Green party – Page 2

BDS infiltrates Greens

In a turn of events that party regulars and, really, no Canadians anticipated, Elizabeth May is spending her vacation this week considering whether to resign as leader of the Green Party of Canada.

The impetus, apparently, is her party’s decision at its recent convention to adopt a resolution that attacks Israel and calls for boycotting, divesting from and sanctioning the Jewish state. It’s all part of a movement (shorthanded BDS) that hides behind the language of human rights to separate Israel from the community of nations, while ignoring not just the atrocities perpetrated by the Palestinian governments of Hamas and Fatah but also the most serious human rights abuses in the world.

May made it clear before the convention that she opposed the resolution, though most delegates probably did not realize it was a stay-or-quit litmus for the leader. After the vote, May complained that the issue was not subjected to a fulsome debate at the convention and that she did not have the opportunity to explain why she opposed the policy and why delegates should join her in rejecting BDS. Still, most delegates would surely have known how their leader – who earlier this year was endorsed in a leadership review with a whopping 93% – stood on the issue, given extensive media coverage.

There was something odd even in some of the remarks by opponents of the BDS policy, which emphasized the electoral albatross BDS would hang around the party’s neck, rather than the inherent immorality and hypocrisy of BDS. Critics seemed to assume BDS is a vote-loser, but is this assumption based on the fact that informed Canadians would oppose the movement? Or on the stereotype-founded idea that messing with the “Zionist lobby” is a no-win proposition? This may be unfair criticism if we assume rational people equate immoral, hypocritical policies with electoral failure.

May has spent a decade attempting to put the Green Party of Canada on the political map and succeeded, in 2011, in becoming the first Green MP elected to Canada’s House of Commons. She was reelected in 2015. She is almost certainly the only Green party public figure most Canadians can identify. Without her at the helm, the party would lose its sole recognizable face.

After the convention vote, May said there were plenty of issues she was happy to defend going into the next federal election, but BDS is not one of them. The anti-Israel movement has put her in this spot and it is an object lesson for Canadian politics more broadly.

BDS is a parasitic movement, attempting to infiltrate vulnerable hosts like the Green party and other well-intentioned trade unions, academic groups and social justice movements with an ideology that is not progressive at all, but anti-democratic and anti-intellectual.

BDS, and the anti-Israel movement more broadly, has attempted and in many cases succeeded in convincing progressive Canadians that they share values and ideals. Had the Green party engaged in the fulsome debate May says she wishes had happened, there would have been an opportunity to point out that BDS presents a one-sided, unbalanced interpretation of events that does not advance peace, that demonizes Israel and that makes common cause with the world’s most misogynist, homophobic and illiberal forces.

It was when the New Democratic Party of Canada was at its lowest ebb, in the 1990s and early 2000s, that the party’s policy was co-opted by extremists who used the language of human rights to advance an anti-Israel agenda that was anything but rights-oriented. Since then, the anti-Israel movement (because, as we have reiterated here, “pro-Palestinian” does not do justice to the injustices the movement excuses) has tried to graft itself onto any emerging cause.

It began, most visibly, with the eccentric Queers Against Israeli Apartheid – who privilege official Palestinian oppression of LGBTQ people over the reality that Israel is (at the very least) an oasis of freedom for gay people in a desert of sexual repression – and has spread to other movements, including Black Lives Matter.

Black Lives Matter, a desperately necessary effort to confront police violence and systemic discrimination against African-Americans, recently adopted a manifesto rife with boilerplate loathing of Israel and attestations of support for the national cause of Palestinians. Black Lives Matter has no foreign policy, except inasmuch as smearing Israel constitutes a worldview.

Why? Because the anti-Israel movement is adept at playing on the guilt of progressive people and movements to advance an agenda that is, at root, backward, violence-justifying and ignorant of history.

The BDS movement succeeded in co-opting the Green party into adopting its regressive position and now, depending on May’s decision on her future, may have done irreparable harm to the party, as BDS continues to harm the prospect of peace in the Middle East and a better life for Palestinians, the ostensible beneficiaries of the movement.

A chance to educate

Monika Schaefer is a violin instructor in the Alberta mountain town of Jasper. She was also a candidate for the Green Party of Canada in the federal elections of 2006, 2008 and 2011. Last week, a video went viral of Schaefer declaring that, after “a great deal of time researching this topic,” she has concluded that what Canadians have been taught about the Holocaust is rife with “inaccuracies.”

“When I started to look at the evidence, and I researched, and I researched and I researched, and the lies are coming apart,” she told the CBC. “This house of cards is crumbling, and that is why there is this very fierce reaction against what I’m saying, because this lie, this public myth, has shaped our world.”

She calls the Holocaust “the six million lie” and “the biggest and most pernicious and persistent lie in all of history.”

With all the things happening in the world today, the misguided ramblings of a soundly defeated candidate for Parliament is far from the most crucial issue we face as a civilization. Yet, the incident deserves consideration.

Despite that the Green party is being rightly condemned for anti-Israel resolutions set for debate at its upcoming national convention, let’s not attribute to an entire group the poison of one of its (soon-to-be-former) members. Holocaust denial and antisemitism have been expressed across the political spectrum and no party has a monopoly on that. Green party leader Elizabeth May responded immediately and appropriately, condemning Schaefer’s comments and moving to have her membership in the party revoked. That is one positive outcome.

The most generous assessment of the video is that Schaefer herself, who is of German heritage, is a victim of the collective trauma of Nazism. As the director of community relations and communications for the Jewish Federation of Edmonton, Tal Toubiana, told the CBC: “I find it curious that a woman who allegedly faced bullying based on her country of origin would rather continue a cycle of irreflexive hate than reflect deeply on the wounded history and trauma the Holocaust did create.… The Holocaust is a historical event that is not only undeniable in regards to the facts and documentation of its existence, but in the collective trauma it created. Ms. Schaefer is a product of the very trauma she claims does not exist.”

This is a very insightful analysis. It is easy to dismiss the people who conjure such fabrications as irredeemably wicked, but to adopt a more humane response in the face of inhumane statements would invite us to wonder what personal circumstance would lead an individual to such a distorted and easily disprovable worldview.

This appears to be the first public utterance Schaefer has made on the subject and perhaps it will open the door for her to be confronted with facts and have the sources upon which her deeply flawed conclusions rest debunked. Whatever happens in this instance, little is to be gained by demonizing the individual even though we rightly demonize her words.

Each time such an incident occurs is an opportunity to return to the basics and realize that we still have work to do. We need continued vigilance and we must educate all people, especially young people, about history.

Googling Schaefer’s name confirms this. Her ideas attract some breadth of support in the dusty extremities of the internet, where she is lauded as a “truth revealer and free speech advocate.” It is, of course, impossible to tell whether the hordes of online comments coming to her defence represent a sizable cohort or a tiny but prolific cluster of keyboard pounders. What they certainly represent is an unadulterated reminder that shockingly inhumane ideas retain sway among some of our fellow citizens.

There are now human rights complaints lodged against Schaefer in the Alberta and Canadian human rights commissions and already Schaefer is positioning herself as a martyr.

“Right now, the issue for me is freedom of speech,” she told a Jasper news outlet. “Last I checked, I thought we had freedom of speech in Canada and suddenly I’m the criminal.”

Wrong again. By law, Schaefer is innocent until proven guilty, so she is not “suddenly” a criminal. Moreover, her research fails her once more. Canada has freedom of speech, but not without limitations. To become the criminal Schaefer contends she already is would require proof that she intended to incite hatred against an identifiable group. This is a very difficult motivation to prove.

Whatever happens in the quasi-judicial processes Schaefer faces, we should be heartened by the response of many of Schaefer’s fellow residents of Jasper and we should take the opportunity to recommit ourselves to sharing the truth.

Greens’ true colors?

Voters in the United Kingdom – well, in England and Wales, at least – have decided to quit the European Union. The referendum last week turned British politics, and world economic markets, upside down.

The potential for a Scottish withdrawal from the United Kingdom is again front and centre. More than this, politicians and commentators worldwide are extrapolating the vote’s meaning across Europe and North America to try to comprehend the potential impacts of a coalescence of disgruntled, anti-elitist, populist, nativist and xenophobic tendencies. Already, the result seems to have given licence to some people to act out on xenophobic hatred, with numerous incidents of verbal and physical assaults against visible minorities reported across Britain in just the couple of days following the referendum.

Among those who supported the losing “Remain” campaign are some who threaten to move to Canada. This is a default for Americans and now, apparently, Brits who dislike the democratic outcomes in their own countries. The Canada strategy is much talked about but rarely executed. Ironically, people from countries that move toward exclusionary practices and tightened immigration policies assume that Canada is an uncategorically welcoming place that would greet them with open arms. On Canada Day, of all times, we should take it as a compliment that our reputation is one of haven and acceptance.

And yet … while Europe may be aflame with xenophobia and demagoguery, Canada is not immune to strains of something nasty. The current example comes from none other than Canada’s Green party.

For a movement that ostensibly subscribes to the precept of thinking globally and acting locally, the policy resolutions for the party’s August convention are starkly parochial. Only two items proposed for consideration approach foreign affairs issues – and both attack Israel.

One resolution calls for the party to join the BDS movement to boycott, divest from and sanction the Jewish state. More hypocritically still, the Green party is seeking to have the Jewish National Fund of Canada’s charitable status revoked. That a Green party would target one of the world’s oldest and most successful environmental organizations is symptomatic of something irrational in the mindset of those who promulgated the resolution. Whether it advances to the convention floor – and what happens then – will tell us a great deal about the kind of people who make up the Green Party of Canada.

In a world where human-made and natural catastrophes seem unlimited, from the entire population of Green party members across Canada, only two statements of international concern bubble to the surface – and both are broadsides against the Jewish people.

Elizabeth May, the party’s leader and sole MP, said she opposes both resolutions but, since the determination of policy is made on the basis of one member one vote, there is a limited amount she can do. She met last week with Rafael Barak, Israel’s ambassador to Canada, and said the Green party’s support for Israel’s right to exist is “immovable.”

We’ll see.

May on foreign, domestic issues

Green party leader Elizabeth May. (photo from Elizabeth May’s office)

“Let’s face it, Israel is a miracle in the world – in innovation, and science and technology, solar energy!” Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May told the Independent in an interview last week.

While the Green party passed a motion last year against the expansion of settlements in Israel, which they claim are illegal and pose an obstacle to a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, May noted that there is a Green Party of Israel, and shared some of its accomplishments. She said her party supports Israel and the collaboration of Canada with Israel, particularly on science, technology and climate change.

She added, “I think that it really needs to be stressed that world peace depends on Canada playing a role where we command respect from a lot of different communities and support for the state of Israel has never marginalized Canada in the world, never. But, aligning ourselves with only one of the political threads of the Israeli body politic, basically being a pro-Likud country, reduces our influence in the world, for sure. And our influence in the world is needed for many things, including striving for peace in the Middle East – real, durable, sustainable peace, so we don’t have Israeli children or Palestinian children fearing for their lives.

“The Green party has always condemned Hamas, we condemn Hezbollah, we also want the response [to their actions] to be proportional, so it’s a very difficult issue and I don’t think it helps in our democracy when we can’t discuss it. I’ll clearly say that we draw a very strong line [between] any campaigns that criticize Israel, I think that’s legitimate, [and] any campaign that criticizes Israel but has at its base an even hidden agenda of antisemitism. I think we can spot that pretty quickly, and we’ve always condemned those.”

While prime ministers Stephen Harper and Binyamin Netanyahu opposed the Iran nuclear deal, May said, “We think it’s a good thing. We think that you can’t risk having Iran have nuclear weapons. You can’t take a chance on missing the opportunity for diplomacy to give you inspections – they are real. They’re not even going to implement the lifting of sanctions till Iran shows good faith and allows for inspections…. I think it’s important to say trust but verify.

“We also recognize that, if we’re going to solve the crisis in Syria, we have got to start making more alliances in the region and Iran could play a significant role. I think, obviously, that was on [U.S. President] Barack Obama’s mind in pursuing an agreement with Iran … we do not have enough natural enemies of ISIS [the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] and extremism. Leaving Libya as a failed state was a mistake in the region, so we’re very concerned with the big picture, and maybe you have to take some water in your wine sometimes.”

If there were a Green government, May said she would consider deploying Canada’s military in action on foreign soil with a United Nations sanction, “which makes it legal under international law. We’re global, we have Greens in 80 countries around the world. We believe that you act within international law, with a UN approval. That’s one of the tragedies with the Libyan engagement, of course, was that we used the responsibility to protect with a UN sanction then, midway through, changed the mission to regime change, and we really contaminated the usefulness of responsibility to protect for future missions.

“… I could see Canada participating now in a mission that involved troops on the ground if it was to fortify the border between Syria and Turkey to stop the flow of black marketability. ISIS is funding itself in the millions through black-market operations, both its sale of black-market oil and its sale … of antiquities from the archeological and culturally significant sites they are looting. We should be using all of the tools at our disposal to stem the flow of money to ISIS….”

“But, for instance, I could see Canada participating now in a mission that involved troops on the ground if it was to fortify the border between Syria and Turkey to stop the flow of black marketability. ISIS is funding itself in the millions through black-market operations, both its sale of black-market oil and its sale … of antiquities from the archeological and culturally significant sites they are looting.

“We should be using all of the tools at our disposal to stem the flow of money to ISIS, but the recent figures – I saw today in the press that the number of recruits to ISIS has grown and, I have to say, of course! That’s why they wanted the West to come at them. If the West comes at them, that’s their best recruiting tool…. What they’ve done in terms of recruiting youth through social media tools, what they’ve done through brutal, sadistic and public murders, it’s unprecedented historically. Their brutality is not unprecedented historically but their techniques, like social media, are, so you have to ask yourself, why are they putting beheadings and tortures on YouTube? They want to recruit from the West and they want to excite Western nations to retaliate.

“And,” she added, “I think we have to ask ourselves, what’s Saudi Arabia doing? There’s certainly a lot of concern that Saudi Arabia is actually supporting ISIS. We need to have a significant effort involving all regional governments to end the war in Syria. If we have the focus on ending the war in Syria, shutting down ISIS becomes one of the many objectives.”

On security domestically, including Bill C-51, May said, “I supported that community and Jewish schools and facilities should have additional funding for security and that it should be government funded. C-51 is in another category altogether because C-51 actually makes us less safe against terrorists in every way.”

In 2012, with Bill C-38, she said, “Stephen Harper’s administration eliminated the inspector general for CSIS [Canadian Security Intelligence Service]. In 2015, they bring out C-51, which says CSIS can now – [with] what was in C-44 in December – is CSIS can … operate overseas and domestically, can collect intelligence and can act … [with] access to something that doesn’t exist in any other democracy anywhere around the world, which is access to a private, secret hearing to get a warrant for constitutional breach.”

With C-51, she said, there is no oversight. “It’s not a question of inadequate oversight,” she stressed. “Zero oversight of the RCMP, zero oversight of CSIS, zero oversight of the Canadian Border Services Agency, zero oversight of CSEC [Communications Security Establishment Canada]…. You take this together and – what a former MI-5 agent testifying to the Senate said was that – Canada has created a tragedy waiting to happen. If C-51 had been drafted as the legislative tool to implement the recommendations from the Air India inquiry, it wouldn’t look anything like it now looks. It would be about your intelligence agencies having pinnacle control, somebody know[ing] what everybody else is doing. Israel would never put in place a zoo like this. This is a three-ring circus with no ringmaster, and it’s dangerous.”

“We opened up our doors to ‘boat people’ from Vietnam. You could have made the same case – you could have said, there could be communist sympathizers who are sneaking into Canada. Now, the reality of the situation in Syria is that people are fleeing Syria because you can’t live there. The extent of the violence, there are very few areas of the country that are untouched by it.”

With respect to the refugee crisis, and balancing the acceptance of more immigrants with security, given that these refugees are coming from countries that inculcate antisemitism and anti-West views, May said, “We do apply security screens when people come to Canada. We always have. We opened up our doors to ‘boat people’ from Vietnam. You could have made the same case – you could have said, there could be communist sympathizers who are sneaking into Canada. Now, the reality of the situation in Syria is that people are fleeing Syria because you can’t live there. The extent of the violence, there are very few areas of the country that are untouched by it.

“I’ve helped some Syrian families reunite and I’ve known the extreme fear and terror that young men live under if they do not want to be captured by any one of the rival forces and forced into servitude,” she continued. “The military in Syria – whether it’s Bashar al-Assad’s forces … [or those that] oppose Bashar al-Assad – they’re all looking for people for their army. These young men that are fleeing, these young families that are fleeing, older people, are trying to get away from a war zone, and they are legitimate refugees. That said, we have a security screening process. They get interviewed before they come to Canada. We can create a situation where we know [through] ongoing surveillance and interviews for anyone. And, within the community itself, there’s a strong degree of networking that would not want someone coming here who posed a threat to them. We really can put in place effective security.

“Stephen Harper announced in January that we would accept 10,000 Syrian refugees and, having worked to try to bring refugee families to Canada, I absolutely say this is a system that was designed not to work. On one hand, he promised 10,000 refugees would be able to come to Canada; with the other hand, he made it impossible to accept them, which is devastating and tragic. I understand the fear, I’m not discounting it. I’ve been so impressed with the number of Jewish communities and religious leaders within the Jewish community who’ve called for us to accept more refugees. I think it matters. We call on accepting more but, obviously, not without security checks.”

May and the Green party have had to be innovative to get their ideas across during this campaign. When May was not invited to the Globe and Mail’s leaders debate on Sept. 17, for example, she countered with Twitter. Figures from North Strategic were cited in the media: “May was mentioned in 1,799 tweets in a 24-hour period leading up to the Calgary debate. That was about 300 more than NDP leader Tom Mulcair but fewer than Conservative leader Stephen Harper and Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.” May apparently gained 5,000 Twitter followers after the debate.

“… this may be the least fair election yet because the public expects to see all the leaders in a national televised leadership debate before the election is over, and … we are unlikely to have a single additional English language debate, and none that are broadcast nationally.”

“In terms of the fairness of the elections,” she told the Independent, “this may be the least fair election yet because the public expects to see all the leaders in a national televised leadership debate before the election is over, and it hasn’t been really explained in the media that, as things now stand, we are unlikely to have a single additional English language debate, and none that are broadcast nationally.”

In responding to a question about her party’s approach to the economy, May eschewed labels.

“Our solutions, and our view is, too, that we are not left or right,” she said. “If there’s a solution to a problem that comes from what we might say is a free-market, right-wing toolkit of solutions, like a pricing mechanism, we’ll use that, if it works. But, if you need a regulation, we’ll use regulation.

“So, our fee-and-dividend approach is less free market than Tom Mulcair’s cap-and-trade – he says the market will determine the price for carbon, I heard him say that the other night…. We’re pragmatic more than anything else. But, Greens around the world, where Greens have been in government, the kinds of programs we put in place really work…. We’re the only party left that opposes free-trade deals if they include investor-state agreements.”

As an example, she gave the Green party’s opposition to the Canada-China investment treaty. “It amazes me that it didn’t ever really get understood by the media, we never had a vote in Parliament on it, and we are trapped in the Canada-China investment treaty till the year 2045 without any real discussion of it and what it means to have the People’s Republic of China have the right to sue us for decisions we make they don’t like. I’m hopeful that, after this next election, with a minority Parliament, we can bring forward some legislation to require transparency, so that when China complains, there’s an obligation on governments to make that public, to make it known.”

The Independent has interviewed Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, Minister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism Jason Kenney and has an invitation out to NDP leader Thomas Mulcair. The federal election is on Oct. 19.