Sometimes I wish I was more like the Cons and many of their supporters, able to view the world and the human condition simply in terms of black and white, yin and yang, with us or against us.
Let’s face it, life would be simpler if one never had to think in shades of gray – no nuance, no subtlety, no opinions other than your own to consider. No debate or intelligent discussion, just yelling matches.
I thought of this today when the news broke that maybe Omar Khadr would cop a guilty plea in the hopes of coming back to Canada to serve out his sentence. I expect that’s a faint hope, and it will happen only over Harper’s cold, dead (political) body, but that didn’t stop the wingnuts from commenting in their usual erudite fashion.
- “Terorrists(sic) don't have RIGHTS!!!”
- “I don't give a rat's @ss about this home grown terrorist. He should have been shot in the face back on the battle field.”
- “Personally I think he deserves to hang!”
The US military’s story on Khadr is so full of holes you could drive a Humvee through it. But regardless of the legality of the case and the guilt (or innocence) of this man, he is entitled to due process. And as a Canadian, he is entitled to it here, whether the Harperites like it or not.
But to understand that requires some thought, and thinking is in awfully short supply on the far right side of the political spectrum. Which is not so surprising because thinking is difficult and, done well, doesn’t always result in a reaffirmation of preconceived views. Heaven forbid considering another perspective or alternative viewpoint, that’s for elites.
And do I really wish I could see the world in simple black and white terms? Of course not. I can think of little that would be more horrible, more mind-numbingly dull, than not being able to consider multiple sides of a situation and be able to take a considered position based on a rational understanding of the facts rather than simply ideology and fear.
10 comments:
God, I hope you didn't pull a muscle patting yourself on the back for being so much smarter than us dumb rednecks. Hyuk.
How fitting that a redneck imbecile that goes by the name RAT, shows up and validates your premise! Awesome!
Anon@10:53 - I know. Predictable though.
Some people cannot think for themselves. They confuse the axiom, "Knowledge is Power" and instead, believe "Power is Knowledge."
While I cannot speak for all Canadians (especially the Conservatives) I believe most of us subscribe to the premise that everyone (even refugees who are not Canadian citizens) are entitled to "due process". Regardless of how heinous or objectionable we may personally find a particular action, "due process MUST prevail. To do otherwise, in my view, flies in the face of true Canadian values and we must speak out against that loudly. My 2cents worth.
Funny you should mention this. I was just thinking how convenient it must be to be Liberal, and never have to acknowledge simple stuff like right and wrong, good and bad, guilty and innocent. To see nothing BUT shades of gray must be so easy for you...
Can you point to any legal case law that would allow due process for Khadr in Canada.
And even if that was true, then the thousands of Canadians in other foreign slammers would be able to come home on the same plane as Khadr.
Fred - That would be small-l liberal to you. And rather than simple I would call it simplistic to believe that a bi-polar view of the world does anything but create and foster division and antagonism. I know that's Harper's modus operandi, but it wasn't always the Conservative way - certainly not the Progressive Conservatives - and it does ALL Canadians a disservice.
The Progressive Conservatives were the small-l liberals...that's how the Reform Party started. And I have no illusions about how the world works, either. Our past reputation as an "honest broker for peace" is a flowery way of saying we were too afraid to take a stand on anything. Back in the days of the Cold War, the USA and Soviet Union would fight wars by proxy, when it was time for the fighting to end (after certain objectives had been achieved), a ceasefire would be called and the so-called 'peacekeepers' would go in and stand around looking smug (they were never in any danger, and they knew it).
Those days are over. Nations don't go to war any more...'factions' do. And they don't listen to anyone, either. So the old ways no longer apply, and it is long past time for Canada to have its own foreign policy. Stephen Harper has given us a good start on this, and I'd rather have the respect of the civilized democracies than kiss the asses of every third-world thug and tyrant to get a useless Security Council seat. "Soft power" and "punching above our weight" were just Liberal buzzwords to cover up the fact that we were international lightweights. No longer, and I couldn't be prouder to be Canadian...
Fred - We're straying off topic here but you raise a few points that are worth comment. I agree that the world has changed in many ways and the likelihood of nations going to war has lessened (but certainly not disappeared). However that doesn't obviate the need for peacemakers/peacekeepers in places where those factions are creating mayhem among the civilian population - Bosnia and Rwanda (disaster though it was) come to mind among others. In fact many, if not most, of Canada's peacekeeping roles have been not between countries at war but between factions within a country.
As for "they were never in any danger, and they knew it", that's cold comfort to the families of the 114 Canadian peacekeepers who have lost their lives over the past 50 years. They were always in danger, and I expect if you were to say otherwise to anyone who's been in Croatia (11 dead), Egypt (53 dead), Cyprus (28 dead), Syria (4 dead), or Congo (3 dead) you'd be quickly dissuaded of that notion.
Canada does have its own independent foreign policy and that independence was most recently seen in Chretien's refusal to be counted among the "coalition of the willing" sent into Iraq. Chretien should have handled it better (and Harper should have supported him at the time if an independent foreign policy was more important to him than cow-towing to the US), but that's the last time Canada has taken a path that differs from that of the US in any significant way.
In the context of the UN Security Council you say you'd "rather have the respect of the civilized democracies than kiss the asses of every third-world thug and tyrant" and here again I agree. But if that was truly the Harper government's position why did they lobby so hard for the seat, kissing lots of "asses" in the process of trying to get a "useless Security Council seat"? I would have had lots more respect for the Harper government if they had come out and said from the get-go that this seat was not that important to Canada, that we weren't going to abrogate our principles to win it, and therefore we would not be standing for election. Now that's a principled position. Instead we get the sore loser ("it wasn't our fault, but we really didn't want it anyway"). In the end the government lobbied hard for the seat and was soundly trounced by those very same "civilized democracies" from whom respect is so important yet also so apparently lacking. In short Canada was left high and dry by those very same governments that we count as friends - including the US - and that says something.
And just in case there's any doubt, I too am a proud Canadian, but that doesn't mean I have to be proud of our current government. They are not the same thing. I no more identify my "Canadianness" with the governing party in power (always a temporary thing) than the fact I happen to own a pair of snowshoes.
Post a Comment