Mulcair

Will the NDP survive?

While there were signs that the New Democratic Party’s rank and file were somewhat ambivalent about Thomas Mulcair’s leadership, the magnitude of the party’s rejection of him Sunday was stunning. Fully 52% of delegates to the party’s national convention in Edmonton voted for a leadership convention, in effect ousting Mulcair as leader.

The NDP, having almost never been a serious contender for government, has generally been accepting of a leader’s inability to win federal elections. But never had the party been so tantalizingly close to power as it was after Jack Layton’s 2011 result, which catapulted the party into official opposition for the first time. In last October’s election, under Mulcair’s leadership, the party returned to its historic levels: a poor third place.

Mulcair’s ability to remain as head of the party after that showing was destined to be a challenge. Many New Democrats never viewed Mulcair as ideologically pure, coming as he did from the Quebec Liberal party. He became leader in part because many believed he had the experience and capability to build on the Layton legacy and lead the NDP into government for the first time. His failure last October to realize that dream was, in retrospect, the end of the story.

The coup was fairly bloodless. There was little overt campaigning against his leadership and each delegate seems to have made their individual decision, which led to a collective rejection unprecedented in federal politics.

In his short speech to the delegates after the vote results were announced Sunday, Mulcair urged the party to come together in unity behind whoever is to replace him. Yet that seems like extraordinarily wishful thinking.

Mulcair, because he embodied the prospect of electoral success, was able to keep a lid on some of the most extreme elements in his party, including the far-left and the anti-Israel extremists (between which there is a great deal of overlap). At the convention that ousted him, the party gave a thumbs-up in principle to the so-called Leap Manifesto, a hard-left document that could probably guarantee electoral failure for a generation. The party also divided sharply between those who see climate change as a priority challenge and those who believe the party must continue to support workers above all, including those in the host province of Alberta whose industries often contribute to global warming.

So, the question may not be whether the party will now take a left-leaning lurch, as the U.K. Labor party has done, or whether it will pursue the more pragmatic path set by Layton and Mulcair, but rather whether the hard-core leftists and the pragmatic centrists can coexist at all. Especially with the Liberal party sucking the air from the centre-left of the political spectrum, whether the NDP can maintain any sort of cohesion is a bigger question than who will be the next leader.

BDS condemned

The House of Commons this month voted overwhelmingly to condemn BDS, the movement that aims to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel.

The motion, put forward by Conservative members of Parliament Tony Clement and Michelle Rempel, reads fairly simply: “That, given Canada and Israel share a long history of friendship as well as economic and diplomatic relations, the House reject the BDS movement, which promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the state of Israel, and call upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.”

The Liberal government backed the motion while the New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois opposed it, leading to a lopsided 229-51 victory.

A handful of Liberal MPs abstained and two voted against, but the vast majority of government members backed the Conservative motion. Two NDP MPs abstained from their party’s otherwise monolithic opposition to the motion. Both are Vancouver-area MPs – Vancouver Kingsway’s Don Davies and Port Moody-Coquitlam’s Fin Donnelly.

Supporters of the motion expressed views that have been prominent in these pages in recent weeks: that BDS unfairly targets one side in a conflict, that it is counterproductive and possibly based on bigotry. Opponents of the motion took a more novel approach.

NDP leader Thomas Mulcair said, “This goes against the freedom of expression we hold so dear in our society … to call upon the government to condemn someone for having that opinion, that’s unheard of.” He said the motion “makes it a thought crime to express an opinion” and contended that it is fair to disagree with BDS and still debate its arguments.

We like to think that you would be hard-pressed to find a more thoroughgoing defence of free expression than has appeared in this space over the past 20 years, and even longer. We have routinely taken a stand for open expression when some readers and community leaders urged variations on censorship. Yet the NDP leader’s defence of free expression is confused at best.

The motion does not make it illegal to support BDS. If it did, we would be out with our figurative pitchforks and torches opposing it. What the motion does is condemn a despicable idea. And here is where so many people who claim to support free expression in principle actually screw it up in the execution.

Mulcair argued that we should be able to debate BDS. That is precisely what Parliament did through this motion. He argued that his party does not support BDS, merely free speech. Leaving aside that several unions that support the NDP also support BDS, and that the NDP is the natural home in Canadian politics for anyone else who believes in BDS, his circumlocution on our sacred freedoms provides a tidy cover for avoiding the real issue that could paint his party into a corner: some – a few? a lot? a majority? – of his party members and MPs do, in fact, support the BDS movement. So, to avoid condemning BDS and perhaps alienating party members and supporters, he cloaked himself in a non sequitur of free expression, debasing the very value he claimed to be defending.

Too often, when unpopular views are expressed, those who might be counted upon to contest them abdicate that responsibility, defaulting to the argument that bad ideas are protected by our values of free expression. Indeed, they are. But so, too, are good ideas!

Supporters of BDS absolutely have a right to express their views. And, although it seems difficult for Mulcair to comprehend, so do its opponents. Every Canadian has a right to express their opinion within limitations around which our society has largely developed a consensus. Elected officials not only have a right, but an obligation to do so. A parliamentary motion condemning a terrible idea does not detract from anyone’s right to express and support that bad idea. In fact, it is the embodiment of free speech in action.

Hoping to run for NDP

Jewish community member Mira Oreck, director of public engagement for the Broadbent Institute, has announced that she will seek the federal NDP nomination in the riding of Vancouver Granville. She spoke with the Jewish Independent about that decision. For more information, readers can visit miraoreck.ca.

JI: Why have you chosen to seek a nomination for the NDP?

Mira Oreck (photo from Mira Oreck)

MO: I am seeking the NDP nomination in Vancouver Granville because I believe in Tom Mulcair, his vision for Canada and the impressive group of leaders he has assembled to turn that vision into reality. In particular, I am compelled by his commitment to address climate change, to create affordable and accessible childcare for $15 per day and the solutions he has put forward to address the growing rate of income inequality in Canada.

JI: Why now in your career path are you seeking this nomination?

MO: I spent a number of years living in New York City and watching from afar as the direction of our country began to change. Science and evidence-based policy were being ignored. The judicial system was under attack. The core of our democracy was being challenged. I moved back to Vancouver because I could no longer watch that happen to Canada. I’m seeking the NDP nomination because I believe Canadians are ready for a change, that Mulcair is the leader with the clearest values and most ready to govern, and I want to be part of that change.

JI: Foreign policy, in particular towards Israel, is a main issue for many in the Jewish community. What are your thoughts on the Canada-Israel relationship and how would you want that to change (or not) if you were to become an NDP MP?

MO: I grew up in this riding, in the heart of the Jewish community, and a deep relationship with Israel has always been part of my world. I have visited Israel over a half-dozen times and spent a year living in Jerusalem studying at

Hebrew University. In this sense, I relate to the Jewish community’s concerns, both in terms of domestic policy issues and foreign policy, with respect to Israel in particular.

I am proud to run for a political party that supports the state of Israel and, importantly, is working towards a two-state solution. As Canadians, we were once known for listening and hearing the various sides of a conflict. I know many people on every side of this conflict – and the vast majority, even the most frustrated among them, want trust-building efforts that can lead to solutions for Israelis and Palestinians. I believe we, as Canadians, have a responsibility to be bridge-builders. I trust that the NDP under Tom Mulcair would be just that.

JI: When is the nomination vote taking place; who else is running? What would make you a better candidate for the Jewish community, or in general?

MO: The nomination meeting date has not yet been set but will likely be the final week of July. There is another candidate in the race and the vote will be among current NDP members in Vancouver Granville.

It would be an honor to serve as a member of Parliament for a riding with a large concentration of Jewish community members, many of whom I grew up with. As a former director of Canadian Jewish Congress, Pacific Region, I am acutely aware of the issues facing the community and have a track record of advocating for them. I know that, for many people in the community, issues of affordable child care, investments in public transit, an increase in the minimum wage and addressing climate change are at the core of their beliefs.

I know that members of the community are members of all political parties, and strongly support and encourage political engagement. I have been thrilled by the support I have received from members of the Jewish community who have joined the NDP to support me in this nomination race.

JI: If there is anything else you’d like to add, please do.

MO: The importance of civic and political engagement is a direct result of my family’s work within the Jewish community and my experience in USY and at summer camp. Recently, I have been inspired by a younger generation of leadership in Israel who believe in the political system making change. Watching them seek and hold office and shape their own country has shown me the importance of diving in!

Nonsense is Trudeau’s

The Islamist group ISIS is the most technologically and media-savvy terror group ever. Their propaganda employs the highest calibre of videography and documentation. The images they capture – and successfully disseminate to the world – are among the most gruesome imaginable.

Just last week, well-produced films showed the group drowning five men in a cage and included footage of the men’s deaths captured by underwater cameras. The same video showed men being bound together at the neck by a fuse connected to explosives, like a chain of firecrackers.

On the very day that these horrendous images were leading every newscast, federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau appeared on the CBC in an interview with veteran reporter Terry Milewski. Trudeau, who voted a few weeks ago against extending the Canadian military’s contributions to fighting ISIS, insisted that, were he to win the election this October, the Canadian military’s efforts against ISIS would end.

“If you don’t want to bomb a group as ghastly as ISIS, when would you ever support real military action?” asked Milewski.

The would-be prime minister’s reply to this legitimate and, indeed, crucial question: “Terry, that’s a nonsensical question.”

The nonsense is Trudeau’s.

It is true that Western powers cannot cure the world of every despot and dictatorship. The United States military has worn itself out and tested the dedication of military families trying. Yet there are times when action cannot be avoided.

Milewski gave Trudeau the opportunity to clarify what he was saying, to ensure that this was not another of the Liberal leader’s rookie mistakes. But, no, this was what Trudeau had come on television to say.

Whether one adheres to ethical pacifism or not, it is a coherent ideology. But this is not what Trudeau is proposing. He is not suggesting that Canada abandon its military or become a neutral state. He is saying that Canadian forces should not be deployed against ISIS. OK, then. If our admittedly limited military force is not mobilized against ISIS, what cause would we mobilize against? In what circumstances does “Never again” come into play, if not against the actions of a group such as ISIS?

It must be noted, of course, that Trudeau’s position mirrors that of New Democratic party leader Thomas Mulcair. The New Democrats also voted against extending the mission against ISIS and this position is equally flawed. But it is at least consistent with the worldview of a party that has never been burdened with the mantle of government. NDP governments at the provincial level have often risen to the occasion and discovered pragmatism when power has been thrust upon them. Should some current polls bear out and Mulcair were to become prime minister, the confluence of common sense, the magnitude of power and the need to reach out to experienced hands would almost certainly adjust their foreign policy. Perhaps we are being too generous, but Mulcair has taken a party whose foreign policy (especially vis-a-vis Israel) had become a fringe circus and brought it more in line with European parties of the left (for whatever that is worth).

Unfortunately, the Liberal case is quite different. Say what one will about the value of the Senate these days, those who served as Liberals in the upper chamber represented a cache of experience at governing that Trudeau desperately lacks. Last year, Trudeau threw them out of his caucus in a showy spectacle meant to demonstrate leadership. He is left with a caucus of 36 MPs, most of whom, in the immortal words of a former prime minister who happens to have been the current Liberal leader’s father, are “nobodies 50 feet off Parliament Hill.” It is not clear that he is seeking out or receiving rational foreign policy advice from anyone.

What makes Trudeau’s position most atrocious is that it seems to have been taken for the worst reasons. The Liberals, as is a perennial problem for opposition parties, must oppose. But foreign policy is a tricky area in which to plant a political flag. Foreign affairs should not be off limits, by any means, to criticism and differences of opinion. Yet neither should the serious issues of foreign policy be subject to knee-jerk political considerations. But this seems to be part of the explanation for Trudeau’s position.

Another likely motivating factor is that the NDP has been peeling anti-Harper votes away from the Liberals. There is a very real possibility that, if polling trajectories continue, the majority of Canadians who seek to end the Conservative government’s tenure will move en masse to the party that polls suggest is most fit to achieve that end. To stanch the flow to the NDP, Trudeau seems ready to abandon the victims of ISIS.

The irony of this entire balagan is that Trudeau’s actions will probably have precisely the opposite effect on potential Liberal voters.