You were saying, Mr. Baker?

Not likely Israel never apologizes.

I believe I heard Mr. Duceppe interviewed on the CBC and he pointed out that he had been sent a message of congratulations on the speach he had made at the rally, by a jewish group thanking him for the good things he had said about Israel.

Croghan27

Hi pogge,

Thanks for the post.

One quibble. Regardless of whether the Bloc MPs knew or even actively tried to exclude pro-Hezbollah supporters, wasn't engaging in a demonsration rather stupid on their part?

First, they should have known that there would be a possibility of pro-Hezbollah supporters being present, as was the case in numerous other demonstrations in Canada, the US and Europe.

Second, it's not smart for a Canadian representative to potentially burn political bridges during the fray. Why take criticism to a whole new level by actively demonstrating?

Frankly, it's just plain stupid.

"wasn't engaging in a demonsration rather stupid on their part?"

Stupid or democratic right. Quite a quibble.

Frankly, why would Duceppe or anyone with legitimate gripes against Israeli policy let the (two I believe) pro-Hezbollah protesters highjack the entire protest? They did everything they could to distance themselves from those protesters, even publicly admonishing them.

What more could they do? Besides not protesting something that their consciences believes is wrong.

Sorry, but a few pro-Hezbollah protesters, who were asked numerous times to leave and were escorted away by the police and publicly denounced by the speakers at the protest, does not make the other 49,998 protesters pro-Hezbollah or the protest in general pro-Hezbollah.

I'd rather stick to my democratic rights and principles than worry about upseting a few right-wing nut jobs an Israli apologists anyway. They would have found something else to complain about.

I'm sure that if the protesters HAD stayed away for the reasons you suggest tarheel, the pro-Israel side would have touted it as proof of the Canadian public's support of Israel.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Mike is making a habit of saying what's on my mind in these threads.

Well, actually, I'd like to comment on the deplorable state of Canadian foreign policy and public discourse that this sort of behaviour on Duceppe's part was necessary or even possible.

The whole "no politician or person in a rally should say anything nice about Hezbollah" meme comes from the cowardly politicized decision to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Hezbollah isn't a terrorist organization, it's a resistance organization that came into existence because of Israel's aggressive war, grabbing of territory, slaughter of civilians and by most reasonable yardsticks attempted ethnic cleansing in Lebanon. It seems clear that none of this would have stopped in the first place if Hezbollah or someone like them hadn't resisted. Hezbollah ain't perfect, but it targets civilians way less than the IDF does and has restrained itself from violence and provocation on the Lebanese border far more than the IDF over the past years. There is some evidence to suggest that, in fact, the initial capture of Israeli soldiers that was the proximate excuse for an attack more than a year in the planning took place *in Lebanon*--it was a capture of Israeli soldiers who had violated the border. Well, I'm sure if Syrian soldiers were caught in Israel they'd be grabbed.
Finally, Hezbollah is a popular Lebanese political party. It's not illegal in Lebanon, which is the only country whose national laws really count in the issue. Israel can declare Hamas illegal, but they can't declare Hezbollah illegal, they don't occupy that territory any more. There is no reason to declare them a terrorist organization other than "Israel and the US want us to"; the decision to declare them such is utterly illegitimate.
But using that declaration and the media refusal to question it, everyone in politics has been successfully bludgeoned into never, ever taking Hezbollah's side. You can talk about peace, maybe, sorta, although the pro-Israel side will say that is in effect support for Hezbollah and so you must be anti-Semitic if you say you'd rather there weren't hundreds of Lebanese children dying. But you can do it--the "legitimate" pro-peace position has ended up framed as "Don't get me wrong--Hezbollah is evil and Israel has the right to 'defend themselves' any way they want. But could they maybe pretty please choose to do it with slightly fewer dead civilians?"

Now, my description of Hezbollah can be argued. But that's surely the point--it can be argued, it should be argued. All the facts, all the relevant arguments from all sides should be out there competing on merit. What the pro-Israel side is doing, however, is shutting down debate in advance by saying that nobody should ever argue Hezbollah's side at all because Hezbollah is (by official definition) EEVIL. Sorry, Hezbollah does have a side. So does Lebanon in general. There's nothing wrong with them rallying, there's nothing wrong with them promoting their point of view. There *is* something wrong with stifling discourse, whether its Gilles Duceppe trying to block the Lebanese side from a rally, or the feds blocking reasonable discourse by designating one side "terrorists", or lobbyists and media getting together to intimidate politicians until they all have to bend over backwards to endorse lies before they can speak on the topic.

It's painful to see. Once more, as in the case of Haiti, Canada turns out to be no better than the US when it comes to pluralism or media fairness.

Now, my description of Hezbollah can be argued. But that's surely the point--it can be argued, it should be argued. ... What the pro-Israel side is doing, however, is shutting down debate in advance by saying that nobody should ever argue Hezbollah's side at all because Hezbollah is (by official definition) EEVIL.

Agree completely. What we're getting too often in the media and from politicians is a pre-packaged morality play in which one side is the repository for all that's virtuous which makes the other side, as you say, EEVIL. It strips all context and history from the situation.

An apology, you say? From an official of the Israeli government? Don't ask, as you may get the kind of apology that was issued by this tiny nation of 6 mill when a Canadian UN observer was murdered. There was an apology then, out of one side of their mouths, while on the other side they were publicly "wondering" why he and the others were "there" at all in the way of their smart bombs.

The incredible arrogance of Israel comes into view all the more strongly as they lose their public relations privileges a little more each day. Now that the Hezbollah have blown their latest banditry right off the map, maybe they will reconsider and start making deals instead of making war.
Maybe.

Purple Library Guy is making a habit of saying what's on my mind these days.

Duceppe is entitled to say whatever he likes, of course, and the Bloc to take whatever group position they feel they need to. But PLG is right about the "Don't get me wrong" gambit -- it has become a tyranny in public discourse. And what a prissy way to think of a protest demonstration! Unless you've got groups present who are looking to break heads or destroy, well then: swell the ranks!

Pogge and skdadl: If Mike and PLG have a habit of speaking your minds in these threads, I guess I add some diversity.

PLG: I’ve come to accept that you and I will probably be diametrically opposed on almost everything.

Everyone: I’m not sure if I didn’t make myself very clear or whether my words were misinterpreted.

Of course, politicians enjoy the right to free speech and free assembly just like everyone else. They shouldn’t be censored. So, while I may not like G.W. Bush and Steven Harper saying “God bless [insert country]”, I advocate their right to say it. The same would go for any political demonstration.

However, politicians should use a greater degree of discretion, because they are our representatives and what they say and do affects us, and our relations with other countries. Similar to Steven Harper’s remarks about Israel, Gilles Duceppe damaged Canada’s image of “neutrality”/evenhandedness. (Why should there be a double standard?) How can Canada be an honest broker of peace if it’s MPs are seen as overtly supporting one side or the other? That’s why it’s stupid.

Asking a politician to use discretion in a touchy diplomatic predicament is not at all the same as cutting off debate. The two are far from the same thing.

Gilles Duceppe damaged Canada’s image of “neutrality”/evenhandedness.

Which part of Duceppe condemning Hezbollah from the stage didn't you get? If the media was too lazy (a generous interpretation, perhaps) to report Duceppe's remarks while pointing out the presence of Hezbollah's flags, is that his fault?

The whole point of many of the comments on this and previous threads is that one side of the debate refuses to recognize that there can even be a neutral position. You're either with them or you're with the terrorists. If you remain silent in the face of that, you're letting them win.

However, politicians should use a greater degree of discretion, because they are our representatives and what they say and do affects us, and our relations with other countries.

Agreed.

I for one was shocked at the lack of judgment shown by the Canadian parliamentarians who openly applauded Australian PM John Howard, a man who has committed crimes against peace by waging an illegal war of aggression in Iraq.

With all the loopy comments on the web, I'm wishing more and more that the entire Middle East be obliterated off the face of the map or that all the warring parties go mano-a-mano until the last person is left standing. Both sides are full of it and I am sick and tired of hearing "you did it/no, you did it".

Pogge,

Whether the media was lazy and Duceppe’s intentions are completely and wholly apart from my point. It does not matter if Duceppe is actually neutral. It does not matter if the media got it wrong.

What matters is that he (and no one else) put himself in precarious position, in which his actions could very easily be taken the wrong way.

The whole point of many of the comments on this and previous threads is that one side of the debate refuses to recognize that there can even be a neutral position.

If that’s true, then that only furthers my point. Why do something which will be taken the wrong way and inevitably damage Canada’s image as a broker for peace? Why tempt fate? The signs have definitely been written on the wall that both pro-Hezbollah supporters might show up and the media would pick up on it. Or did you all not see the San Francisco, Toronto and UK demonstrations? Is Montreal somehow a geographical oddity that such a thing could not possibly happen there?

(By the way, it’s not just the Right says that you’re either with us or against.)

Tarheel:

Then the only option left is to remain silent. As has been pointed out, the other side will be happy to interpret that as support for them.

CTH, you are arguing a complete circle. pogge and others object to having their independent positions mischaracterized by dishonest rhetoric, and you tell them that that wouldn't happen if they would just ... abandon their independent positions?

You're awfully concerned with propriety and keeping up appearances, CTH. Our government may be rationalizing the deaths of innocents, including some of our fellow citizens, and you are focused on running a white-gloved finger along the mantelpiece?

…you are arguing a complete circle.

Hmm. My grandfather used to say, “The skunk always smells himself first.” In this case, the person complaining about arguing in circles is the one doing it.

Look at my comments. I’ve consistently argued that Duceppe et al should have known that their participation would have been taken wrongly, and that it hurt Canada’s image. In order to avoid it, they should have used discretion.

My remarks have now been attacked from several different angles, which are inconsistent. It was argued at 4:07 that saying anything would be taken as sign of supporting one side. Then at 4:45 it was argued that saying nothing would be taken as a sign of supporting the other side. I did not draw this line in the sand. Nor did I argue from both sides of it as was done by others. My arguments have been anything but circular!

You seem to be confusing a few ideas. And in order to make it easier I’ll concede that the media got it wrong. So, what are we left with? A politician who knows or should have known that his actions will be taken the wrong way if he actively participates in the demonstration in the middle of a diplomatic mess. Should he voice his criticisms of the war? Sure, why not? Should he take the extra step and bring it to a whole new level and participate in a demonstration? No, not if you know that it will be taken the wrong way.

The smart thing to do would have been to articulate your opinions in a controlled environment, such as an interview or in a newspaper op-ed. This way your opinions have a limited chance of being taken the wrong way. Irwin Cotler was smart enough to do just that in both the National Post and Le Devoir. This is the middle of the road.

It’s a strawman to draw a line in the sand, which is ironically what everyone is complaining about in this thread. I didn’t say, “Demonstrate or shut up”. You all did.

You can express your displeasure in a variety of ways as a politician, which most people do not have available to them – interviews, newspaper op-eds, Commons debates, etc.

AND yes appearances are very important when it comes to politics, especially foreign policy. Are you kidding me? Don’t you want people to take us seriously?

Ah. Well, that's not as objectionable as your initial comments seemed, although it still begs a few questions.
Hurt Canada's image? With whom, exactly? Let's not forget that UN resolutions relating to Israel typically break down with everyone else on one side, and the US, Israel and some number between zero and half a dozen small US client states like Micronesia on the other. Canadian politicians speaking at peace rallies critical of Israel's warlike actions certainly wouldn't hurt Canada's image with the Middle East, or Russia, or China, or most of the EU, or most of Latin America, or Indonesia, or indeed most of Southeast Asia, or even New Zealand. France and Germany's politics on the question vary.
It would hurt our image with England, Australia, Israel itself, and of course the United States. That's an important consideration, but it's hardly "the world".

Of course the second question is, if I believe in position (A) and expressing this in certain effective ways may hurt my country's image with those who believe in position (B), should that be my greatest concern? If my intent is to shift the general domestic and international consensus towards position (A) it may behoove me to ignore the problem. The more politicians allow groups with agendas different from their own to shape what is considered acceptable kinds of expression on their issues, the harder it is for their side to push their agenda. If one politician speaks at a peace rally (or, for instance, attends a gay pride event) and is successfully chastened for it, the message is that speaking at peace rallies (or attending gay pride events) is unacceptable. If politicians are not intimidated by the attempted framing and speak at peace rallies (or attend pride events, or whatever) in large numbers, they force it into the realm of acceptable practice.

Speaking at peace marches is in its basic nature an acceptable, even positive practice. It represents speech, self-expression and popular participation in the political process. It should be forced into the mainstream. Taking a position that accepts media chill on such actions is wrong.

Everyone is making a habit of saying what's on my mind these days.

...Hmmm...Except for Tahrheel. Anyway, we've gone off-topic. The Israeli ambassador mischaracterised the demonstration in Montreal, innapropriately lectured our politicians and by extention the Canadian people and should be shipped back to Tel Aviv.

Lehitraot, Mr. Ambassador.

Tarheels last post was the most understandable and agreeable. Everyone should keep in mind that this is Duceppe, and the amount he cares about the world's perception of Canada wouldn't fit in a thimble. He trying to regain standing after falling on his face in the last federal election, and this was the perfect oppertunity for him. If he makes things harder for any Canadian Govnt, present or future, to him, that's a fringe benefit.

At 4:26pm :"Why do something which will be taken the wrong way and inevitably damage Canada’s image as a broker for peace?"

If only Harper would take your advice, Tarheel.

And now Alan Baker would like Canada to patrol the coast of Lebanon.
A request which clearly should be coming from the UN and not Israel.

Yeti wrote:

He trying to regain standing after falling on his face in the last federal election, and this was the perfect oppertunity for him.

Should we attribute the same motives to Denis Coderre?

TarHeel wrote:

So, what are we left with? A politician who knows or should have known that his actions will be taken the wrong way if he actively participates in the demonstration in the middle of a diplomatic mess. Should he voice his criticisms of the war? Sure, why not? Should he take the extra step and bring it to a whole new level and participate in a demonstration? No, not if you know that it will be taken the wrong way.

The smart thing to do would have been to articulate your opinions in a controlled environment, such as an interview or in a newspaper op-ed. This way your opinions have a limited chance of being taken the wrong way. Irwin Cotler was smart enough to do just that in both the National Post and Le Devoir. This is the middle of the road.

TarHeel's use of the passive voice ("will be taken") and vague references to an impersonal "media" that got it wrong place too much responsibility on Duceppe et al. for 'tempting fate,' and not enough on those specific people (Baker is one) who actively misrepresented the rally and its participants.

The Post's Barbara Kay is another such distorter. In today's column, she calls the peace rally an 'anti-Israel rally,' accuses the organizers of anti-Semitism for 'deliberately exclud[ing] a Jewish presence' (Jews marched at the rally, as her own paper reported), and blames Duceppe, Coderre and the others for marching in a parade where Hezbollah flags and some inflammatory placards were in evidence (Duceppe's own comments show he did not approve of such sentiments); she further termed all the other Canadian peace marches 'hatefests' (providing, of course, no evidence).

Now, I agree with TarHeel in the sense that, if one publicly criticizes the actions of the Israeli state in Canada, one can expect an inevitable campaign of deceit, character assassination and misrepresentation to be launched from the usual quarters (e.g. the editorial pages of the National Post).

But *that* inevitability doesn't, in my view, place any special obligation on those critics to avoid giving voice to their criticism in any forum they reasonably choose, lest they face the charge of political imprudence.

Let any public critic of Israeli policy be as prudent as you like: a Barbara Kay, a Warren Kinsella or someone similar will immediately appear to distort his or her position in order to distract attention away from the substance of the criticism.

The principle at work is not at all limited to criticism of Israel, of course. During the national debate on missile defence, I lost track of how often BMD opponents were labelled 'anti-American' by editorial boards, pro-BMD politicians, 'responsible' academics, etc. And this while we were receiving lots of cross-border help from American anti-BMD folks, including American arms control experts and at least one prominent former defense department official.

Or take Afghanistan. During one of the parliamentary debates on the mission, Libby Davies and another NDP MP left the chamber to meet with some peace demonstrators who had assembled on Parliament Hill: for the crime of talking with interested citizens about matters of war and peace, Libby and her colleague were sharply criticized by the Conservative side for not supporting the troops.

Or take Iraq. Many Canadians marched to oppose that illegal war, even before it happened. Michael Ignatieff, in response, decided to distort their purpose in marching, declaring them effective allies of Saddam Hussein:

"Canadians were marching in the streets of Toronto and Ottawa, a million people through the streets of London - what were they marching for? They were marching so that Saddam Hussein would remain in power. Now I thought: that’s not a demonstration I am ever going to join."

Thus do the servants of power turn a march against war into a pro-Saddam march; just as Barbara Kay has turned a peace rally into an 'anti-Israeli' 'hatefest.'

My point is that TarHeel's describing the situation faced by Duceppe, Coderre and the others as one in which their position 'will be taken the wrong way,' as though by some impersonal agent (like 'Fate'), misrepresents that situation in an important way.

The truth is closer to this: if you say something contrary to the orthodoxies supported by the powerful, they and their supporters will vociferously misrepresent you and your position in order to marginalize and effectively silence you, so that your message doesn't get through.

That's why I don't agree with the idea that a 'controlled environment' like an op-ed (an interesting choice of terms, there. Who controls access to that 'controlled' environment?) will lessen the chance that your message will be distorted.

Back in May, Sid Ryan of CUPE published more than one op-ed refuting charges made against him and his union in the wake of their call for a boycott to protest Israeli policy in the West Bank and Gaza.

His columns' refutation of false allegations did little to stem the tide of hysterical overreaction and outright deceit.

So I would submit that TarHeel's solution to the problem faced by Canadian politicians (and others) is, in fact, no real solution because it does not properly address the problem they actually face.

Hi,

Nice to meet you, Stephen. I guess that I should respond to your verbose comment.

There is a rather important contextual matter on which we disagree. We both disagree on whether or not Duceppe had an alternative due to the characterization of the media in this context.

On the one hand I argue that:

First, Duceppe should have known that despite the “official” characterization of the demonstration as “anti-war”, anti-Israel/pro-Hezbollah supporters would likely attend. How come? Because such supporters had been present at countless other protests worldwide.

Second, Duceppe had alternatives, which the big bad Media meanies would find much more difficult to distort or misrepresent. I even provide examples, such as op-eds, interviews, debates, press conferences, etc.

My argument suggests that although the Media is flawed, they leave Duceppe with an alternative. Consequently, Duceppe is responsible for not exhibiting enough foresight, and accordingly, not using discretion in seeking an alternative.

On the other hand, you seem to believe that the “impersonal” media will “inevitably” find a way to spin anything that challenges “the orthodoxies of the powerful” in an unfavorable light or to simply misrepresent its challengers. This is a huge contextual difference.

Essentially, you seem to say that there is nothing that Duceppe could have done, because any sort of criticism (in any form or manifestation) would always be taken the wrong way. This drastically differs from my contention, because, according to you, he was damned no matter what avenue of criticism he took.

Perhaps your argument is the sort that others tried to articulate earlier, but who presented a false choice – an either/or line in the sand.

I tend to view assertions of a monolithic sinister media out to distort critics with a certain degree of cynicism. Both the extreme Right and Left make such claims in order to curb sources of information in their favour. It’s only logical to taint news sources that provide contradictory information to one’s stance as unreliable or as agents of distortion.

In my experience, it is impossible to hold a meaningful debate with people who hold such sinister theories, because there is no solid ground on which to premise one’s argument.

(BTW, teacher, please excuse me if I employed too much passive voice in this thread. Ha.)

Stephen can correct or expand as he chooses, but I'm going to respond to a couple of these points.

We both disagree on whether or not Duceppe had an alternative due to the characterization of the media in this context.

No you don't. Stephen hasn't said the alternatives aren't there. He's both pointed out that those alternatives are also subject to spin and distortion and questioned why Duceppe should limit himself to those alternatives you deem appropriate rather than demonstrate along with the citizens he represents.

In my experience, it is impossible to hold a meaningful debate with people who hold such sinister theories, because there is no solid ground on which to premise one’s argument.

In fact Stephen provided you with specific examples of those distortions including, most notably, Barbara Kay's column which was contradicted by the reporting in her own newspaper. You've conveniently ignored those specific examples because to acknowledge them would cut the legs out from under the statement quoted above. It's a fallacy to caricature your opponent's argument and then defeat the caricature. It's commonly known as raising a straw man and it's another well worn method of attempting to silence people. It's difficult to hold a meaningful debate with someone who resorts to such tactics.

And in my view you've completely ignored the main thrust of Stephen's argument. Why should Duceppe be the one to alter his own behaviour, to limit his own options, when it's the Alan Bakers and Barbara Kays who are misbehaving by distorting both the facts and the positions of others? To do so is to give the Bakers and Kays a power they don't deserve. It allows them to set the terms of the debate.

Hi pogge,

(1) No you don't. Stephen hasn't said the alternatives aren't there. He's both pointed out that those alternatives are also subject to spin and distortion and questioned why Duceppe should limit himself to those alternatives you deem appropriate rather than demonstrate along with the citizens he represents.

What? What are you talking about? This makes no sense.

If every possible alternate avenue is subject to distortion, then there is no alternative! Stephen articulates, in detail, that the media will distort everything, so there is no alternative.

This is completely different from what I wrote. I contend that reasonable alternatives do exist. There is a huge disagreement on whether Duceppe had an alternative with respect to the media.

(2) Re caricature:

You’re right. I did paint the argument that the media will always distort criticism as a caraciture (i.e., strawman), but I didn’t create it. Stephen did.

Usually, people argue over what the facts mean, or even what the facts are. But it’s dubious to attack all sources of such information as suspect. Without reliable news sources (and the “facts” they provide) what are you left with? All there is to argue is what you believe to be true. This is what Stephen Colbert calls “truthiness” (Wiki backgrounder).

However, I didn’t knock that strawman down. I left it standing.

Instead, I said that you cannot argue with that. It’s not debatable. It’s just a back-n-forth of what you believe to be true.

(3) And in my view you've completely ignored the main thrust of Stephen's argument. Why should Duceppe be the one to alter his own behaviour, to limit his own options, when it's the Alan Bakers and Barbara Kays who are misbehaving by distorting both the facts and the positions of others? To do so is to give the Bakers and Kays a power they don't deserve. It allows them to set the terms of the debate.

This is a completely different argument altogether. And if this was indeed what you were trying to say, Stephen, then please excuse me.

This argument does not suggest that there is no alternative, but rather questions why Duceppe should have to take one. Hmm. Why should a political representative think about using alternate in the midst of a diplomatic mess if s/he knows that the current course will likely create more problems? I hope that everyone can answer this.

Now, if you're saying that it's unfair, and it shouldn't be that way, fine.

Well, it appears that my links don't work. Here's my second attempt: Newsweek and Wiki backgrounder.

I did paint the argument that the media will always distort criticism as a caraciture (i.e., strawman), but I didn’t create it. Stephen did.

No, he didn't. He provided specific examples of pundits, media outlets and political figures and you extended that to a generalization about a "monolithic media". You put words in his mouth and used that to dismiss him as "far left" (I presume you didn't intend to include him in the far right) without, btw, explaining exactly what about his position qualifies for that description. It's a way of dismissing him without engaging the substance of his remarks. It's an ad hominem argument.

Hi pogge,

I'm not really sure why you seem to fight me so hard on this. I said that Duceppe et al did not use their brains and walked into this with their eyes wide shut. This in no way contradicts your original post above.

Additionally, I think that Stephen should defend his own ideas. As I understood his argument, his point: So I would submit that TarHeel's solution to the problem faced by Canadian politicians (and others) is, in fact, no real solution because it does not properly address the problem they actually face.

And what does Stephen apparently think the problem they actually face is? The truth is closer to this: if you say something contrary to the orthodoxies supported by the powerful, they and their supporters will vociferously misrepresent you and your position in order to marginalize and effectively silence you, so that your message doesn't get through.

That definitely looks like he's saying there's no alternative.

BTW, ad hominem was incorrectly used. It's an attack on the man and not the argument. I did not, in any way, resort to an attack on Stephen as an individual.

Additionally, I think that Stephen should defend his own ideas.

Perhaps Stephen has a life outside the internet and can't necessarily respond on your schedule. Meanwhile I saw what I regarded as a dishonest argument and chose to challenge it.

I did not, in any way, resort to an attack on Stephen as an individual.

Just because it was superficially polite doesn't mean it wasn't an attack on the man. You've tried to paint him as somebody so far out on the fringe that he can't be taken seriously. As in:

it is impossible to hold a meaningful debate with people who hold such sinister theories

I repeat, he provided a number of specific examples, none of which you've refuted or even addressed. You ignored them and gave us this condescending crap about "sinister theories" instead. It's an ad hominem argument.

Hi pogge,

Just because it was superficially polite doesn't mean it wasn't an attack on the man.

I'm sorry that I offended you. That was not my intent.

I don't need an apology (though I'll accept it).

If every possible alternate avenue is subject to distortion, then there is no alternative! Stephen articulates, in detail, that the media will distort everything, so there is no alternative.

With respect TarHeel, I don't believe I made the claim you attribute to me. In fact, I think you're confusing the separate issues of 1) whether and why one's message stands a chance of being 'distorted' by someone who is reporting it or responding to it; and 2) how one should respond to the prospect of such distortion, when it seems likely.

You may correct me if I've misunderstood you, but it seems to me that you're arguing that if Duceppe (and the others like Boisclaire, Coderre, etc.) had chosen a different medium for their message (e.g. an op-ed in Le Devoir as opposed to statements at the peace march), they would have stood a better chance of avoiding having their message distorted. Further, you seem to imply that they *ought* to have chosen alternatives to the medium of peace-march-statements on prudential grounds, knowing (as they should have, you say) how likely their presence and statements at the peace march were to be misconstrued by certain people.

If that's a fair summary of your position (correct me if I'm wrong), I disagree with it for a number of reasons.

First, as pogge pithily put it above, why should Duceppe and the others have to alter their behaviour simply because some commentator like Barbara Kay can be relied upon to distort what they've said and done?

Second, as I hoped my Sid Ryan example would show, one of your suggested 'alternatives' is no alternative at all, if the aim is choosing a medium of expression that will reduce the chance one's message will be distorted.

Ryan and CUPE, in calling for divestment, didn't attend a rally likely to be infiltrated by some Hezbollah supporters; instead, they passed a resolution at a union convention and then defended their actions in letters and op-eds in national newspapers (one of the routes you suggest Duceppe et al. ought to have taken) and were repaid for their efforts by what I would term a campaign of disinformation and deceit.

(You can like what Ryan and CUPE did or not, btw. That's not my point here. My point is that their letters and op-eds did little or nothing to stop people from misrepresenting them.)

This brings me to my third point, which is that your focus (as it seems to me) on 'alternative' *media* of expression (a speech at a rally versus an op-ed, or an interview) ignores the issue of the substance of the *message* to be delivered, and the likely response to such a message if it turns out to seriously challenge the interests of those who currently call the shots in our society.

So, no, I don't say that there's no 'alternative' open to those wanting to speak out against injustice or wrongdoing as they see it: those people have plenty of options, perhaps more now than ever in human history.

They need to understand, of course, that those willing to defend the interests they're challenging will fight back as best they can, regardless of the medium chosen to deliver the challenging message.

And that's why, in my post above, I referenced a parliamentary debate on Afghanistan, op-ed columns on Israeli Occupation of the West Bank, the national debate on missile defence, and anti-war marches in the lead-up to the Iraq War: in every one of these cases, it was the *substance of the message* not the *medium of its expression* that led to the distorting criticism.

Anyway, I'll stop here for now (accused as I have been of verbosity by TarHeel), though I do want to address a couple of other points, particularly regarding the August march of Duceppe, Coderre, Boisclair et al.

As pogge suggested, part of the reason I haven't leapt to the defence of my earlier post is that I do have a life outside the internet.

Part of that life was spent this afternoon at the library, leafing through back copies of Le Devoir, where I found an interesting half-page advertisement regarding Duceppe's, Coderre's, Boisclair's and the others' participation in the peace rally.

More on that soon, if I get a chance.

Speaking for myself, Stephen, I hope that you won't stop there for long. I do not find you verbose; I find you a most careful and well-informed commentator.

I do find TarHeel's repeated and unsupported claim that you argue that all the media will always distort unorthodox political positions immensely frustrating to read, as I suspect many other readers must as well, given that that is clearly not what you wrote and that you have provided, again and again, specific examples of particular bits of politicized hackery.

I think it is regrettable as well that TarHeel continues to write as though everyone else agrees that the presence of a few Hezbollah supporters at a protest march should shock our tender sensibilities and send us all back to hide behind our lace curtains. Everyone doesn't, obviously, but just as that discussion was becoming interesting, TarHeel jerked the discussion back to his peculiar version of international etiquette and trained his diversionary sights on Stephen.

As pogge originally argued and as others have continued to point out with further supporting evidence, if anyone discussed here is actively guilty of crude violations of the rules of international diplomacy, it is Mr Baker. Anyone interested in that topic might take a look at Baker's appalling letter in today's Globe and Mail. It is mostly boring because mindlessly overgeneral, of course, a kitchen-sink (as in everything but the) description of the entire Muslim world, but all the more threatening for that.

Thanks, skdadl, and thanks for bringing up Baker's awful letter in today's Globe, because it's actually a good example of what we've been talking about.

Friday's op-ed by Paul Heinbecker prompted Baker's reply, which was actually quite shocking. Heinbecker's piece, which made some good points, approvingly quoted Kenneth Roth's description of Hezbollah's random rocket firings into civilian areas as war crimes; it also approved of the G-8's criticism of Hezbollah for triggering the latest round of hostilities.

Yet, becase Heinbecker also called on Israel (and everyone else) to follow international law and pursue diplomatic rather than military solutions both to the current crisis and to the underlying problems in the middle east (Heinbecker called for renewed diplomatic efforts to deal with West Bank settlements, East Jerusalem and refugee issues, as well as re-engagement with Syria and Iran), Baker felt compelled to distort Heinbecker's position as one-sided and simplistic.

Here's part of what Baker had to say in response to Heinbecker's argument that the official Canadian position on the conflict ought to have more clearly expressed a committment to international law:

In a similar vein, simplistic reliance on international law as the panacea for Middle East ills ignores the fact that international law has no answer to terrorism. Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda deliberately undermine the very humanitarian rules and norms that bind normal states. They attack civilians, shield behind them, and use schools, mosques, churches, private homes and United Nations Posts. International law proffers no answer to this.

Apart from being a distortion of Heinbecker's position (he never called International Law a panacea for all of the middle east's ills), this reply shocked me with its implication that 'international law' has, to paraphrase Alberto Gonzalez on a related topic, become 'quaint' in this new age of terror, at least in the view of the Israeli ambassador.

That is, while Baker says that 'humanitarian rules and norms ... bind normal states,' he seems clearly to imply that the tactics of Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban (how'd they get into Baker's letter on the Israeli-Lebanon crisis, anyway?) and Al-Qaeda render such rules and norms meaningless, since 'international law proffers no answer to this.'

It doesn't take much effort to see that the Israeli ambassador is here arguing that calls on Israel to abide by international humanitarian law in waging its 'war on terror' are out of place, and that such restrictions should not bind the Israeli government in the prosecution of this 'war' because 'international law has no answer to terrorism.'

What looks to me like Baker's claim that the Israeli government should be free to ignore international humanitarian law is quite shocking, really: far more shocking that anything Heinbecker said in his op-ed and also, in my opinion, far more disturbing than anything Duceppe, Coderre or the others said at their peace rally.

And yet, as you say, skdadl, some people are arguing (Barbara Kay, CdnTarHeel and others) that our consciences should be seared by the idea that Canadian politicians attended a peace rally of some 15,000 that was also attended by some Hezbollah supporters, even though they explicitly stated that they did not agree with the Hezbollah supporters' views.

My leafing through back issues of Le Devoir, as I mentioned above, brought me to a sort of open letter published the day before the peace rally that might also throw a bit of light on this question of politicians' actions that, to use TarHeel's language, 'could very easily be taken the wrong way.'

As noted above, TarHeel puts most of the onus (unfairly, I think) on the likes of Duceppe and Coderre, and the open letter, submitted by 'The Quebec Jewish Community and Friends of Israel,' helps to show why that's a bit unfair.

Addressed to Boisclar, Coderre, David, Duceppe and Masse, the letter, entitled 'For a Just Peace in the Middle East' (I'm translating here) notes their planned participation in the demonstration, and then asks them to have a thought for Israel and use the occasion to do a number of things, such as:

Recall that Hezbollah is at once the cause and origin of the conflict;

Condemn the extremist and anti-semitic statements of Hezbollah and Hamas as well as the Iranian president, Ahmadinejad;

Demand the immediate disarmament of Hezbollah, in accordance with UNSCR 1559;

Regret that the Lebanese government, which aspires to peace, contains Hezbollah representatives determined to eliminate the Jewish presence in the region;

Wish for a true peace initiative and overall settlement of the conflict and not simply for a cease-fire without conditions, whose sole strength is to submit to the dictates of Hezbollah and to permit them to better prepare their next act of aggression against Israel;

Recognize the right of Israel to defend its citizens against all armed aggression, as is recognized by the UN Charter;

There are a few others, but this gives the sense, I think.

The open letter closes with an acknowledgement of their disapproval of Israel's disproportionate response, and says the group would humbly prefer that they denounce war while recalling a signal truth: 'Peace begins where terrorism disappears.'

Leaving aside the question of whether or not the politicians addressed ought to have taken these positions as stated in the ad or not, I think it should be obvious that the ad was an attempt to create an interpretive frame around their actions, even before they had taken place.

My point is that, even before the march took place, public efforts were already underway to cast a peace march for an immediate ceasefire in an unfavourable light and, in my view, it's likely that even had there been no Hezbollah supporters present at the rally, someone or some group would have criticized Duceppe, Coderre, David for not offering more or less uncritical support for Israel's actions in Lebanon in response to the Hezbollah raid.

And no, that example doesn't mean that I think all media will deliberately distort all non-mainstream positions on every occasion.

But some people obviously will, in response to public statements they see as potentially threatening to their interests, use the media as best they can to distort or misrepresent the statements they find threatening, or to discredit those who make them as naive, simplistic or worse.

Alan Baker is a case in point, as were some of the other people and groups I mentioned in my posts above: Michael Ignatieff looks bad, for example, if those thousands of ordinary Canadians who marched to oppose the Iraq war got it right while a Harvard superbrain got it wrong, so it's best to misrepresent and discredit Iraq war opponents as effective supporters of Saddam Hussein, as Ignatieff did.

Similarly, the many Canadian activists who worked hard to take advantage of the political opportunities afforded by a minority parliament to stop the Liberals from signing on to missile defence posed a problem for those who would rather see foreign and defence policy set by those who know best: therefore, we anti-BMD-types had to be marginalized as anti-American crazies by the National Post editorial board and others.

This brings me to a final point about Alan Baker's letter in today's Globe and Mail, which I think implied that Israel cannot be bound be international law in its prosecution of 'the war on terror.'

I joked above about how the Taliban (in Afghanistan) could have found their way into a letter replying to an op-ed on the Middle East which did not directly address the Taliban at all, but there's actually a good reason why Baker would have included such a reference to the Taliban (and to Al-Qaeda) in his dismissal of international law.

It's been clear for some time that those prosecuting and/or cheerleading the so-called 'war on terror' want to use that generalized war as an excuse to weaken the rules and norms that limit their exercise of power, both domestically and overseas, as well as in both military and non-military ways.

Thus are the Geneva Conventions termed 'quaint'; thus do we contemplate 'lesser evils' like 'coercive interrogation' and 'pre-emptive war'; thus are novel concepts like the 'unlawful combatant,' the 'unreasonable security council veto' and the 'coalition of free peoples' introduced into discourse about international norms governing war and peace; thus is 'international law' sidelined as a futile entity that has 'no answer to terrorism.'

Thus, I would argue, is an emerging but disturbing norm being solidified with this latest Israeli-Lebanese conflict: a norm that individual nation-states can unilaterally decide to take military action to enforce security council resolutions, without the official approval of the Security Council itself.

The leaders of the Coalition of the Willing argued that their Iraq War was justified under existing UN resolutions (even though it wasn't), and I note that there was much talk of UNSCR 1559 calling for Hezbollah's disarmament in the editorials justifying Israel's actions in Lebanon. Indeed, there was some talk of the most recent SCR offered in justification of Israel's recent cross-border raid against an alleged arms transfer in Lebanon.

I'm no expert, and I may be completely wrong about this, but it looks to me like there is almost a concerted effort among the leaders of a number of powerful states (and their supporters in the academy and in the media) to convince their populations that domestic and international norms and rules regarding such things as military action, treatment of prisoners, rights of accused criminals, etc. will have to go by the wayside if we're ever to feel safe from terrorism.

And this effort, I would submit, when it is opposed, however mildly, by a Gilles Duceppe criticizing a disproportionate response, or by a Paul Heinbecker calling for observance of international law, will be met with a campaign of misrepresentation and opposition by those who think their interests are not served by adhering to international norms and rules.

The consequence, I fear, of states loosing themselves from such restrictions, however, is that we will all move gradually but inevitably to a jungle-rule mentality, where none of us will be safe.

Sorry for the long post.

Hi Stephen,

I take it that the 12:07 and 1:22 posts accurately outline your arguments. (Thank you for numbering them, btw.)

(3) What concerns me most is your third point. In a nutshell, this is what I understood: (Please correct me if I’m mistaken.).

You argue that substance is what matters and not the means of conveying it. And if the substance of what is said runs contrary to those in power, then the message will inevitably be distorted no matter how it’s conveyed. In other words, If a politician’s ideas, which run contrary to the wisdom of the powers at be, will always be distorted, then what’s the point of (a) altering the means of conveying that message and (b) speaking at all.

This does not sound like much of a choice. It seems that we’re back to square one – a choice between speaking up or remaining silent. But the difference from previous arguments made by others is that the characterization of the media is what creates this dichotomy.

Unfortunately, despite the wonderful examples, the lack of specificity in defining what is meant by media implies that the entire media is held suspect. This lack of specificity, as articulated at 2:10 and 6:40, raises the serious issue of “truthiness.” No one has contested this lack of specificity, or the dubious logical fallacy associated with it (at 6:40).

Here are three examples of the text, which I feel go to the heart of this part of the argument.

(a) Example #1 My point is that, even before the march took place, public efforts were already underway to cast a peace march for an immediate ceasefire in an unfavourable light and, in my view, it's likely that even had there been no Hezbollah supporters present at the rally, someone or some group would have criticized Duceppe, Coderre, David for not offering more or less uncritical support for Israel's actions in Lebanon in response to the Hezbollah raid.

(b) Example #2 But some people obviously will, in response to public statements they see as potentially threatening to their interests, use the media as best they can to distort or misrepresent the statements they find threatening, or to discredit those who make them as naive, simplistic or worse.

(c) Example # 3 I'm no expert, and I may be completely wrong about this, but it looks to me like there is almost a concerted effort among the leaders of a number of powerful states (and their supporters in the academy and in the media) to convince their populations that domestic and international norms and rules regarding such things as military action, treatment of prisoners, rights of accused criminals, etc. will have to go by the wayside if we're ever to feel safe from terrorism.

(2) With respect to your second point, it seems that you take issue with one of my proposed alternate means of conveying a message – op-eds. In order to illustrate the point, you rely on Ryan & CUPE

This part of the argument unfortunately makes the same mistake as paragraph 25, which starts with Alan Baker is a case in point…. Ryan & CUPE is far from a case in point. It is a counter-example to my own (re Irwin Cotler). It merely demonstrates that even op-eds can be distorted. It does not demonstrate that this is somehow the norm or illustrate in any way that op-eds are more or less difficult to distort than other means of conveying a message. Basically, the notion of a “case-in-point” is incorrectly relied upon, and thus overstates.

(1) First, as pogge pithily put it above, why should Duceppe and the others have to alter their behaviour simply because some commentator like Barbara Kay can be relied upon to distort what they've said and done?

Interestingly, I find this third part of the argument the most sensible. This argues that the current situation is unfair, which it is.

Fundamentally, it is, however, a suiting end to my response, because it touches upon an error throughout the overall argument. It forgets political reality on two counts.

First, it ignores the reality that politicians will always be subject to criticism and attack in whatever means of conveying their message.

Second, it disregards the reality that certain means of conveying a message are more treacherous than others.

I understand that this second count is a point of contention. Prior counter-arguments have tried to suggest that the means in conveying a message is irrelevant and does not matter. Apparently, “leaders” (powers that be) plot to use the “media” as a tool to attack valid criticism (See Example #3 above). As already articulated, this counter-argument already has the serious “truthiness” error.

However, the counter-argument fails to also recognize situations that do no support this contention, such as the following:

(a) The acceptance of op-eds that run counter to the interests of powers that be, such as Lebanese PM’s op-ed in the WaPo; and
(b) The heavy criticism of op-eds, which run in favour of the interest of the powers that be, such as Bernard Lewis’s op-ed in the WSJ.

In this light, it is a political reality that politicians will often come under fire, but if they are rational actors and seek to minimize criticism in order to pursue their interests, then they will seek the least treacherous means in achieving them.

Please note: (1) I hope that my highlighting of the errors in argumentation will be seen as an effort to be clear and to the point, and not offensive. And (2) I am purposely overlooking remarks about Baker’s letter with respect to international law, because it will likely lead to an off-point discussion.

Hi Pogge and Skdadl,

I fear my previous remarks may have offended you. Please note that was not my intent. Although I am quite tame compared to many internaughts with which I engage in heated debates, I fully realize that there’s no point in offending people.

It is rather ironic that my remarks have been received with such reaction and with regret. I have thus far, in this thread alone, been falsely accused of a number of logical fallacies, including “arguing in circles”, creating “strawmen” and making “personal attacks” (ad hominem). In a previous thread (Hearts and Minds Somalia), I reacted against someone else’s “offensive” blanket remarks towards the U.S. and was later deemed the bad guy. Even within this thread, individuals make questionable comments about Israel, which I have ignored for fear of similar reprisal.

These types of remarks are part of the beauty and ugliness of the Internet – a free market place of ideas – and I accept that others will make such comments. But I also understand that when people make forceful comments (in whatever language), you should be allowed to respond in proportion and in kind. Moreover, commentators should be provided with a certain degree of latitude. Thus far, POGGE has adhered to these principles and I truly thank the contributors for continuing to do so.

Tarheel:

Let me start with this bit of news from yesterday:

British mine clearance experts have accused Israel of "carpeting" Lebanese border villages with deadly cluster bombs, claiming that more appeared to have been used than in the American-led invasion of Iraq.

"The contamination is incredibly widespread - I have never seen anything like it," he told The Sunday Telegraph. "In Iraq they were used mainly in rural areas and in some villages, but nothing like as much as they have been here."

Where this discussion began is with a rally that was clearly held in support of an immediate ceasefire and in reaction to our official policy as evidenced by our Prime Minister's public statements: to back off and let Israel continue to hammer on Lebanon for a while. The fact that some have jumped on the attempts by a tiny minority to hijack that rally is, in fact, a giant distraction from the point. It's a blatant attempt to change the subject and to distract from the death and destruction resulting from this conflict.

You claim that Duceppe and the other politicians involved should have stayed home because they threatened to undermine Canada's role as an honest broker. But in the eyes of many, myself included, Harper had already undermined that position and that's precisely why many felt such a demonstration was called for. Choosing the "least treacherous" option to make that point may mean also mean choosing the least effective and the least immediate. In fact, the "least treacherous" would be to say nothing at all.

Speaking for myself at least, it's not a matter of being personally offended. I have a pretty thick skin and to be brutally blunt about it, I don't give a rat's ass what you think of me personally.

But let's take a line from your latest answer to Stephen:

the lack of specificity in defining what is meant by media implies that the entire media is held suspect

So you started your exchange with him by accusing him of being verbose and then, because he didn't spend paragraphs defining the term "media" and issuing fifty-eight thousand qualifications to ensure that no one could possibly misinterpret his remarks, you felt free to read your own "implications" into his position and dismiss him as someone you couldn't possibly have a "meaningful debate" with. That is an ad hominem argument and it'll get you a rough ride here every time. It's the same tactic being used in the examples Stephen gave us: distort your opponent's position and use it to dismiss him.

It's interesting that you brought up that recent discussion about anti-Americanism because that accusation is often used in the same way: to suggest that your opponent is speaking out of blind prejudice. It's a way of marginalizing the other.

Don't be surprised if such tactics get a heated response. That's precisely what we've come to expect from the very people Colbert is ridiculing when he talks about "truthiness."

Hi pogge,

I guess there’s no end to this. So, I will give it a rest after this comment. I will, however, read your response.

(a) “verbose” – is the use of such a word really an attack or even a criticism? Come on! Please be reasonable. I’ve seen far far worse than allusions to academic writing.

(b) “ad hominem” – I request that you re-reading my comment at 2:10, especially the last two paragraphs.

Nowhere in there did I refer to Stephen or accuse him of anything. Any direct connection to Stephen was imputed to him by you. It would appear that you think it was some round-about way of calling him names. Instead of taking it at face value, a hidden meaning was ascribed to it.

Oddly, the vague reference to “people” was intentional but not for the purpose of what was inferred. I painted the picture of what I feared was developing in the second-to- last-paragraph. And in the last paragraph, I purposely used the vague notion of “people”. Why? Because this was a clear invitation for everyone, including Stephen, to explain to me how I did not need to fear that from anyone here. It was an attempt to steer the discussion away from the fear in the second-to-last-paragraph.

Instead, the discussion like many of our discussions turns into defiance. Rather than steer away from something, we dive right into it – head to head. Rather than you argue that the second-to-last-paragraph was not what was being argued, you amongst others took on the mentality that it was in fact the argument and that I somehow had unfairly summarized the stance.

It’s as if it were some sick self-fulfilling prophecy. The issue that I feared was developing from the ambiguous “media distortion”, did. And sadly, it seems impossible to tell whether this argument was what was intended or inadvertent.

I would like to note that both Nightingale and Tim have taken such invitations. And I have had pleasant discussions with them, especially Nightingale.

(c) “Anti-American” – Again, I request that you re-read “Hearts and Minds: Somalia”, because I referred to the accusation against the US as anti-American and not the individual. That’s a big difference! Just because someone makes an obtuse remark, doesn’t mean that they’re stupid. Similarly, just because someone labels a remark as being obtuse, doesn’t mean that they called the person who made it stupid.

Moreover, is it not dubious for someone to make a blanket negative comment about a country’s foreign policy etc., no matter the country – Canada included? Yes

(d) Re Tone – Please note that the tone of my comments did not change until being accused of arguing in circles at 4:48. None of my remarks have been aimed at the integrity of the point in the main post. The reaction against my original comments still baffles me.

(e) Re Israel, etc – I really don’t want to get into a debate over that here and now. It would seem that current tensions are already too high.

(f) Finally, if I may make one final request, I’ve noticed that commentators have now dropped the “Cdn” from my screen name, probably for brevity’s sake. I ask that you remember that I am Canadian even if you do not write it. Tar Heel refers to the University of North Carolina.

You won't get a lengthy response out of me. I'm away from home and on a borrowed computer.

Re: the paras you suggested I reread: done. If you wanted clarification on Stephen's remarks I'll bet all you had to do was ask. But the "sinister theory" line wasn't a request for clarification. I get the same thing out of it that I got the first time I read it.

Re: Israel. It's probably not going to calm down any time soon. I would suggest careful reasoning and writing from both of us should it come up again.

Re: Tarheel and UNC. I know, I'm a basketball fan.