progressive" indicates you think your values and morals are superior, inferring that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow "regressive"

        It's that kind of arrogance that prevents you from seeing the obvious.

        As for your reference to the Holocaust…….I'm conspicuously missing your point. The main ally of the Nazi's in their destruciton of Jews also included some very high ranking Muslim's of the day. The same kind of folks who today's "Progressive" rally around.

  • wsam

    Small Dead Animals is exactly what I assume Mr Wells doesn't want this to become. It's hateful. It's bad for Canada.

    • kcm

      Amen To that brother!

    • Maureen

      My, My we are all so high and moral just like good liberals! smalldeadanimals states the obvious which many on the liberal left do not want to acknowledge. Just because you don't agree with her, doesn't make it wrong (in fact it probably makes it very, very correct). The tricks of the liberal left have been exposed and they don't like it. And even better site is hillbuzz.org – that will really make the heads of those on the left spin.

      • Anon

        "My, My we are all so high and moral just like good liberals!"

        Floating pond scum can't help coming off high and moral compared to you bottom-dwelling wingnuts.

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

        Well said, Maureen.

      • catherine

        Note, the comment about SDA was in reference to people posting comments. SDA attracts comments advocating murdering the children of gay parents. Get a grip. There is nothing to debate in saying we don't want comments here to mirror that site.

      • kcm

        i don't mind at all that RW posters get to have their say, i'm a democrat. I do however object to much of the vindictive vitriolic crap that passes for commentry on their site. Care to make a similar case here at Macleans – which i think was PW's point?
        The fact that you automatically assume that it's because i don't like opposing pov is a commentry on just how narrow and partisan the views of many conbots have lately become. I guess it's an imported malady.

    • DPT

      yes, because you know exactly what's good and bad for the country. Due no doubt to your overwhelming ability to know exactly what each Canadian is thinking and how to interpret said thoughts and formulate the appropriate set of Canadian values. Why do we even bother with the grief and expense of democracy.

      • wsam

        Yes. Not only do I know what is good for the country, I know everyone’s secret thoughts. (Yours are icky, by the way, and if you aren’t careful you are going to cause permanent damage). What I do is I take the hopes and fears of Canadians and I load them into my magic abacus. The result is a number, usually four. I take that number and I write it down on a post-it note which I stick to my cubical wall.

        The next thing I do is check out Kate’s place. I like it when people there write about how homosexuals are paedophiles. Or that the Liberals want the Taliban to kill more Canadian soldiers which will enable a vast liberal conspiracy – stretching from Power Corp, the UN’s food aid program to Maurice Strong and Swedish Olympic hockey officials – to clone John Ralston Saul’s stem cells and thus build a monstrous super-villain.

        • kcm

          That's odd, i keep coming up with 3. Is that within the margin of error?Maybe i need a new abacus?

    • JamesHalifax

      It's clear form wsam's comment…..that he doesn't really know what hate is. I'll give you a hint wsam….hate doesn't mean an emotion felt by someone who disagrees with you. Hate is an emotion that means someone would like to see you come to harm….and so far, the people who call for the most harm to be inflicted on others'…..is coming from islamic groups and their "progressive" friends.

  • wsam

    For the rather pathetic species known as Canadian neo-conservatives, the scariest thing in the whole wide world is the bicycle-riding moderate liberal (urbanitus liberalus moderatus). Moderate liberals refuse to engage in the kind of rhetorical ass-humpery which Canadian neo-conservatives, kiwi fruit and extra-creamy chocolate cheesecake find so satisfying.

    Neo-Conservatives like photo-ops where they get to appear in profile, their intense gaze punctuating the middle ground. Moderate Liberals eat foreign cheese. They host dinner parties where everyone discusses local day care options. Canadian neo-Conservatives find this behaviour appalling. Islamofacists are literally, at this very moment, plotting from inside a mosque in Scarborough, the one in that crappy strip mall, next to the Max Milk, to forcibly convert your children into the Islamic Muslim Cabal, impose standards of Sharia law on all government contractual transactions between two or more individuals but not applied to corporations, and outlaw internet pornography.

  • Maureen

    Frankly I don't care what goes on with R & D because all of these NGOs should not be funded with government (taxpayer) money. If as an individual I think the work of R & D is important, I can pull out my wallet and give them money.

    All NGOs need to be de-funded – no matter what accountability, rules, reporting mechanisms etc are attempted, there will always be segments (both on the right and left and in between) that will not like what a group is doing. The only reason these organizations exist is so that the government of the day (be it Liberal or Conservative) can pretend that they are being objective and that these organizations are working at arms length away from the political process for some noble cause (that seems to be changing daily if there ever was a noble cause). But as it has been clearly shown with R & D as the example as well as all the well-funded NGOs that showed up at Copenhagen, that they are actively involved in political processes and attempting to influence government policy. No more of that.

    Governments needs to cowboy up and put forth their political agendas and live or die by them rather than trying to have it both ways by funding NGOs.

    I would also like an accounting of how much money is siphoned off to these NGOs, as well as how much government bureaucracy is spent on managing these NGOs.

  • wsam

    II am absolutely against the promotion of rights and democracy.

    I am especially against people who I might one day disagree with having either rights, or democracy. They deserve neither.

    I also want all government defunded. If a government agency needs money to operate it can earn it just like anybody else. Why cannot the Department of Defence charge for tank rides, or give helicopter tours of Parliament? (It’s not like they’d disturb anybody). Instead of printing currency we could make posters promoting indie rock concerts. Right now our government is a cost-centre. Let’s turn it into a profit-centre.

    I also hate hippies and taking long walks. I get sad when it rains.

    • kcm

      lol 10/10

  • Holly Stick

    So Canada/'s foreign policy is being directed from Israel and our environmental policy is being directed from Washington. Harper has succeeded in the rightwinger dream of abolishing government in Canada!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

      LOL! Considering its still costing us so much, they really aren't the party of good fiscal management, are they?

      • Holly Stick

        They never have been.

  • herringchoker

    Ya know Paul, I'm starting to think that the Opposition's rejection of Gwyn Morgan to chair the Public Appointment's Commission wasn't the best idea they ever had.

    File it alongside the "coalition" under "Ideas that are guaranteed to come back and bite you in the a**"

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

      Well, I'd probably have supported Morgan's nomination. But in a million years I never thought his rejection would lead to a four-year hissy fit. That's kind of remarkable, no?

  • Chris Burnett

    http://www.alhaq.org/pdfs/audited%20report%202005…

    It clearly shows a $20,000 donation from CIDA to Al Hoq in 2005…. just a start

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

    Mr. Wells, I hope you keep on this. I like it when a journalist/columnist goes deeply into an issue rather than an one or two day headline.

    One of my best girl friends is Jewish. Her 88ish year old mother has been ill and is staying with her. I was watching her whil Laurie went to the dentist and ran some errands and she was watching Power Play and listening intently to what you said.

    Her remark to me was – Harper's playing a dangerous game. He's overzealous and is going to cause resentment against Jewish folks. She thinks Harper will inadvertenly cause more hatred for the Jews with his overdone rhetoric and pitting Jews against others.

    I never thought of it that way, but I guess she knows having been through WWII, etc.

    She's frail but totally alert and with in mentally. I call her my Jewish mother.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

    Whoops, sorry for the previous typos. I also meant to add that you said you didn't know if people would take an interest, but you don't care – kudos to you.

    But, I see from the number of comments – people are taking an interest.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SWM SWM

    Jarrid, Paul Wells supported Harper in the last two and possibly 3 elections. Has it ever occured to you that smart people could just be fed up with Harper's unremitting attempts to exert his personal control everything the government touches? I spent my entire life as a Conservative, until Harper took over. In my books, Conservatives respect democracy, diversity of opinion and checks & balances on executive power; they don't try to run roughshod over them. They also try to defeat their political opponents, rather than destroy them. Unfortunately, Harper's instincts are more akin to those of Putin than a true believer in democratic principles!!

    P.S., Another thing true conservatives don't do is to turn record surpluses into record deficits (even before the recession hit!!!).

From Macleans