-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