May 08, 2008


Can You Blame Them, Though?

After all, the speed with which Harper has moved from a Two-Nation Canada to a One-Nation Canada is enought to give anyone whiplash.

Is Two-Nation Canadianism inconsistent with Harper's invocation of Quebec's founding as the founding of Canada? Not necessarily. One might suggest, for instance, that the Quebecois are and always have been a separate and distinct people, but that their history and actions have contributed, directly, to the identity of the Canadian nation of which they are a constituent part. Maybe that's what Harper's up to.

But it sure doesn't sound that way, and that's sure not how it's being interpreted in LBP. Instead, Harper's remarks - and those of the Governor General - are being seen as an appropriation of the historical fact of the founding of Quebec on behalf of all Canadians, not just those of pur laine. In other words, Harper is not simply saying "this instant in Quebecois history led, in time, to the emergence of Canada, and therefore we celebrate this Quebecois moment for its importance to us." Instead, he's saying "this is a moment in Canadian history, and we celebrate it as such; not as a precursor, but as a genesis; not as a mere contribution to our national formation, but as its crucible."

This, it seems to me, is the fundamental claim of One-Nation Canadianism: that we are all the inheritors of all that has come before to make our nation what it is today; that we are all the descendants of Cartier and Champlain as much as Cabot and Hudson; that we are all the descendants of both Wolfe and Montcalme; and that therefore Quebec's history is our history, not the history of one constituent part of us that has merely contributed, in a historical sense, to our present.

Maybe you can square the circle; maybe Two-Nations Canadianism is a secular national version of the Holy Trinity. The Prime Minister doesn't seem to be going out of his way to argue as much, though; and the excitable Quebecois nationalists whom Wells highlights certainly don't seem to be finding much solace in the possibility.

So while I certainly celebrate the Prime Minister's newfound embrace of One Nation Canadianism, I repeat my first point: can you blame anyone for being surprised?

Posted by David Mader at 14:38 | Comments (0) | Back to Top

May 06, 2008


Israel

In the flood of op/eds and articles marking the sixtieth anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel, it was inevitable that some mainstream publication would publish something along the lines of this unapologetic blood libel by Jeet Heer [see below for clarification], although I'm a bit surprised it appears in the pages of the National Post. (Perhaps they've been so caught up in the recent free speech debate that they've forgotten that when the state abstains from policing private speech, it falls to us to express societal attitudes regarding what is and is not appropriate political discourse.) [EDIT: Kudos to the Post for doing just that, giving Heer's column credit where deserved but mincing no words in pointing out its flaws.]

In any case, if you need an antidote to Heer's tired and fatuous claptrap, I recommend Efraim Karsh's rather exhaustive, and rather more thoughtful, treatment of precisely the same issue in Commentary.

It is beyond debate that the entire existence of the Israeli state, from its creation down to the present, has been attended by unending tragedy. One of the greatest tragedies is the persistent unwillingness of the country's critics to separate the state's many true failings from the hysterical fantasies and conspiracy theories that essentially define modern anti-Zionism.

FURTHER THOUGHTS (18:41 EDT): Lest my post be seen as somewhat intemperate, let me expand. It is a matter of settled historical fact, insofar as such a thing ever exists, that during the period of Israeli independence - say roughly 1947-49 - many Arabs living in Palestine fled their homes while many more were killed by Jewish paramilitary groups. The debate, such as it is, is between (1) those like Heer who claim that (a) the Jewish leadership in Palestine desired, organized, and executed a deliberate program of ethnic cleansing, and (b) the subsequent killings and flight of Arabs from those parts of Palestine that later became Israel were a direct consequence of this Jewish program of ethnic cleansing; and (2) those like Karsh who claim that (a) no such program of ethnic cleansing ever existed, and (b) while some Arab deaths and flights were the result of Jewish paramilitary activity, many Arabs were killed by or fled at the explicit instruction of Arab leadership in Palestine in anticipation of the impending attack on Israel by its Arab neighbors.

Importantly, few, if any, serious Zionist historians deny the acts of a not-inconsiderable number of Jewish paramilitary groups that did in fact engage in the deliberate targeting of Arab civilians for the express purpose of removing parts of the Arab population from parts of British Mandatory Palestine. The disagreement, again, is over whether there was a movement-wide, organized program of removal of Arabs from parts of British Mandatory Palestine.

The historical record is there to be debated; I submit that at least as between Heer and Karsh, Karsh has the better argument. But recall the simple fact that in 1947, the United Nations voted to partition British Mandatory Palestine into two states, one Jewish, and one Arab; and recall that the Jewish political leadership in Palestine approved the partition plan, while the Arab political leadership in Palestine rejected the partition plan. Recall further that in response to the partition plan, and Jewish approval of it, the Jewish leadership subsequently declared the independence of the State of Israel - the anniversary we mark this week - on only that land apportioned to the Jewish state by the United Nations, while Arab leadership, in coordination with the governments of the neighboring Arab states, declared war on the fledgling Jewish state.

Recall these oft-overlooked facts and consider again which set of acts seems more consistent with a deliberate program of ethnic cleansing.

A PARTIAL RETRACTION: As MaderBlog readers would, I hope, agree, I generally strive for clarity and intellectual honesty in my writings - especially when I write on topics about which I have strong feeling. I've been thinking quite a bit about my characterization of Heer's piece as a blood libel, and on reflection I think I must retract that characterization.

A blood libel, classically defined, involves a false accusation of Jewish violence against non-Jews for supposed Jewish ends, where that accusation is made maliciously or with deliberate indifference to its truth or falsity. In this case I have no reason to believe that Heer has made his arguments regarding supposed Jewish ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs either maliciously or with any deliberate indifference to the truth or falsity of those allegations. Accordingly, while I believe that the underlying accusation could easily constitute a blood libel - since it is an accusation of Jewish violence against non-Jews for supposed Jewish ends, which accusation is, in my opinion, completely unsupported by common sense or the historical record - I do not think it is fair to accuse Heer of perpetrating a blood libel in this instance.

Posted by David Mader at 18:11 | Comments (0) | Back to Top

April 18, 2008


About That Search

The Star reports:

At least some of the material that was carted or wheeled out Tuesday and Wednesday by RCMP officers assisting Elections Canada investigators was the basis for the party's planned questioning of elections officials in the lawsuit challenging their interpretation of campaign financing rules.

Included among papers and emails seized or downloaded were all of the party's documents, including a series of indexed binders of Elections Canada records, related to the Conservatives' challenge in Federal Court of the agency's decision to disallow rebate claims involving some local campaign advertising expenses in the 2006 election, according to a document obtained by the Star.

If this is true, it seems to me it means three things:
1. The Conservatives were at least partially correct when they alleged - to general condemnation - that the raid was motivated by the upcoming questioning of Elections Canada officials in connection to the Federal Court suit.

2. Stephen Taylor was absolutely right to question Elections Canada's exercise of its search power over the Conservative Party while the latter's suit against the former was pending in Federal Court.

3. By exercising their search power in connection with a civil suit to which they are a party, rather than in connection to an investigation into Elections Act violations, Elections Canada has engaged in a gross violation of the standards and spirit of procedural fairness, even if they haven't violated any law (of which I don't know enough to say). Parties to a civil suit have an established mechanism to obtain documents and information from their adversary: the process of discovery allows parties to request documents and requires the production of those documents, subject to established legal privileges. If a party believes its adversary is not producing legitimate discovery materials, the party can apply to the court for redress. But what Elections Canada appears to have done here is to invoke its own executive police power to seize, directly, documents - including, quite possibly, privileged documents (such as the work product of the party's lawyers) - that it did not obtain in discovery.

To understand why this is such an affront to procedure, consider the inverse: the Conservative Party surely has requested documents from Elections Canada in relation to its civil suit, and I'd wager that not all the requested documents have been produced. If the party believes those documents ought to be produced, their only recourse is to petition the court to compel production. They cannot - and they should not be able to - coopt the services of the RCMP and 'raid' the offices of Elections Canada to seize whatever documents they think relevant.
If the Star's story is accurate, we have more of a scandal on our hands than In & Out.

UPDATE [11:56 EDT]: Alright, it might only be a scandal for law nerds. But we're people too!

Posted by David Mader at 10:43 | Comments (3) | Back to Top