Ridiculous statements

Editorial

To promote its Nov. 26 debate on the topic, Toronto’s Munk Debates hired Ipsos Reid to conduct a survey of some 2,000 Canadians and Americans on whether they agreed with the statement “the world cannot tolerate an Iran with nuclear weapons capability.”

Leaving aside the reason why the statement wasn’t simplified – asking whether the world could tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran would make it “yes the world can” or “no the world can’t,” versus the more confusing “yes the world can’t” and “no the world can” – the way in which debate co-organizer and moderator Rudyard Griffiths used the results to make at least two outlandish unsubstantiated statements was a mind-bending feat of illogic that would be hilarious if the implications weren’t so potentially dangerous.

In sum, the poll showed that 92 percent of Americans (63 percent strongly, 29 percent somewhat) and 91 percent of Canadians (59 percent strongly, 32 percent somewhat) agree that a nuclear-capable Iran is intolerable for the world. These results were also broken down geographically, but there were no other findings.

There seems to be no other similar poll on the Ipsos Reid or Munk Debates websites indicating that people’s opinion was any different a month ago or a year ago or whenever ago they were last surveyed – it seems that there have been no such previous surveys with this specific question. However, on the Ipsos Reid site there are the results of a Munk Debates-commissioned poll conducted just before this news-making one, showing that 41 percent of Canadians (a minority) “said they would support their country’s military participating in a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities.”

Keeping these two sets of results in mind, and the lack of any previous surveys for comparative purposes, consider the following statements by Griffiths in Postmedia News papers across Canada:

• He is paraphrased in an article as saying, “Canada’s role in past governments has always been to try to be a broker between conflicting sides in the Middle East.” He then is quoted, “Since Harper was elected as prime minister, foreign policy has shifted to be very much supportive of Israel’s position ... and I think it brought public opinion with them.” Relatedly, he said, “Many people, I think, were assuming that this government was somehow out of step with public opinion when it comes to its very hawkish, hard-line stance on Iran. When, in fact, I think they’re both shifting public opinion but they’re also being led by public opinion.”

• Griffiths is also paraphrased as saying, “One argument is that logic would follow that if people can’t tolerate a nuclear-capable Iran, then they would also support a preemptive strike – or a series of them over a number of years – to permanently degrade Iran’s enrichment capacity.”

For readers unfamiliar with the Munk Debates, which take place twice a year in Toronto, according to its website, the event is “a signature initiative of the Aurea Foundation, founded in 2006 by Peter and Melanie Munk to support Canadian institutions involved in the study and development of public policy.” Says Peter Munk on the website, “Our philanthropy is aimed primarily at improving the quality and vitality of public debate in Canada.” He and his wife should think seriously about spending their money elsewhere if Griffiths’ comments are any indication of the quality of the organization.

In the first instance, based on a serious lack of data – i.e. no data – Griffiths concludes that the Canadian public has radically shifted its opinion on nuclear proliferation, Israel, Iran and war.

In the second instance, based on “logic,” he floats the idea that the Canadian public supports a preemptive strike against Iran – despite data from a survey paid for by his own organization that a majority of Canadians think the exact opposite!

It is anyone’s guess as to Griffiths’ intent in making such statements. Hopefully, it was nothing more than an attempt to sell more tickets to the debates. A promotional stunt to get free advertising in the guise of news coverage is one thing, but to attempt to fear-monger and mislead our nation into attacking Iran, or any other country, would be completely irresponsible, and having such a clearly partisan debate organizer doesn’t seem like it would be conducive to sound Canadian public policy development.

Two things are certain, however: the “author of the 2009 Globe and Mail book of the year, Who We Are: A Citizen’s Manifesto,” who “has edited 14 collections of essays on Canadian and international political and historical themes,” cannot plead ignorance, and the news outlets that didn’t challenge his ridiculous statements should be ashamed.

^TOP