-Caveat Lector-
title A nation that no longer believes in itself
[LINK]
CANADA
October 22, 2001 Issue Full Text
Canadians say 'No' to Chretien and ponder the end of national
sovereignty
by Kevin Michael Grace
[INLINE] JEAN Chretien is facing the gravest crisis of his political
career--a spontaneous revulsion against his response to the terrorist
attacks of September 11. He is accused of callousness towards the
5,000 dead and of disloyalty to stricken America. His government is
accused of failing its primary duty to protect Canadians from foreign
attack, while the U.S. ponders whether its economic ties to Canada are
worth the risk. In any other parliamentary democracy, his career would
be over. But Canada is not like other parliamentary democracies.
Mr. Chretien has always been lucky. Had he, instead of John Turner,
become Liberal leader in 1984, the Mulroney landslide would have
crushed him. When he returned to politics in 1990, the Mulroney
coalition was crumbling, assailed from the West by the Reform Party
and soon from the East by the Bloc Québécois. He sleepwalked through
the 1995 referendum crisis; only 50,000 votes saved Canada from
dissolution. By the time he won his third consecutive majority
government in 2000, the Bloc was exhausted by recriminations over the
1995 near miss, and the western reform movement was exhausted by the
bitter campaign that led to the creation of the Canadian Alliance and
the replacement of Preston Manning by Stockwell Day.
Things looked even better in 2001. A Manningite revolt and Mr. Day's
own ineptitude had suffocated the newborn Alliance in its cradle. And
with the sale of the National Post, the media, which had once nipped
at Mr. Chretien's heels, was now tethered to the Liberal leash. Then
came September 11.
Mr. Chretien first went AWOL. Then, in his speech to the House of
Commons he seemed most worried that the terrorist threat might reduce
immigration. He travelled to Washington September 17 and attempted to
mend fences with President George W. Bush. Rather than travel on to
"Ground Zero," the site of the World Trade Center collapse, he decided
to fly back to Toronto for a Liberal fundraiser. He explained that New
York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had requested he stay away. The mayor's
office called him a liar.
Mr. Chretien again demonstrated his insensitivity at another Liberal
fundraiser September 27. After urging Canadians to "open their
pocketbooks" to help the economy, he boasted, "The world today is
safer than it was two weeks ago. Why? Because we're aware there is a
danger that we were not aware of a few weeks before." In other words,
America has taken a hit, but Canadians are better aware. He finally
visited New York 20 days after the attacks, along with the other party
leaders. He could no longer claim decency, only necessity.
Just as in 1993, Canadians were asked, "Is this the face of a prime
minister?" This time the answer was "No." But they have nowhere to
turn. Mr. Day still refuses to say if he will re-seek his own job;
even a creditable replacement might not revive the Alliance. The NDP
is even more moribund, and Tory leader Joe Clark cannot break 20% in
the polls. Mr. Chretien is safe from a party coup; there is no Winston
Churchill to succeed Neville Chamberlain. There is not even a Giuliani
or a Tony Blair. Prime-minister-in-waiting Paul Martin has been
contaminated, perhaps fatally, by his defiant support last year of a
front group for Tamil terrorists. Yes, fate has been kind to Jean
Chretien.
The price of the prime minister's good luck, however, could be
Canada's death. President Bush's refusal to mention Canada in his
speech to Congress was no accident. America was angry. The domestic
reaction was profound. Canadians, at first insulted, became terrified.
Anti-Americanism vanished almost overnight.
Multiculturalism Minister Hedy Fry, who had easily ridden out the
storm raised by her earlier fantasies about cross-burnings in Prince
George, became the most hated politician in Canada. She had sat
through without protest, as she had done countless times before, a
bizarre federally funded speech by a feminist luminary, in this case
former National Action Committee on the Status of Women president
Sunera Thobani. Immigration Minister Elinor Caplan had long insisted
that her critics were "anti-immigrant, anti-everything," but after
September 11 the Americans were listening, and they were threatening
to close the border. Premier Gordon Campbell promptly announced that
Canada and the United States must make it a "Ziplock seal," even if it
meant some legitimate refugees are turned away. Ontario Premier Mike
Harris announced the creation of a provincial immigration police, an
unprecedented novelty.
The new reality was best demonstrated in a September 29 column by the
Toronto Star's Richard Gwyn, the grand old man of Canadian
nationalism. "We must accept the inevitable," he wrote. "The U.S. has
just called in its chips. We, in turn, have just swept our maple leaf
chips off the table...In fact, our condition of virtual sovereignty is
like that of all the member states of the European Union. With one
difference. The political construct that's developing here isn't a
comparable North American union. It's just an American union."
Mr. Gwyn insisted that Canada could still be more "generous" in its
immigration policy. A September 27 Compas poll, however, revealed that
while Canadians are willing to cede sovereignty to the Americans,
their tolerance for immigration generosity has ended. Over 70% said
Canada should harmonize its anti-terrorism laws with the U.S.'s as
soon as possible. An astounding 85% agreed "Canada should adopt much
tougher laws and practices with regard to immigration and refugees."
As yet there is no indication the Liberals are willing to comply with
the national mood.
Compas president Conrad Winn comments, "The lesson here is that one
event has more power than all the prose, poetry and charisma of
politicians." Canadian sovereignty, he concludes, is now a "somewhat
poetic idea." Referring to the U.S., he argues, "You cannot have equal
sovereignty when you do not have an equal population, an equal economy
and an equal military capacity." The Bush administration did not even
bother asking Mr. Chretien for a Canadian contribution to the military
buildup in Asia (see cover story).
Mr. Winn employs psychologist Abraham Maslow's motivation theory to
explain the new Canada. "Personal security is one of the basic
foundation values," he explains. "After September 11, Canadians have
been reduced to an almost caveman worry. At the same time, the attacks
have also highlighted our worry about honour, which is one of higher
needs. Military capacity is integral to a society's sense of honour,
and here Canada has been exposed again."
Missing from Mr. Winn's analysis, however, is an examination of why
the shock of September 11 has resulted in national despair. It cannot
be solely a question of military capacity--or of personal security.
After all, as Mr. Chretien reminds us, it was the United States and
not Canada that was attacked. Britain did not despair when powerful
France was invaded in May 1940. France collapsed because it had been
eaten away from within. "National unity" was only a slogan; the
reality was internal struggle between factions that no longer agreed
that France deserved to survive.
Something similar has happened in Canada. The multicultural diversity
Mr. Chretien prizes above all has left Canada hollow, a nation in name
only. The signs are everywhere: a foreign-born feminist at war with
Western civilization but paid for by Ottawa. A minister of
"citizenship" who assails the Opposition as "neo-Nazis." A
"multicultural" minister who asserts Christian beliefs are an
"insult." A new ethnic Chinese party contesting the municipal
elections in Richmond, B.C. A Canadian Arab leader who threatens to
sue a political leader for "hate" because of his support for Israel. A
"justice" minister who refuses to acknowledge an ethnic lobbying
group's terrorist ties because of the finance minister's support for
that group.
Or as veteran Vancouver Liberal and immigration reformer Charles
Campbell puts it, "I'm one month short of my 88th birthday. For most
of my life Canada has been a happy country. Canada is not a happy
country any more."
Votes before safety: the Grits stonewall
[INLINE] Jean Chretien has made one tough decision on the
terrorism/immigration/refugee crisis. He demanded that the Museum of
Civilization show an exhibition of Arab-Canadian art postponed after
the September 11 terrorist attacks. The museum complied.
Here are some of the Liberal government's other decisions:
* Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley rejected a common border
security perimeter with the United States.
* Immigration Minister Elinor Caplan rejected the use of the
notwithstanding clause to overturn the Supreme Court of Canada's
1985 Singh decision, granting landed newcomers the same rights as
Canadians.
* Justice Minister Anne McLellan decided not to petition the Supreme
Court to reopen the deportation trial of two alleged terrorists to
allow the government to present new evidence.
* Mr. Chretien refused to criticize Multiculturalism Minister Hedy
Fry's attendance at a speech by former National Action Committee
for the Status of Women president Sunera Thobani that attacked
Western civilization as misogynist and American foreign policy as
"bloodsoaked." He criticized the speech but added that not funding
such feminist events as "Women's Resistance" would imperil
Canada's "social discourse."
* Not included in the list of 22 terrorist fundraising organizations
banned last week as part as Canada's implementation of a UN
protocol were the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelamor (banned by
the U.S. State Department) or the Federation of Associations of
Canadian Tamils. FACT has been identified by the U.S. State
Department and by the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service
as a Tiger Tamil front. It has received $11 million in grants from
the Immigration Department since 1994.
* Finance Minister Paul Martin refused to answer a question from
Canadian Alliance MP Deepak Obhrai on whether he would recuse
himself from any consideration of FACT's legal status, based on
his attendance at a FACT fundraiser last year. International
Cooperation Minister Maria Minna and another Liberal MP also
attended the fundraiser, even though Mr. Martin was warned in
advance. Solicitor-General Lawrence MacAulay answered for him: "I
think it is irresponsible for any member, particularly at this
time, to try to link terrorism with ethnic communities."
Immigration reformer and former Canadian diplomat Martin Collacott
says the Liberal response to September 11 proves again that "their
motive is to get ethnic votes. The interests of Canada are almost
completely ignored." Mr. Collacott testified before the Senate October
3 on Mrs. Caplan's Bill C-11, which has already been passed in the
House of Commons. Ms. Caplan has claimed C-11 gives the Immigration
Department the power "to remove criminals who are inadmissible and not
eligible to stay in Canada." It would give immigration officers the
power to investigate and compel testimony from those judged a threat
to Canadians and enable speedier deportation. Under C-11 refugee
claims made abroad will be screened at the beginning, not the end, of
the process.
Mr. Collacott argues that C-11 "doesn't get the job done." It does not
permit the internment of refugee claimants. It does not allow
deportation of third-country refugee claimants ("nation-shoppers").
C-11 broadens the definition of refugee to "people who need
protection." (Canada's refugee acceptance rate, 60%, is already five
times higher than other Western nations'.) C-11 gives landing rights
to same-sex and common-law spouses. And it gives even greater priority
to refugees and family-class immigrants, further limiting the stream
of skilled workers.
Even if C-11 passes the Senate, it will face a Charter challenge. The
Singh decision gives all non-citizens present on Canadian territory
the protection of Section 7: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty
and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof
except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." This
means all non-citizens have the right to take their immigration and
refugee cases to court. And many do, repeatedly.
[INLINE] Mahomoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad, a Palestinian refugee
claimant sentenced to 17 years' imprisonment for his part in the
terror attack on an El Al airliner in Athens in 1968, remains in
Canada 13 years after being ordered deported. The final disposition of
his case is likely years away. In any event, the Immigration
Department does not know the whereabouts of 27,000 deportees.
A September 27 Compas poll shows that 85% of Canadians agree, "Canada
should adopt much tougher laws and practices with regard to
immigration and refugees." Ms. Caplan's office was contacted by this
magazine for comment. Spokeswoman Joann Kearnan referred calls to the
Immigration Department. Spokeswoman Giovanna Gatti says, "It wouldn't
be appropriate for me to comment," on the Compas poll, on the
notwithstanding clause or the Mohammad case, "as I don't have all the
facts and I won't talk about hypotheticals."
Ms. Gatti does say, however, "In the last six years we have stopped
about 33,000 people from entering Canada." She adds, "We have
increased the number of immigration control officers from 31 in 1999
to 44 this year," and points out the 27,000 figure probably includes
many who have left Canada voluntarily. (Many others have gone
underground.) "We don't have exit controls," she says. Her department
will soon, however, introduce a "fraud-resistant permanent resident
card" for non-citizens.
Even if Singh were overturned, terrorists, criminals and liars would
still enter Canada in the thousands every year through the Immigration
and Refugee Board (IRB). Lubomyr Luciuk, Ontario academic and board
member from 1996 to 1998, says the IRB should stand for "Irrational
Reappointment Behaviour." He explains that IRB board members are
political appointments. No experience or expertise is required, and
the job pays $90,000 annually. Most members desperately want to stay
on, he says. "They are very much beholden to the government that
appointed them; they want to be seen as productive; and the best way
to do that is to simply say 'Yes.'" Even to obvious non-refugees like
Tamils. "If you are a young male and a Tamil," he reports, "the
message is 'Welcome to Canada.'"
The Reform Party once advocated repeal of the Singh decision. Now even
long-time Liberal thinker Tom Kent advocates it, as does the
pro-immigration Vancouver Sun. The Canadian Alliance does not.
Immigration critic Paul Forseth says, "It's still a matter of
discussion." Former critic Inky Mark, who now sits with the
Progressive Conservatives, complained that C-11 was too restrictive
and "un-Canadian." Mr. Forseth declares, "Mr. Mark did not represent
Alliance policy."
Reform and Alliance MPs have long complained the Liberals routinely
cry "racism" to silence criticism on immigration. Compas president
Conrad Winn replies, "The 'racism' defence is not an argument-stopper
and never was. The Alliance permitted this because they didn't have
the intellectual and political skills to fight back. They should have
insisted, 'You're the real racists; you judge everything on skin
colour.' Instead, they always sank into apoplectic silence." Mr.
Winn's data reveals the Liberals to be highly vulnerable on the
terrorism/immigration/refugee front. Whether the Alliance can
capitalize politically on this depends entirely, he says, on whether
"they gain professional skills or remain amateurs."
_________________________________________________________________
[LINK]
Subscribe to take full advantage of the newsmagazine.
Write a letter to the Editor.
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
