Breaching bottom line

Letters

Editor: We all have a bottom line position on some issues. It forms the bedrock of our politics. We believe it is based on truth, shaped by logic and consistent with our ethical principles. When public figures breach that bottom line, regardless of their record on other issues, we cannot support them.

Rene Levesque was a case in point. He won the respect of many Canadians because he favored ideas and legislation they thought important and useful. But the bottom line for most of them was our country's unity; because of his separatism, Levesque lost their support.

Although New Democrat Svend Robinson has done a lot of grandstanding, I have supported his stand on many issues. However, he crossed my bottom line when he attempted to visit Yasser Arafat to demonstrate "solidarity" (his word). He could have chosen among many Palestinians whose actions have been more constructive and who have demonstrated personal courage and integrity. Instead, he chose a man who runs a notoriously corrupt administration in a region not noted for its probity, who has skimmed millions for his foreign bank accounts and who has rewarded the families of suicide bombers while hypocritically decrying terrorism.

When some of Robinson's Jewish constituents charged that he was biased, he self-righteously defended himself and dismissed their concerns.

In March, Robinson will be celebrating his 25th anniversary as a member of Parliament by appearing with Noam Chomsky. In so doing, he will have crashed through an even lower bottom line as far as I am concerned.

Chomsky, after achieving fame as a language theorist, became political guru to the many thousands of his cult followers. He has written and lectured widely on linguistics, philosophy, intellectual history, contemporary issues and international affairs. His works include Language and Mind, Profit Over People and Manufacturing Consent (with E.S. Herman). Many of his followers are uncritical of anything he has stated in his many books and public appearances. They believe he is one of the only people exposing "the hidden truth" and they think that he is motivated solely by noble intentions.

But Chomsky, who happens to be Jewish, has another side. His consummately negative attitude toward the United States and, by extension, Israel, has, for an allegedly conscionable, honest advocate of peace and good will, led him into strange territory. When a French academic, Paul Faurisson, became embroiled in a controversy over his denial of the existence of the Holocaust, Chomsky rushed publicly to his defence. Faurisson was dismissed from his job and found guilty of falsifying history, a crime in France. But his supporters continued to rally around him, including neo-Nazis and Chomsky, who insisted he was only defending free speech. Many of Chomsky's followers accepted his stated motive, but when an Australian professor wrote asking for an explanation, Chomsky raised the ante. "I see no anti-semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust [sic]," Chomsky replied.

Holocaust denial is, of course, the centrepiece of contemporary anti-Semitism, as exemplified by Ernst Zundel and Jim Keegstra, both found guilty in Canada of promoting hatred. Chomsky may have been carried away by his own evidently intemperate approach, but he has had ample time to reconsider and apologize for a bad error of judgment. But that wouldn't be Chomsky. Instead, he continues to stand by his statement. He hurls invective at anyone who cannot understand the "logic" of his position.

The Chomsky-Robinson affair March 20 at the Orpheum was sold out weeks ago. The audience will undoubtedly fervently cheer its two heroes. Nothing new here. Remember the many well-intentioned, idealistic and often highly educated, people who believed that the USSR was the wave of the future? Remember the fervid disarmament advocates who tied democracy's hands when Adolf Hitler was arming for aggressive war and genocide?

It seems that every generation gives birth to passionately held, historically invalid and socially pernicious views. We have to live through them.

Eugene Kaellis
New Westminster

^TOP