Political scientists (II) - Macleans.ca
 

Political scientists (II)


 

Chris Selley considers Jason Kenney and KAIROS.

Heaven only knows what went on here. Maybe it’s just general hamhandedness. Maybe they hoped the benefits reaped whilst people assumed they’d taken a stand against anti-Semitism and/or for Israel would outweigh the damage reaped by disavowing the idea on a day when everyone’s shopping instead of reading the Star. Maybe Ms. Oda really did make the decision on her own, and Mr. Kenney decided he’d try to score some disingenuous points with it in Israel. Whatever happened, it’s a complete insult to Canadians’ intelligence — and Israelis’, come to think of it. And it’s proof positive, as if any was needed, that nobody should put any stock in what any Canadian politician says. Ever. About anything.


 

Political scientists (II)

  1. Entirely right.

    Kenney claimed the Conservatives de-funded the main ecumenical Christian overseas charity in Canada, which is a major advocate for human rights and has had a decades-long relationship with CIDA, on the basis that it supported a boycott of Israel and as such was anti-Semitic. Except that KAIROS doesn't support, and in fact opposes, a boycott of Israel. (Setting aside the entire problem of suggesting that advocating a boycott of a nation due to opposition to its policies is anti-Semitic.) Then the government attempts to deny having said such a thing.

    Everything is politicized by the Conservatives. A foreign aid group that has been working with CIDA since 1973 which CIDA praises for their work is defunded so the government can slander it to the government of Israel.

    A related fact is that KAIROS supports action on climate change, and Harper can't tolerate anything resembling criticism.

  2. Speaking of Ezra Levant, how come he's hasn't gotten a gig at MacLean's? Not desperate enough yet?

  3. Ezra's got a bit of a dilemma on his hands, as Selley points out. Why is Ezra so proud of this firm stance against anti-Semitism if Jason Kenney denies having made it? I look forward to reading Ezra's explanation.

    • He won't explain because none of his readers will demand it. They are getting the take they want to hear, that's why they subscribe. Ezra isn't obliged to be accountable to anyone else.

    • does Ezra still "like this government"? Or, is "difficult to support the federal Conservatives" right now because they are "not being very conservative" again?

      Windbags of a feather….

  4. I'm conservative, and have voted Conservative for the past three elections. Kenney's move is ridiculous. Do you expect, however, that the party of Irwin Cotler will be any less ridiculous on the matter? Let's roll the tape:

    "He is a past president of the Canadian Jewish Congress…Cotler has worked with a group of international jurists to indict Iranian President Ahmadinejad for incitement to genocide under the UN Charter and the Genocide Convention…Cotler separated six categories of anti-Semitism and found thirteen indices of discrimination against Jews that characterizes the "new anti-Jewishness"…Cotler's wife, Ariela, is a native of Jerusalem and worked as a legislative assistant to the Likud members of the Israeli Knesset from 1967 to 1979. source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Cotler

    Conclusion: No. The Liberal party, who have historically attracted 80% of the Jewish vote, contains more radicals on the Israel question than does the CPC, by a longshot. Indeed, it wasn't that long ago that Jewish Liberal MPs such as Elinor Caplan were describing Canadian Alliance members as, quote, ""Holocaust deniers, prominent bigots and racists,"

    Whereas the CPC are cutting funding to groups critical of Israel, if and when the Liberals return to power it is entirely conceivable that they will arrest, detain, and prosecute critics of Israel. I mean seriously: if Cotler wants to extradite Ahmadinejad to the Hague for wishing somewhat ambiguously that Israel, like the Soviet Union, would disappear from the passage of time, imagine what he'll do to Canadians who are more explicit in their criticism.