McCarthyism from Canada's Radical Left

Canada's favourite homegrown conspiracy theorist, Naomi Klein, made a surprise guest appearance and lectured last week at a fundraising event held by the anti-Israel group, Queers Against Israeli Apartheid.

Maybe not such a surprise after all.

With her third "surprise" visit to a protest event within a month, Klein is running the risk of becoming the political equivalent of a camp follower.

Klein's speech at the QAIA's "Pride in our politics cabaret" was her typical tirade against the Harper government in general and in particular, towards those opposed to her darling 'Boycott Israel' agenda.

Her choice of words echoed those of her friends Libby Davies and Judy Rebick to the extent that their talking points seem coordinated.

Among Klein's claims were, "There has been a very powerful attack on freedom of expression in this country. A McCarthyite campaign against people who fall outside of the Harper government's version of what we should be saying or doing."

There was a lot of nonsense in Klein's speech but the most glaring and the most frequently parroted lie she and her comrades offer is that the criticism of groups like "Queers Against Israeli Apartheid" or politicians like Libby Davies falls into the category of "McCarthyism."

I'll give Klein the benefit of the doubt and assume she invented that ridiculous accusation to inflame feeling against her ideological opponents, since the alternative is that she has no understanding of the nature of democratic public discourse since the time of Solon 2600 years ago.

In politics and the political framework of shaping public opinion in democratic societies, part of the discourse, aside from putting forward your own position, is to criticize the ideas and the individuals opposed to them. Sometimes that criticism is harsh, but that it part of the political test of fire. If those who seek to sway the course of human events cannot withstand harsh criticism, their course may not be a fit one.

Ms. Klein, like Ms. Rebick and Davies have certainly not been shy in dispensing acrid and unsubstantiated criticism of Stephen Harper. Yet unlike them, he appears to be aware of the nature of democratic discourse and has not resorted to fatuous allegations of "McCarthyism" against his critics.

So looking at this, let's be clear about what McCarthyism is. It is defined as:

n. 1.The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.

2.The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.

(from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

Regarding the first definition, whether "disloyalty" to Israel by a Canadian politician or political action group is relevant or had been brought up remains doubtful. Obviously there is no expectation of loyalty by Davies or QAIA to Israel nor should there be. While Israel is an ally of Canada, "loyalty" to a foreign country is by no means requisite to any Canadian. The issue regarding Israel and accusations of its being "apartheid" are essentially foreign policy questions which are always contentious and open to debate in Canada. Davies and groups attacking Israel are being criticised in the course of public policy and foreign policy debates.

So within the context of criticism in a public policy debate, what about the question of "insufficient regard to evidence" and "the use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition?" In this, the accusation of "McCarthyism" is preposterous.

What is the "evidence" being used against Davies and QAIA? Their own words.

Both Davies and QAIA have publicly stated that they support a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel. This contravenes Canadian national foreign policy and in Davies' case, the policy of the political party of which she is deputy leader. Davies' videoed statement where she said, after being given a choice of dates, that the "occupation" of Palestine began in 1948, the year of Israel's creation as a modern state, clearly suggests she questions its legitimacy. If, as Davies later claimed, her use of that date was a "completely inadvertent error", she has made absolutely no subsequent retraction of her support for sanctions and a boycott of Israel. And QAIA, like Klein, very actively support that campaign against Israel.

Calling for sanctions against a country and offering one-sided criticisms without applying context, which in Israel's case is that of a country defending itself in an armed conflict, suggests that Davies, Klein, Judy Rebick, and QAIA in fact do not recognize Israel's legitimacy. They have a right to do so. What is striking is that they appear to believe that right, which they exercise in an effort to sway public opinion, exempts them from any criticism.

It is on the basis of their publicly stated positions that opponents, like Stephen Harper and for that matter, the leadership of the Canadian Liberal Party, have resolutely criticised Davies and her cohorts.

That is the nature of public policy debate in a democracy. People put forward their positions and opposing sides and individuals criticize each other. Sometimes in robust and acrimonious ways, but that is the nature of political debate.

It is a method that Klein, Rebick and Davies engage in routinely and yet hypocritically decry when the same methods are employed towards them.

If anyone is guily of "McCarthyism" in this debate, it is Klein, Davies, Rebick and QAIA, with their blatantly false accusations of, ""There has been a very powerful attack on freedom of expression in this country. A McCarthyite campaign against people who fall outside of the Harper government's version of what we should be saying or doing."

Other clear examples of leftist McCarthyism are Judy Rebick's absurd claims that Stephen Harper is an "autocrat" who has gotten "rid of almost all our democratic rights" and "The attack on Libby [by Harper] is a sexist attack as well as an anti-democratic attack, an attack on reducing freedom of speech in this country."  (Note the similarity of language used by Klein and Rebick.)
 
Another example Klein uses to support her allegations of "McCarthyism" and deprivation of "free speech" by Harper in his government's cutting off funds to certain agencies that have been deemed to promote goals which are not consistent with the government's foreign policy objectives.
 
Again, Klein betrays either a dishonesty or a lack of understanding about both "McCarthyism" and "free expression."

Cutting off government funding isn't an attack on free expression, it's the revokation of public financing for narrowly focused special interest groups whose agenda conflicts with government policy. We live in a democracy and we give those powers to our political representatives. If we don't like the way they use those powers, we as citizens in a democracy have the right to revoke them in elections and install a new government that enacts different policies.
 
Ms Klein's problem is not that Canada is without free expression. Her problem is that she has been and remains on the losing side of a public debate.
 
Klein is right about one thing.  There is, as she says, an "attack on freedom of expression in this country. A McCarthyite campaign against people.."
 
What she doesn't admit is that she is not the victim, but is actually the perpetrator of that "McCarthyite" campaign.
 
 

In the category of 'So Dumb It Has To Be Seen To Be Believed': The Libby Davies controversy explained by Judy Rebick

There isn't a lot I can say in favour of the lunatic fringe of the NDP, but one thing I absolutely adore about them is that they don't seem to be able to stand in front of a video camera without saying something so mind-bogglingly idiotic that it completely undermines their credibility.

Now Judy Rebick gives us this week's performance.

She provides us with the answer to why Stephen Harper attacked Libby Davies so unrelentingly about her ill-informed, hostile performance in the video Voltaire's Ghost alerted CanWest reporters about.


Reasonable people would answer that question in a number of ways:

• a) Face Value: Harper is condemning Davies for her biased and ill-informed attempt to delegitimize the only democracy in the middle east and her outright hostility to Israel by wanting to harm it through sanctions.
• b) Obvious Political Agenda #1:  Any time you can weaken your political opponents, it's good for you, and Davies' idiotic performance was a vulnerability of the NDP's abundantly opportune for exploitation.
• c) Obvious Political Agenda #2: All the other parties had come to an agreement about the terms related to the documents pertaining to the Afghan Detainees turned over to Afghan forces by the Canadian military. The NDP was the one party that opposed those terms and was hoping to use it as an issue to attack the government. By turning around and picking at the open wound of the NDP's that Davies inflicted, Harper was able to deflect from the Afghan issue.
• d) Not-so-Obvious Political Agenda #1: An NDP/Liberal merger, of which there have been rumours aplenty, presented a potential problem for the Tories (although there are convincing arguments to the contrary). By highlighting just how looney the Looney Left Davies faction of the NDP is, it precludes the Liberals' ability to merge with a party whose views are so off the mainstream.
• e) Conspiracy Theory #1: Harper is an agent of the Evil Zionists. A popular and consistent theory among the far-left fringes of the NDP. No one with a modicum of intelligence takes it seriously, but that criterion excludes the far-left fringes of the NDP. 

All pretty straight forward and lots of people could have anticipated those explanations. even the crazy conspiracy theory.

But Judy Rebick, prominent left-wing commentator and the founder of the Marxist-leaning, union-financed propaganda organ rabble.ca has come up with a theory about Harper's reaction that no (sane) observer could have expected.

At a recent forum sponsored by rabble, Rebick provided the audience with this theory about the motivation for Harper's condemnation of Libby Davies over her comments suggesting Israel has no legitimacy as a country and her calling for sanctions against Canada's most reliable mid-east ally.

Rebick said it is because...

Stephen Harper is a sexist.

Now that one, I didn't see coming.

You can see it in this video:




There are number of utterly preposterous, hypocritical and frankly rather stupid allegations that Rebick makes in this video that reflect the thinking of the far-left fringes of the NDP that should be examined in a bit of detail.

By now, readers of this blog are familiar with the Libby Davies video that
Rebick unintelligently characterizes as a "set-up." Rebick also is unapologetic about her belief that the State of Israel had no right to be founded in 1948.

Rebick goes on to say Davies got "mixed up" about the dates. A view of the Davies video would seemingly refute that and for someone who has taken such a vociferous position against Israel to be so ignorant, or "mixed up" about the facts says a great deal but there's more. Much more.

Rebick states that "the democratic system in Canada is one of the narrowest and weakest in the world."

One wonders to which other democratic system Rebick is comparing Canada's. Would it be to Turkey's vibrant democracy that outlaws discussion of the Armenian Genocide they continue to deny? Perhaps the Iranian democracy, where candidates must be approved by the Supreme Council of mullahs? I suppose she prefers American democracy and in this I would agree, I think we would benefit form a separation of the Executive and Legislative branches like in the US. But I suspect America wasn't what Rebick had in mind.

Rebick then states that Stephen Harper is an "autocrat" who has gotten "rid of almost all our democratic rights."

What rights Rebick is talking about that we have been rid of are unclear. None have been eliminated to my knowledge. Canadians have free speech, free and open elections, and an independent judiciary with rule of law. We still have a country where Judy Rebick can harp and criticize and even slander the highest elected official in this country without any criminal repercussion. She probably is referring to the "democratic right" of her and public figures she agrees with to attack and criticize others without being criticized in return.

Obviously, Ms. Rebick's understanding of Democratic Rights leaves much to be desired.

At 4:45 in the video, Rebick states, "The attack on Libby is a sexist attack as well as an anti-democratic attack, an attack on reducing freedom of speech in this country."

(I'll assume Rebick meant an 'attack on freedom of speech' rather than an "attack on reducing freedom of speech" since her meaning, as stupid as her argument is, is that Harper is against free speech.)

Does that mean that Bob Rae and Marc Garneau, who have also called for Davies' resignation, are anti-democratic, free-speech hating, sexists as well?

To to put it in a nutshell, Rebick believes that public figures like her and Libby Davies, who seek to influence public opinion, should be allowed to say what they like and criticize whatever and whomever they like, in any way, including baseless nonsense, and yet they should be free of any criticism in return. And if you do criticize or in the case of Libby Davies, even draw attention to what they are saying and advocating, you are "attacking free speech."

Rebick makes what is clearly the most hypocritical and what may well be the stupidest argument I have ever heard within the realm of public discourse.

What is particularly worrisome about Davies and Rebick is that a great deal of their anger about Davies' comments coming to the forefront of public attention is about the views they hold being exposed.

Davies is not being mischaracterized about her views. She is being publicised for them. That she is upset about her positions being exposed to the public is exactly what the public has to fear from Davies and those within the NDP whose support she commands.


COMING SOON: Libby Davies, Judy Rebick and their misrepresentations about "McCarthyism" and freedom of speech.