Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The Commons: United in mutual disdain

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 6:14pm - 116 Comments

The Scene. Bob Rae stood and posited one account of reality. The Prime Minister rose and put forward another understanding entirely.

“Mr. Speaker,” Mr. Harper said, “the statements made by the member are quite false.”

“Mr. Speaker,” Mr. Rae replied, “let me return the favour to the Prime Minister and say those comments are also totally false.”

“Mr. Speaker,” Mr. Harper concluded, “once again, the statements by the individual are completely false.”

Attempting to break the tie, Mark Holland rose from the near corner of the Liberal side to enunciate the indictment. “Mr. Speaker, the eyes of the world are on South Africa as it hosts the World Cup of Soccer. It is hosting nearly 400,000 people including world leaders for a full month at a security cost that is $700 million cheaper than 72 hours of private fake lake summit meetings,” he testified. “At 500% more than the last summit Canada hosted in 2002, everyone knows these costs are crazy. How can Conservatives say the do not have money for real priorities, priorities like prison farms or EI for cancer patients, when they have a billion dollars for this kind of waste?”

Looking somewhat aghast that he would even be called upon to respond to such stuff, Lawrence Cannon stood and attempted to plead reasonableness. Undeterred, Mr. Holland returned to pronounce scorn on the government’s gazebos. Across the way, Tony Clement, the minister with responsibility for outdoor landscaping, shook his head indignantly.

Luckily, a point of some agreement would soon emerge.

Into the breach stepped Jack Layton, the NDP leader up to pronounce shame on both sides, this time for having signed an agreement on the review of Afghan detainee documents that his side considers woefully unsatisfactory. “Mr. Speaker, the coalition of the unwilling is on the march,” Mr. Layton proclaimed. “Unwilling to let members of Parliament do their jobs, unwilling to give them access to all of the documents that are necessary to be revealed, as per your ruling, and unwilling to get to the bottom of the role that was played by both Liberals and Conservatives in covering up what they knew about torture in Afghanistan. Is the Prime Minister not ashamed about having put together this coalition of the unwilling to prevent the truth from becoming known to all Canadians?”

The Prime Minister stood here and quite humbly passed on both his thanks and compliments to his ministers and their counterparts on the Liberal and Bloc Quebecois benches. And with the House teetering on the edge of irony, Mr. Layton then rose to up the absurdity, lamenting that the Conservatives had joined with the Liberals and “les souverainistes” had aligned to hide the truth. And so now here was the Prime Minister, switching back from French to English to pronounce shame on the NDP side for something their deputy house leader said some time ago about the state of Israel.

This bit drew both Liberals and Conservatives to their feet to applaud. When everyone was back in their seats, Mr. Layton went back up to defend his party’s position on Israel and then once more damn the “coalition of the unwilling.” Mr. Harper then enjoyed one final opportunity to raise his voice, pronounce shame and, perhaps simply for kicks, raise the spectre of Helen Thomas. What followed was a protracted exchange of off-the-record shouts, eye rolls and hand gestures between the NDP’s Paul Dewar and Heritage Minister James Moore—the specifics of their discussion inaudible from the press gallery.

And while they made faces at each other, the House returned to debate on the expense and and substance of the G8 and G20 summits. Soon enough, Mr. Cannon was on his feet seeming to declare some kind of outrage with the Liberal side’s level of national pride, seemingly in response to some accusation of short-sighted partisan callowness.

The circle of shame was thus completed.

The Stats. The G20, 12 questions. The oil industry, crime and Aboriginal affairs, four questions each. Foreign affairs and Afghanistan, three questions each. Veterans, Multiple Sclerosis and securities regulation, two questions each. Fertility and government spending, one question each.

Stephen Harper, eight answers. Lawrence Cannon, five answers. Christian Paradis and Chuck Strahl, four answers each. Leona Aglukkaq, three answers. Bev Oda, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Stockwell Day, Rob Nicholson, Vic Toews and Jim Flaherty, two answers each. Rona Ambrose and Deepak Obhrai, one answer each.

Tags: Afghanistan, Bob Rae, detainees, documents, G20, G8, house of commons, Israel, Jack Layton, Libby Davies, Mark Holland, Parliament, parliamentary privilege, privilege, Question Period, Stephen Harper, The Commons, torture, transfers

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

"The circle of shame was thus completed."

This could be the coda of every Question Period.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Open_Democracy Open_Democracy

I find it interesting that Mr. Harper is asking for the resignation of Libby Davies after her ill-advised commentary on the State of Israel. Apparently, Mr. Harper did not feel the same way about Ms. Guergis' ill-advised commentary on the Province of Prince Edward Island.

I guess we have to consider the source in all three cases.

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/

DPT

yes, calling a place a shithole in a fit of rage is of course morally equivalent to saying that a state created in 1948 is illiegitimate and is really just an occupier. Open Democracy my ass.
DPT

why
DPT

let me rephrase, of course calling a place a sh*thole in a fit of rage is morally equivalent to denying a democratic state, in existence since 1948, the right to it's own territory. Open Democracy my a%%

Holly Stick

False. No one denied a democratic state the right to its own territory.

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

Of course she did. By saying the occupation began in 1948 – the year the democratic state of Israel was established. If the '48 "occupation" must end, that means Israel has no right to exist.

Crit_Reasoning

Guergis claims she was calling the airport a "hellhole", not the whole province. Her credibility may be generally lacking, but given the context (she was having a tantrum in an airport), I believe her on this point.

Your attempt to compare Harper/Davies to Harper/Guergis is weak, to say the least.

Orson Bean

Agreed. Just a stupid comment, period.
t-man

Agree, must be an NDp'er.They are not having a good day.
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Absolutely correct CR. Funny, isn't it, that the sanctimonious NDP are forever wanting people to step down, have inquiries, etc. An apology is not acceptable to Layton and his gang until it's their turn.

Livebloggin Junkie

Aaron, it would've been better for your spirits if you had written about the Refugee Reform debate.
JamesP

By conjuring the name 'Helen Thomas' and slinging it as a pejorative at Libby Davies, Mr. Harper is implying she is anti-semitic. He does so in order to provoke hatred for the NDP, the politics of the left wing and those who would speak out on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thus Mr. Harper divides Canadian opinion and Canadians deliberately because he does not have the self control to leave his personal prejudices aside when he enters public office. It is disrespectful of Canadians and a debasement of the position of Prime Minister. He should at least have the good taste to allow someone else in his caucus to rebut with such an inflated, misleading rhetoric. The spectacle of seeing our elected representatives frothing in partisan rage is shameful enough, but for our political leadership, the Prime Minister, to resort to name calling and defamation is beyond low.

Libby Davies knows the position of her party and the error of her statement. She should be disciplined by her party because she, as Mr. Harper, cannot distinguish between prudent speech and emotion. She should also be congratulated for speaking openly as an MP. If all elected officials were to answer impromptu questions our political culture and our country would benefit as a result.

hosertohoosier

So an MP essentially says that Israel does not have a right to exist, and Harper is the one being divisive? The Helen Thomas comparison is absolutely legitimate. If Israel has been occupying territory since it came into being (ie. 1948 – BEFORE the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank) then the Helen Thomas response is a natural one. I have no problem with Libby Davies speaking openly – in fact I think it is useful for the voters to know that she espouses such ridiculous views. However, the way the NDP treats the matter is an important gauge of where the NDP stands on Israel's right to exist.

Orson Bean

Libby Davies was only busted for this because somebody videoed it. Thus there is no courage to praise here regarding Libby Davies' conduct. What this really shows is that Libby Davies speaks with forked tongue: she says one thing in front of an audience of fellow-travellers and true believers, and quite another when she knows that the full public spotlight is on.

t-man

I fear that the anti-Israeli sentiment is something that is shared among the NDP.

JamesP

Libby Davies is being divisive. What she said was wrong and insensitive to her constituency. You can take her comments and infer many things.

Comparing her to Helen Thomas is apt in degrees, but an insult and not legitimate. I realize the Prime Minister and Government have a responsibility for foreign affairs, but they have made this a public censure. To use a reply in question period to make personal attacks is a charade below the office of the PM. Harper has every venue to voice his displeasure and chooses to scream in indignation before the public.

All MP's should have the courage to speak their mind in public and the good sense to mind what they say, no matter which party they are in. We should expect as much.

http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging_Ranter

Actually, her views seem to dovetail quite nicely with Helen Thomas, thus the comparison is valid. You're twisting yourself into knots in an attempt to somehow put this on Harper. Nope. That won't work. You'll need to find another angle. Harper gets slagged constantly by various progressives for his support of Israel. You can bet he's going to land one on the chin when the haters get caught "speaking their minds" on video.

And I quite agree, MPs should be allowed to speak their minds more often. I'm quite happy to have my initial suspicions confirmed regarding Libby Davies, i.e., that she's a radical progressive wingnut.

JamesP

Harper is using the drama of question period to tickle the taint of certain constituencies. Sure, everyone does but this is needlessly divisive. He could have written a letter to Jack Layton, Libby Davies et al with his concerns, but decided to inflame divisions in his country for cheap political gain.

Is it in Harper's best interest to "land one on the chin"? Maybe as a partisan.

Is it in Canada's best interest that our political leaders would polarize this issue further, rather than support an open and constructive discussion? Definitely not.

Crit_Reasoning

She should also be congratulated for speaking openly as an MP.

If she said something worthwhile, she should be congratulated. In this case, she obviously didn't.
my opinion

Do you honestly believe that Libby Davies is not anti-semite? How can you make the comments she did and not be. Impromptu questions are meant to do exactly what it did with Davies: find the truth.

Mike T.

strangely enough, if Libby Davies had actually made anti-semitic comments I'd be much more inclined to agree with the Prime Minister in calling for her resignation.

Holly Stick

Harper no doubt leapt at the chance to be vicious in person for a change instead of watching his puppets do it for him.

ex canuck

Holly Stick, What is vicious about the PM, or anyone else for that matter, calling up short someone making blatantly offensive if not racist remarks? I think the PM has his priorities right.

Orson Bean

Holly thinks Harper's the Antichrist. You're wasting your time.

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

She's also twelve.

jarrid

The NDP should be very, very clear that they will not tolerate within its party, people who question the Israeli state's right to exist. That is the Iranian, Hezbollah and the Hamas position.

It is an odious view. Here's another lefty, Fidel Castro, revered by Canada's political class, on Israel yesterday, (this is positively putrid, I forewarn you):

“The hatred felt by the state of Israel against the Palestinians is such that they would not hesitate to send the one and a half million men, women and children of that country to the crematoria where millions of Jews of all ages were exterminated by the Nazis. It would seem that the Fuehrer’s swastika is today Israel’s banner.”

What is it with the political left? The NDP better be crystal clear on this.

DeanP

Why is it that Israel is the one sacrosanct state that can never be criticized, for anything? Why is that one can stand up and say that Palestinians don't deserve a state, and don't deserve to live in Israel, or say that Quebec should never be an independent state, that Canada is indivisible, but Israel gets a pass?

hosertohoosier

The people of Quebec (I reject the idea that nations should have dibs on states) do have the right to form their own state – they just haven't exercised it. Indeed, the Quebec reference case offers some useful insight on the issue of Palestinian statehood. The ruling established three "pillars" that would have to be satisfied in a breakup: democracy (a clear majority on a clear question), federalism (there would have to be federal-provincial negotiation) and individual rights (any new state would have to be one that respected the charter of rights and freedoms).

In the Israeli case, the first criteria would probably be satisfied, the second one would be irrelevant, but it is the third one that should raise some questions. Would a Palestinian state respect women's rights? Would a Palestinian state be a democracy? Would a Palestinian state respect the rights of non-Palestinian minorities? Indeed, would a Palestinian state in any way resemble a liberal democracy?

The answer to all of those questions is unambiguously no. So we are talking about secession from a liberal democracy that would almost certainly reduce the rights of many minority groups and women. Israel can do a much better job than it does, although the perpetual security concerns it faces surely warrant some consideration. Israel cannot operate as a traditional liberal democracy because of ever-present domestic terrorism, and it must hold only strategic territories, lest it be destroyed from its many enemies abroad. Moreover, if the Gaza strip and West bank were so important, certain countries shouldn't have invaded Israel and lost them in the first place.

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

Excellent points, as usual, hosertohoosier.
Mike T.

It's worth noting that the specific criteria mention legally applied in Canada because of the nature of its constitution. You could say it was a thoughtful idea that should be examined when looking at Israel or anywhere else, but the court was careful to point out that international law is different.

I'm sure you realized that, I'm just pointing it out.

hosertohoosier

I just think the reference case is a good guideline, as opposed to a legal one. It would be interesting to have the Israeli supreme court draw up a Palestine reference case.
Mike T.

I'm not sure it's all that useful applied elsewhere, because most states, given the choice, would probably want to declare themselves indivisible. they wouldn't have much time for a set of guidelines to set up the opposite. We're a little special (though not totally unique) in that way.

http://intensedebate.com/people/ZestyMordant ZestyMordant

"we are talking about secession from a liberal democracy [Israel]"

Palestinians living in the occupied territories don't vote in Israeli elections. So if you're talking about secession, then you are assuming that the occupied territories are part of Israel, which then cannot be a democracy.

This is the core conundrum of Israel. If they claim the occupied territories as their own, they give up either democracy or their Jewish majority. Meanwhile, they refuse to allow the formation of an independent state. That's why the occupation has continued since 1967.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

I've read a few articles over the last year or two that describe some type of two state solution.

Are you in agreement with the basics of that, or not so much?

hosertohoosier

My preferred position is shared by almost nobody and will probably not happen. I prefer a one-state solution wherein Palestinians are allowed to vote in Israeli elections and protected by the same constitution as exists for Israelis. A high degree of federalism can help accommodate differences of views, though obviously something like this isn't going to happen overnight. Still there are over a million Arab citizens of Israel (some even vote Likud!).

I don't think a two-state solution solves anything. Gaza is economically dependent upon Israel – many of its residents work in Israel. So you have de jure sovereignty, but not de facto (and that gets even murkier if the West Bank is also part of the new state). Some degree of terrorist attacks are likely to continue in Israel regardless of whether there is a two-state solution (namely because the relevant terrorist organizations reject a two-state solution). Gaza is one of the poorest countries in the world, and not likely to be able to police itself, meaning that Israel would be strongly compelled to intervene (as it did in Lebanon).

Further I simply do not see how any "progressive" could support independence for a state that wants independence in part so it can oppress women and execute homosexuals.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

Thanks for your considered response.

Some followup regarding definitions / semantics. In wherein Palestinians are allowed to vote in Israeli elections and protected by the same constitution as exists for Israelis you are saying that today's Palestinians become full Israeli citizens, yes? Btw, the Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank are not citizens of any country today, is that correct?
hosertohoosier

Palestinians are citizens of the occupied territories, where they elect their own government and make their own laws. They are not full citizens of Israel however (clearly, they have different rights, and there are some practices in the occupied territories that would presumably violate the Israeli constitution), and the occupied territories are not a state and have limitations to their decision-making power. A useful analog might be Quebec after the British conquest – what were the Quebecois citizens of?

My preferred outcome is one where they become fully integrated citizens, which is something many Israelis do not want. As ZestyMordant pointed out, integration would challenge the Jewish character of Israel. Moreover, the rapid population growth of Palestinians would pose additional problems (which is why this process should have been initiated much earlier).
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

So, given that many/most Israelis don't want the one state solution, and acknowledging the existing population dynamics, what is your second favourite plan?
hosertohoosier

I prefer a two-state solution to the status quo, however, it needs to be well-designed. Critically, it needs to ensure that Palestine is able to police itself and root out terrorism. If that cannot be guaranteed, then you will have Israeli incursions all over again. Greater economic independence would help too, but I don't know how you get there. Secondly, the settlers would obviously have to go.

The other thing is that if an independent state just includes Gaza, it will be dirt poor. If it includes the West Bank (and possibly part of Jerusalem) it will be less so, but commerce will be difficult.

One workable arrangement would be for another Arab state to absorb Palestine (Gaza -> Egypt; West Bank -> Jordan). This would provide a state strong enough to police Palestine, and integrate Palestinians into an economy other than Israel's, while also solving contiguity problems. The problem is that this might threaten Israel, plus most of the countries in question don't want the occupied territories. I'm not sure if Palestinians like that option either.
Phil

Last paragraph first: That arrangement is one that seems sensible, but probably only from a distance and only on paper. You and RR below have both identified essentially the same basic shortcomings, I agree that those are the shortcomings, and they are so significant that it (unfortunately) makes even the status quo more acceptable than that option to those more directly involved.

Wrt two-state solution… "Critically, it needs to ensure that Palestine is able to police itself and root out terrorism"…agreed. My fear is that it will take quite some time (years, even a decade or two) for the new Palestinian state to master that requirement. I would hope it could happen faster (months), but realistically you would at least have to plan for that longer time frame.

That means that Israel would have to go into such an arrangement recognizing that there could very likely be continued short to medium term pain required to achieve that long term gain. Of course the status quo offers essentially guaranteed long term pain, so…… Either way, an extremely tough decision for the Israelis to make….I just don't see a better, workable alternative. Perhaps some type of peace-keeping force would need to be in place for a decade or two or three.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

Btw, why no ID account?
hosertohoosier

Why have an ID account? I don't see the advantage (I don't really care about pluses and minuses).
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

From my perspective mainly because your comments are worth perusing, and an ID account would make it possible for me (and others) to track them. I'm quite sure that I'm not alone in that interest in your comments.

Wrt plus/minus, you obviously are not obliged to hand them out, and as many others have mentioned on prior threads, the plus/minus system elicits a very wide range of reactions. Anyhoo, give it a thought.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

Personally, (and I"m no expert for sure) I think it would make the most sense for Egypt to absorb Gaza, and Jordan to absorb the West Bank. However, neither of those countries wants to be responsible for the millions of Palestinians whom they helped turn into refugees. It's so much easier for them to blame all the problems on Israel.
Phil

Do you have a "Second Most Favourite" plan? If so, please share. Thanks :-)

http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging_Ranter

Israel can be criticized. But when you question their right to exist, expect some flack. And please take note that questioning a country's right to defend itself against hostile aggressors, or referring to a country's population as an "occupation" both count as questioning that country's right to exist.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Fidel Castro is revered by Canada's political class, Jarrid? Really? I've heard Harper, Clement, Flahert, Baird, etc say a lot of weird and awful things before, but I think it goes too far to say they even like Castro, let alone revere him. I'll give them that at least

http://intensedebate.com/people/AJR79 AJR79

Trudeau liked him well enough.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Trudeau left office a long time ago, bud. And unconfirmed rumours have it that he passed away a while ago.

http://intensedebate.com/people/AJR79 AJR79

I'm don't think we're buds quite yet.

I do see now that I did miss the point of your comment thou, I should have gone back up and read jarrids again first.

Poking at Trudeaus mistakes doesn't stop because he's died y'know. His legacy still looms over much of Canada.

http://intensedebate.com/people/AJR79 AJR79

I see you are already getting that handed to you, down below. You really are asking for it, with comments like that thou.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

The point, obviously, as even jarrid understood and you missed, is that when you are talking about Canada's political elites you are talking about Harper, Flaherty, Baird, Clement, and the Conservative clan as much if not more than any other group.

http://intensedebate.com/people/AJR79 AJR79

I see that now. If he had left that part out, he may have gotten a thumbs up from me.

hosertohoosier

The left and the right each have their pet enemies and friends. The right, for instance, hates Chavez, although he isn't that bad. Similarly they were happy to give a free pass to guys like Mobuto Sese Seko, Nicaraguan Contras, Fujimori, Pinochet and so on. Left wingers tend to hate Israel. They also give a free pass to Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, the USSR (in the 80s), and Allende (who was clearly in violation of the Chilean constitution).

There are no angels.

Orson Bean

That's an interesting point re: Allende. On the one hand, the CIA's conduct in Chile was despicable (e.g., their conduct in the Charles Horman case). On the other hand, this tendency of certain North American liberals and lefties to make Allende out to be some sort of sainted liberal democrat also reflects a highly distorted and idealized view of reality.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

Everyone had the opportunity / desire to give Saddam Hussein a free pass at one time or another.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

And don't forget how chummy we are now with Columbia and Saudi Arabia.

As you said, there are no angels and it is moronic partisan hyperbole to suggest left or right has a greater tendency toward authoritarianism.

Having said that, Trudeau did take it a step further and make personal friends with a dictator. You can argue if that was better or worse than the close personal connection between the Bush family and Saudi royalty, but it was then and remains a poor judgement call.

albert

Oh, I think he has the flavor of the situation…he and more than a few hundred thousand Jews who've about had it with zionists. He may have erred on the method but only a fool would doubt the ends Israel has in mind for Palestinians…a fool and a toady (it's noteworthy that Liberals have been jumping on that toady bandwagon of late, trying to outdo the competition).

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

And what does Israel have in mind for the Palestinians? Please enlighten us. Given that every reasonable offer they've ever made was rejected out of hand by Palestine's leadership. Camp David 2000 ring any bells for you?

Mike T.

Meh, it ain't like she was telling shyster jokes or anything. I might not agree with her position (which she later withdrew), but I wouldn't consider it a statement so evil it should never be uttered.

Layton should probably take the opportunity to make his parties stance on the middle east conflict clear, but if some members disagree well these things happen.
tedbetts

Fidel Castro is revered by Canada’s political class, Jarrid? Really? I’ve heard Harper, Clement, Flahert, Baird, etc say a lot of weird and awful things before, but I think it goes too far to say they even like Castro, let alone revere him. I’ll give them that at least.

jarrid

I probably should have been a little more precise in my comments tedbetts. The mainstream left/lib politcal class certainly revered Castro and still does.

Who is the most renowned Canadian politician of modern times? Pierre Trudeau. Who came to Pierre Trudeau's funeral? Why, Fidel Castro did. Pierre and Fidel were buddy-buddy. I think it is abhorrent that our left/lib establishment thinks it's just fine to hobnob with a murderer of Fidel Castro's repute. But our left/lib establishment thought (and still thinks) that that was just peachy. Because he was a fellow leftly. Trudeau was on the wrong side of history on that one: big time.

Crit_Reasoning

Completely agree that Trudeau was on the wrong side of history with regards to his warm embrace of Castro.

Orson Bean

"Warm embrace", yes. I agreed with Trudeau's decision to recognize Cuba, and I think the US policy has been counterproductive. But you're right, Trudeau and his acolytes were way too effusive in their approach, completely lacking balance. This even shows through today, when Trudeau's son Sacha talks warmly about memories of Uncle Fidel and all that. This is a guy who has had political enemies killed and locked people up in jail merely for having a dissenting point of view.

http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging_Ranter

Many of them are still in jail, and will likely remain there after Uncle Fidel is dead. I agree that the US approach to Cuba was all wrong. They likely could have loosened Castro's grip decades ago had they just tried to normalize relations with them instead of isolating them. They gave Castro the enemy he needed to keep himself in power. In any case, I can't feel to bad for Meyer Lansky, Sam Giancana, Lucky Luciano et. al. and their loss of casino revenue. Not much to chose from between that crowd and the Beard.

Out There

The "left/lib establishment" respected Trudeau, and Trudeau respected Castro, but that does not mean that the left/lib establishment respects Castro. To put it in formal logic terms: respect is not a transitive property.

RagingRanter

Except that the left-lib establishment did respect Castro. No transitive property required.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Trudeau is the most renowned Canadian politician of modern times? Even on the left, that is not the case.

Your outrage about "left/lib establishment thinks it's just fine to hobnob with a murderer of Fidel Castro's repute" is a little thin. Other than Trudeau, who thinks it's find to hobnob with Castro?

More to the point, as HoserToHoosier correctly points out, when you string together the dictators the "right establishment thinks it's just fine to hobnob with", it's pretty clear there are no angels.

Having said that, Trudeau did take it a step further and make personal friends with a dictator. You can argue if that was better or worse than the close personal connection between the Bush family and Saudi royalty, but it was then and remains a poor judgement call.

jarrid

I'll answer both Mike T's and DeanP's comments at the same time since they both make the same point.

No respectable Canadian political party should question the right of the Israeli state to exist. Full stop. Not when they are threatened with annihilation, almost on a daily basis by their neighbours. Common sense and decency demands this.

And I wouldn't be so cavalier of allowing such pernicious foreign policy positions to fester unchecked in the NDP as you both seem to be prepared to allow. Anti-semites are gravitating left these days: the NDP has to stop extreme political views in their tracks, lest their party become infected.

Layton is commonsensical and moderate, I have confidence he'll tell those who question Israel's existence that they've got to leave. Those are not views that belong in a mainstream Canadian political party.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

" Those are not views that belong in a mainstream Canadian political party."

I don't believe we should be unilaterally deciding what views belong in a "mainstream Canadian political party". The voters in each MP's riding can decide that just fine.
Mike T.

I get all smiley when right wing trolls talk like their opinion matters. It's adorable.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

The "jarrid problem": his odious, vicious, borderline slanderous attacks on other commenters have ensured that, even in the event that he ever has a good point to argue well and fairly, he will never convince me, because I will never read it based on my experience of his past commenting history. (Unlike many of the conservative-leaning folks in these forums, whose debates I enjoy.) I simply thumb-down, look to see if anyone replying has torn him a new one, and move on, without a shred of worry that I might have missed something substantial.

Same way that when someone gets too drunk at your party and makes an obnoxious spectacle of themself, you don't invite them back.

jarrid

Examples, please.

Your are no doubt a very sensitive soul not used to spirited debate.

http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging_Ranter

I get all smiley when right wing trolls talk like their opinion matters. It's adorable.

Your opinion, on the other hand, is pure gold. Please use your inherently superior wisdom to explain to us why we shouldn't mind that some progressives think Israel should not exist.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

I think Libby Davies is a nut, but I also think it's a very dangerous game to hold that certain views are unacceptable for expression amonst our MPs. Let 'em say what they think, and let the voters in each riding decide whether they want this person representing them.

Making various views a litmus test for holding a seat in Parliament is not a good idea (other than at the ballot box). In general, having unpopular views expressed in Parliament (and anywhere else) is a good thing: it challenges the paradigm and forces people to think about what they believe.

jarrid

I'm as big a beleiver in free speech as anyone. Indeed free speech and property rights are the two fundamental principles that make free and democratic societies viable in my estimation. That said, political parties are entitled to draw the line on matters of fundamental importance to their parties and are fully within their rights to turf members who don't or won't adhere to those beleifs. So Stephane Dion was right, for instance, to turf that 9-11 "truther" last election. A person is entitled to be a "truther", but not necessarily entitled to be a "truther" and a candidate or MP for a party.

The issue, granted, has to be of some importance. The legitimacy of the State of Israel is one such matter, unquestionably.

Gaunilon

Sure, the party leadership can legitimately decide that certain viewpoints are sufficient grounds for being kicked out of caucus. Nothing wrong with that. But that's a little different from saying that such views don't belong in Parliament or in a mainstream political party. Those assessments should be up to the voters.

TedTylerEzro

We all know who Pat Martin of the NDP is now for example.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

I think the issue is more about her being in a leadership role with the NDP. She should definitely be removed from that role with the extremist views that she holds.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

She's free to express her nutty views, and the rest of us are free to lambaste her for it. Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences of that expression. If some Klan member managed to get elected as a Conservative MP before finally running off at the mouth and revealing his true leanings, I would hope that Harper would do his best to remove the cancerous tumour. Certainly we can expect Layton to do the same.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

Let's just be glad the government is holding the opposition to account – just as the parliamentary system was designed for.

jarrid

It is good that we all hold ourselves mutually accountable Sean.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

Agreed, jarrid. Thank goodness the Conservatives remain our nation's unflagging champions of accountability.

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

lol!

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Born to be in opposition. Foster homed in government.

http://intensedebate.com/people/amherstvw amherstvw

I look in my "Winston's New and Complete Atlas of the World" (Philadelphia, USA, 1921).
There's Jerusalem! It's in the middle of a land mass labelled "Palestine".
Syria to the north, Egypt's Sinai to the south.

So … did the UK, US, and Canada take in a lot of refugees 1933-1945? NIMBY!

Helen Thomas was pretty much alone when the Bush Administration's talking point was
"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"
… so much for journalism and free speech in the greatest democracy in the world.

Sometimes the PM's selective historical perspective doesn't extend much before 2002 and 1993.

http://intensedebate.com/people/BGLong BGLong

And history is a long time … and mileage may vary as to the wrong side or right side …
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators…
My Opinion

And who were the original occupants of "Palestine". The Jews.

http://intensedebate.com/people/BGLong BGLong

Nobody cares about the Philistines any more. So sad.
AJT

So we should all abandon Canada then and let the First Nations take back what was theirs thousands of years ago?

hosertohoosier

The real question is what the Metis would do in that scenario. Time shares in Europe and North America?
TedTylerEzro

It wasn't thousands of years ago. Most of the territory in Canada was controlled by sovereign native tribes 150 years ago or less.

Here is another mind-blowing thought. The Kingdom of Jerusalem lasted for 192 years. So when the Muslims pushed the Crusaders out, they weren't just pushing out foreign occupiers.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

The PM's historical perspective doesn't extend much before 2006.

Can you imagine what Stephen Harper 2005 would say about Stephen Harper 2010?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

Go back another 60 years or so for another look at the map, and *GASP!* – where's Canada? We have a right to exist too, indigenous land claims notwithstanding. I don't plan on returning to Europe anytime soon, and I doubt Helen Thomas does either. Though it's perfectly fine, apparently, for her to suggest that others do so.
hosertohoosier

If you checked further you would realize that Palestine circa 1921 was not a sovereign country, but a League of Nations mandate run by the British (after the Ottomans picked the wrong side of World War I). The current state of Israel is the legal successor of the Palestinian mandate.

http://intensedebate.com/people/amherstvw amherstvw

So in my "Bartholomew Handy Reference Atlas of the World" (UK) rev 1899-1904 … I turn to the page titled … "Palestine" … I also have a nice selection of 'Ancient History' atlases … which may be the next step … ?

I agree with your logic … although quite a few "self-defining as legal" mistakes were made in 1919 … decades later requiring Canadian troops as part of UN forces (Europe and Middle East).

My original idea was that none of us over here is going to solve this problem. Nor is the Prime Minister going to solve it by standing up, shouting, and pointing in the Commons … not 'making peace' … but for personal political advantage. That behaviour does not make Canada or the world a better place.

The problem "over there" will only be solved when people (i.e men) "over there" get tired of killing men women and children and want to solve it … or destroy each other. So far they're choosing the latter.

hosertohoosier

"My original idea was that none of us over here is going to solve this problem."

Very very wrong. International considerations play a very large role in Israeli policy – the key calculation being whether or not they have the backing of western countries (especially the US). Consider the difference between Israeli policy in the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur war. In the former case, the Israelis launched a surprise attack against an imminent invasion. Due to international fallout, and a deliberate policy by Nixon to make the Israelis unsure of how much aid he would give them in 1973, in contrast, the Israelis waited for Egypt and Syria to invade in '73. As a result the beginnings of the conflict went badly for Israel, and the country was almost destroyed.

So Western opinion does matter, and there are some points in which it must be unequivocal. The right of Israel is one of those points. An Israel that is viewed as an illegitimate state by the west has nothing to lose by abandoning moderate policies – western opinion can't get any worse. Moreover, Israel's real existential threat (regional rivals like Egypt and Syria) may recalculate their position in such a scenario. I am also willing to say that a policy which gives Israel a blank cheque is also problematic.

http://intensedebate.com/people/amherstvw amherstvw

"Very very wrong"

About 30 years ago, Gwynne Dyer in his "War" documentary series suggested that eventually all military powers reach the end of their dominance and are overcome by other military powers. It is just how things happen. Just ask the Romans …

I don't believe any people "over there" are particularly happy. Maybe a new approach is needed. Billions in US military aid and moral support haven't really achieved happiness. Many people have suffered – for what?

But if you insist this will work … please, you and PM Harper go ahead as you have … just let me know when things are solved.

I remember watching the Six Day War when I was a little news hound kid. I thought the Israelis were the good guys back then.

humanity4all

Wow! This place they call Canada is amazing!

"The Role of Mental Imagery:Giving a "Human Face" to Racism,Genocide and War Crimes", http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&ai...
t-man

I'm thinking the merger coalition is definitely OFF!

My Opinion

You bet!
Amateur Hour

According to everyone in a leadership position of the two parties, at the time and since, it was NEVER on., despite Kinsella's protestations.

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

Except when they all signed that letter of intent in September 2008, with Iggy's siggy being the last one on the list.

Orson Bean

More foreign policy nuttiness from Libby Davies:

"In 2008 she read a petition in Parliament calling for a new investigation into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The petition alleged that the 9/11 Commission Report was a “fraudulent document” and that “elements within the US government were complicit in the murder of thousands of people on 9/11/2001.” "

I wonder if she believes that stuff about the Jews being warned in advance too . . .
http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

I was struck by the fact that Libby Davies only "apologized" for misspeaking; but she did not explicitly make any statement that demonstrates she believes in the right of Israel to exist. For this reason, the prime minister and Bob Rae were absolutely correct to demand that she be asked to resign.
Brian

uh-oh.

The Nova Scotia educational system is CHOCK FULL of antisemitic thoughts! We better let someone know about this…

I refer, of course, to my grade 11 World Affairs textbook. It stated that during the existence of the Mandate of Palestine (sometime from the twenties to 1948) Britain and later world organizations tried to work out a deal to accommodate Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians. In the late forties, it was the UN trying to work out a deal. But then there was this nasty civil war where Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians were killing each other while the UN kept trying to hammer out a deal. Then the day before the Mandate of Palestine was to end, the Jewish Palestinians unilaterally declared the existence of a State of Israel and the next day were attacked by neighbouring Arab states.

In 1948, yes, Jewish Palestinians occupied the British Mandate of Palestine ONE WHOLE DAY before they were set to get their own state. This would have all been much clearer if they'd just waited a day!

… or the Nova Scotian education system is against the existence of Israel.

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

You don't get it Brian. It may have been unfair to the Palestinians but c'est la vie, right? Nowadays, to even question whether Palestinians were treated fairly during that 1948 process is considered anti-semitism. The rights of Palestinians…well… Palestinians have no rights in this debate.

If you want to start asking questions, begin at 1967, not before. Although, I'm not even sure that we are allowed to do that either.

What I would say to Libby is that if she feels that Israel became an occupier in 1948, Canadians are occupiers too. That said… Knowing Libby, she'd probably agree with that too. No one will call her a racist for that one, though.

Phil KIng

As a student of jewish and christian philosophy I certainly understand why we chose to implant Israel where we did, but honestly what did we expect would happen?

Out of our own sense of guilt we created a powerful nuclear western-style nation in one of the most volatile regions on the planet, a region that had less love of the Jewish people than the Hitler regime.

The results were predictable in the extreme, and yet the west seems to take no responsibility for this whatsoever.

Given OUR responsibility for creating this mess it is startling to me how little we have done beyond tokenism to establish any peace in the region.

It is impossible for Israel to create peace in this region because they are one of the sides in this conflict. The time is long past for the UN to step in and take responsibility for this mess.

Holly Stick

Watch how many rightwingers accuyse you of being anti-Semitic now.
http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging_Ranter

It wasn't out of guilt so much as it was to solve the very "sticky" problem of the displaced people freed from the concentration camps at the end of WWII. Britain, Canada, the US et. al. weren't nearly so welcoming of "other" immigrants back then. So Israel was created as a convenient means to deal with that little problem. That much is basic history. And yes, Palestinians were displaced. They got screwed, no doubt about it. But those same Palestinians have been victimized many times over by their own "allies", who refuse to take any responsibility for the refugees created by their own numerous ill-conceived wars with Israel over the years. Israel takes all the blame for the Palestinian problem, but the surrounding states bear a far greater responsibility. In any case, none of the dubious history surrounding the creation of Israel should be used to question their right to exist. The history is just that – history. We can't undo it.
hosertohoosier

By 1948 I don't think there was much choice about where to put a Jewish state. The Zionist movement had advocated moving to the holy land for years, and there was a substantial Jewish population in the middle east. Of course the Zionist position made sense back then – Palestine (here I mean the British mandate) had historical connections for Jews, was ruled by the British and was safer than parts of central and eastern Europe.

One interesting counterfactual scenario to envision would be – what would happen if the Nazis had implemented the Madagascar plan (dumping a million jews a year in Madagascar). By 1942 (when the Free French liberated Madagascar), you would have a sizable Jewish population in Madagascar – assuming they were not all killed by starvation and tropical diseases. There were only 650,000 Jews in Palestine circa 1948, so it is possible to imagine alternative locations becoming a Jewish state.

My Opinion

"Mr. Harper then enjoyed one final opportunity to raise his voice, pronounce shame and, perhaps simply for kicks, raise the spectre of Helen Thomas"
Mr. Wherry, your political bias is showing too much. Harper was in his perfect right to bring up Helen Thomas and you know it. You would have done the same in his position. If Layton doesn't demand her resignation than he's much lower than his idol: Obama. Beside when your deputy leader expresses an opinion and then a day later, expresses the opposite, what confidence can you have in that member and how does she represent her constituents.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

I'm curious. Had Libby declared Israel an occupier from 1967 as opposed to 1948, would that have been deemed ok?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Bartolomeo Bartolomeo

Of course. It's been the position of every Canadian government – including Harper's – that the territorries gained in the 67 war are occupied.

Even Israeli prime ministers such as Ohlmert, Sharon and Barak have referred to those territorries as occupied. Not to mention most of the Israeli mainstream media.

Was that a serious question?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

I'm pretty sure even Israel refers to the post-1967 territories as "occupied". Perhaps the Palestinians should talk to their "allies" about maybe giving them some land in their countries, as it was their foolish invasions that compounded the refugee problem into its current mess. The original problems were challenging, but manageable. 3 failed invasions later, and they do have a bit of a mess on their hands.