|
October 10, 2008
Much to sort out in e-mails
Liberal and Conservative supporters battle on the Internet.
CYNTHIA RAMSAY
As the Canadian election approaches, the partisan attacks get nastier and, in the venue where fiction often outweighs fact, debate is rampant. E-mails and counter e-mails have been circulating for weeks, and it's almost impossible to sort out which claims are true and which are false. What follows are some of the threads that could be corroborated. They illustrate the major points of disagreement between the Liberal and Conservative parties, from the point of view of the Jewish community.
One item that comes up more than once in the various e-mails is the election date, which falls on Sukkot. "The Media Action Group," among others, notes that "provisions have been made for you to vote on almost any day in advance of Oct. 14," so criticisms of the Conservative government on that account are not warranted. It then lists some of Harper's accomplishments: the Francophonie Summit in 2006, at which Harper refused to sign a resolution that only expressed sympathy for Lebanese victims of the Second Lebanon War; Harper's unequivocal support for Israel during the 2006 war in Lebanon; and the change of Canada's voting at the United Nations General Assembly to be more in support of Israel. (This last point is key and it will be discussed in further detail below.)
"Any clear thinking individual who wants to combat anti-Semitism or support Israel should know where to place their vote," concludes the Media Action Group. "This, is in addition to the Conservative government achievements, such as making huge reductions to Canadian debt and being fiscally responsible." According to the group's e-mail, some of the other reasons to support the Conservatives are:
• "Canada pulled out of Durban II as soon as it became clear that it was going to be the same kind of anti-Semitic and anti-Western/U.S. hatefest that took place at Durban I."
• "When Michael Ignatieff ... [accused] Israel of having perpetrated war crimes during the Lebanon war, Stephen Harper made it clear that Canada understood that Israel had to defend itself...." (Ignatieff later apologized.)
• "Despite the fact that China is the up and comer in the world both economically and militarily, and despite the large number of Chinese voters in Canada, Stephen Harper has taken a strong position in the support of Tibet and of the Dalai Lama."
• " ... in speeches to the Jewish community ... the prime minister has been unequivocally supportive of Israel, of Western values and of the need to stand up for those values. There is no fence sitting."
• " ... the Tamil Tigers were outlawed as a terrorist organization by the Harper Conservatives after years of Liberal refusal to do so."
• " ... the Liberals put us into Afghanistan, quite properly so. The Conservatives have kept us there, and raised our profile as a nation which is prepared to invest dollars and lives in protecting the rights and lives of others."
• "Harper has stood up and denounced Iran in the strongest of terms for its threats of genocide and its disruptive impact on the Middle East through its support of terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah."
In another e-mail supporting the Conservatives, there was a quote from a Sept. 24 Jewish Tribune article: "Canada's decision to supply its troops in Afghanistan with two Israeli models of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), starting in February 2009, brings to an end a long-standing policy in the defence ministry that had prohibited the purchase of Israeli equipment."
Another e-mail missive was supportive of the Liberals. Sent unsigned, with the subject line "The myth of Stephen Harper's support for Israel and the Canadian Jewish community," it claimed that, if Harper supports Israel, then why did he do a whole host of things that the writer considers anti-Israel. For example, it asks, why did Canada, under Harper, vote in favor of eight UN resolutions censuring Israel in 2006 and abstained or supported 12 UN resolutions censuring Israel in 2007.
In a rebuttal e-mail to the myth e-mail – also unsigned – this claim is refuted with a link to a table outlining the last five years of Canada's voting at the General Assembly, comparing Liberal versus Conservative votes. The rebuttal notes that, "In no case were Harper's votes worse than the Liberals; on many key issues, Harper's votes were more pro-Israel."
Both the Liberal and Conservative supporters seem to have most of the basic facts correct concerning Canada's UN voting record – it is their respective spins that differ; how one defines a resolution as "censoring" or "discriminatory," for example. The most coherent summary of the situation that the Jewish Independent could find is from the Canada-Israel Committee. Its website has all of the data for General Assembly votes going back to 1986 and concludes:
"The Canadian government has continued the three-year trend of re-calibrating Canadian votes on the basket of 20 resolutions relating to 'The Question of Palestine' and other items that single out Israel for annual condemnation at the UN General Assembly. Canada has changed its vote from Abstention to No on the resolutions 'Special information program on the question of Palestine' and 'Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory,' and shifted from a Yes vote in 2006 to Abstention on 'Persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities.' This brings the total number of constructive vote changes to 13 over the past three years."
The myth e-mail goes on to ask, why, if Harper is a friend of Israel, did Canada, in March 2008, vote in favor of the appointment of Richard Falk – a known critic of Israel – as the Human Rights Council rapporteur for the Middle East? The rebuttal contends that Harper‚ in fact, publicly criticized Falk's appointment and, indeed, the Canadian delegate to the UN Human Rights Council did voice Canada's serious concerns about Falk's appointment.
The myth e-mail also asks why did "Conservative members of the foreign affairs sub-committee on international human rights vote against Irwin Cotler's motion to hold Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accountable for its state-sanctioned incitement to genocide?" And, it asked why hasn't Canada tried to hold Iran to account, under the Genocide Convention, to the International Criminal Court or put forward a motion in the UN Security Council referring Ahmadinejad to the International Criminal Court.
The rebuttal counters, "It would be dangerous for Canada to support the power of the United Nations or the International Criminal Court to arrest a sitting head of state, even one as odious as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.... [I]f a vote were ever held at the Security Council on indicting Ahmadinejad, it would be soundly defeated, giving the Iranian hatemonger a propaganda victory."
In response to the criticism that Harper hasn't initiated a trade embargo with Iran, the rebuttal e-mail states, "That is simply false," and goes on to talk about Security Council sanctions against Iran and Canadian exports of purely humanitarian products to Iran, as well as other diplomatic actions by the Canadian government under Harper.
According to the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada website, Canada has limited its encounters with Iranian officials because of the case of Iranian-Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi, who died in Iranian custody in 2003, Iran's human rights record and Iran's nuclear non-proliferation performance. It continues: "No visits or exchanges by Iranian officials to Canada will be permitted, nor will Canadian officials engage with Iran, except relating to these issues. Canada will not block the initiatives of private Canadian companies to trade with their Iranian counterparts. However, we will continue to apply strict export controls on sensitive goods and we will continue to advise business people about the political environment to consider when doing business with Iran. Furthermore, any existing programs of co-operation between Canadian government agencies and their Iranian counterparts will be halted. This state of relations will persist until Iran has taken steps to launch a credible and independent investigation and judicial process into the Kazemi case. We have not decided to recall our ambassador, nor to shut down embassy services. We believe there continues to be a need for professional-level dialogue regarding the serious existing difficulties in our relationship."
In addition to several other questionable claims, the myth e-mail correctly notes that the Liberal party also called upon Canada to not participate in Durban II and that "Only the NDP were equivocal on this issue." It ends with saying that Harper's financial support for at-risk communities – $3 million – is much less than the $75 million program the Liberals proposed earlier this year, which is true, but campaign promise figures often are larger than actual, in-government program allotments.
There is much to sort out in this election, and the advent of e-mail has only made this job more difficult. But there is one thing that all the critics agree on: everyone should vote.
^TOP
|
