Dare to be optimistic?

Editorial

It is the nature of the coming of a new year that we are filled with hope and optimism that the uncertain future will bring good things. As this year begins, there are many things on our minds and optimism is not always the most immediate response.

There is the matter of Iran's development of nuclear weapons, a nightmare scenario that could lead to a new holocaust. (We warned that optimism isn't always the first response.) This very week, developments are unfolding on this front and it seems certain that this is the year when something will need to be done to prevent the genocidal theocrats of Iran from gaining that capability.

Closer to home, and with far less apocalyptic potential, is the possibility of a federal election – the fourth in five years.

The deadlocked Parliament that has resulted from successive minority governments has sent Canadians to the voting booths almost annually, which is a symptom that our elected officials need to recognize that we are sending them there to cooperate and not merely to battle each other for media supremacy.

There is no reason to believe that another Parliament would bring anything different. Either the disparate parties in minority Parliaments will make it work on an issue-by-issue basis or Canadians may do something utterly unpredictable in response. What might we tired voters do? It's anyone's guess. But deciding en masse to support one party over another for the sole hope of someone getting a majority is a possibility.

This sort of groupthink is not unusual in Canadian politics. Quebecers are especially adept at this. In 1984, to name one example, Brian Mulroney appeared headed for a minority government. Sensing this, and with a historic sense of self-interest and a relish for being on the winning side, Quebecers in riding after riding reversed massive Liberal pluralities from the previous election and voted in almost equally massive numbers for the Conservatives, giving Mulroney the biggest majority in Canadian history.

Barring something like this, if it seems none of these parties can work together, perhaps it will free voters to select candidates who might, such as independents or fringe parties, which could make even more of a mess.

One of the issues that would be at the top of the agenda in the event of such an election would be our military's role in Afghanistan. Warnings are now coming fast that Afghanistan is the new Vietnam and some of those who have supported the Afghan mission are repositioning. The most obvious case made by proponents of Canada finishing the job they started is that it was necessary to secure the political stability of the country, after which military stability and ideally economic growth and social and humanitarian progress would emerge. The apparent electoral fraud that reelected President Hamid Karzai has pulled the rug out from under this entire scenario.

On the one hand, a NATO pullout from Afghanistan – or a pullout of a significant portion of the fighting forces – would give a leg-up to the Taliban and the other extremists for whom stability is not the priority. But, on the other hand, in light of the apparently stolen election, what exactly is the political legitimacy of the regime our soldiers are propping up and, indeed, dying for?

Meanwhile, the outrages here at home pile up. Critics of the Toronto International Film Festival's featuring of Israeli films got the kind of response it deserved when a host of public figures condemned the censorial impulses of the Israel-haters, giving pause to at least one of the original signatories of the condemnatory "Toronto Declaration."

Jane Fonda, whose support for this latest jihad in a teacup reduced her political credibility to a caricature, came to that realization this week, acknowledging that she didn't read the wording closely enough and acknowledging the absurdity of suggesting that Tel Aviv was built on destroyed Palestinian villages. Other fanatics maintained their outlandish position, even in light of films from places like China, Egypt and other dystopias of human rights abuse that did not raise a hint of protest.

In response to the response, Canadian filmmaker John Greyson said that this was just the kind of dialogue for which he was hoping.

"From the start we encouraged others to speak out in whatever way they chose, which they have, by the many hundreds," Greyson said Monday. "The last time I checked, this was called free speech."

The last time we checked, free speech is exactly what banning films is meant to smother. It may be that Greyson and the ideologues who joined his campaign did not expect such a response. This is understandable, since most similar attempts to boycott Israeli ideas, products and people have been met with no such outrage.

So, could this be a turning point? Is it possible that a critical mass has now evolved that will stand up when the next ludicrous attempt emerges to ban ideas or people based on their national origin, a phenomenon universally acknowledged as "racism" in any context but the Israeli one?

In a new year pregnant with uncertainty and potential of all sorts, this would be a very good thing.

^TOP