Faddenism = McCarthyism? (with updates)
I am opposed to McCarthyism, but I don't think that is what is happening here. He's not saying everyone, everywhere is infiltrated, that there's a spy under every bed. But it's a serious problem, and not taken seriously enough. And since he, like most, is always so vague for precisely the reasons noted, this time he gave some idea of the gravity. Between "we have general concerns about activities" and "x, y, and z is a spy" (which is awfully hard to prove according to rules of evidence, even though one may be convinced it is so), there is a huge gap. The first never seems to wake anyone up. The second can only be stated if one has a watertight case and is willing to make arrests or end ongoing monitoring, which may be more useful.
So he tried to wake everyone up, by giving a better idea. You may think he was wrong to do so (I don't), or that he should have been more circumspect (I agree - except how, if one wants to convey importance? The gap between generalities and specifics is huge, otherwise).
Does anyone else remember Zaccardelli and the RCMP annual reports using almost exactly the same language to describe Canada's number one security problem (still is, much more than terrorism), organised crime and how it has infested our institutions and was(is?) threatening our État de droit? I don't remember anyone complaining about the language then. Why is OK to say that organised crime has compromised public administrations at the highest levels, but not OK to say foreign governments have?
As for timing, I would say the G-20 and G-8 are the perfect time.
As for giving comfort to rednecks, I would say fear of encouraging bigots should also not stop us from confronting difficult and dangerous cultural realities.
If we think that way, we end up the same as the well-meaning apologists for Communists when the Soviets really were up to no good. Not everywhere, not everyone, far from it, and McCarthyism is wrong. But it's also wrong to deny reality. Communists were up to no good, and many well-meaning people helped them by defending any accused Communist, however strong the evidence. Many were innocent, and often the security services were stupid and bad. But not always. Far from it.
I think Orwell did the completely right thing at the end, pointing out which of his acquaintances was a danger, and to what degree. To think otherwise is to to delude oneself about the nature of such threats.
But one should not tag everyone of such sympathies. Orwell didn't - he named some, and in his writing gave an idea of stakes, and kinds of people. And Fadden, awkwardly, has done likewise. And I don't see how one speaks potently about such things in public, going beyond the vaguest generalities, without giving an idea of the kinds of posts held. But of course, if you do that, then people want names. Which may be true, but can't be confirmed in a court of law. So then stick to same old generalities? But that doesn't seem to be getting through to parties and public, and ALL the parties may even be (un?)wittingly ignoring it because taking it seriously will be a real problem for them. And if that is so, and things may even be getting worse, dangerously so, then what to do? What to say?
Maybe Fadden got it wrong, but someone tell me how one raises the alarm effectively without alarming people? As I say, his language was almost word for word what the RCMP reports said about organised crime for years.
PS. Just as an illustration of the psychology of our parties: Harper dit oui aux demandes de censure chinoise
25/06/10 13h30 PPS. Further on all-party denial (at best)- Colin Freeze, National security correspondent for Globe and Mail:
PPPS. Not a fan of Crowley, he's bitter and unhinged about Quebec and Canada, but worth reading his four posts on the matter: The Fadden Files
So he tried to wake everyone up, by giving a better idea. You may think he was wrong to do so (I don't), or that he should have been more circumspect (I agree - except how, if one wants to convey importance? The gap between generalities and specifics is huge, otherwise).
Does anyone else remember Zaccardelli and the RCMP annual reports using almost exactly the same language to describe Canada's number one security problem (still is, much more than terrorism), organised crime and how it has infested our institutions and was(is?) threatening our État de droit? I don't remember anyone complaining about the language then. Why is OK to say that organised crime has compromised public administrations at the highest levels, but not OK to say foreign governments have?
As for timing, I would say the G-20 and G-8 are the perfect time.
As for giving comfort to rednecks, I would say fear of encouraging bigots should also not stop us from confronting difficult and dangerous cultural realities.
If we think that way, we end up the same as the well-meaning apologists for Communists when the Soviets really were up to no good. Not everywhere, not everyone, far from it, and McCarthyism is wrong. But it's also wrong to deny reality. Communists were up to no good, and many well-meaning people helped them by defending any accused Communist, however strong the evidence. Many were innocent, and often the security services were stupid and bad. But not always. Far from it.
I think Orwell did the completely right thing at the end, pointing out which of his acquaintances was a danger, and to what degree. To think otherwise is to to delude oneself about the nature of such threats.
But one should not tag everyone of such sympathies. Orwell didn't - he named some, and in his writing gave an idea of stakes, and kinds of people. And Fadden, awkwardly, has done likewise. And I don't see how one speaks potently about such things in public, going beyond the vaguest generalities, without giving an idea of the kinds of posts held. But of course, if you do that, then people want names. Which may be true, but can't be confirmed in a court of law. So then stick to same old generalities? But that doesn't seem to be getting through to parties and public, and ALL the parties may even be (un?)wittingly ignoring it because taking it seriously will be a real problem for them. And if that is so, and things may even be getting worse, dangerously so, then what to do? What to say?
Maybe Fadden got it wrong, but someone tell me how one raises the alarm effectively without alarming people? As I say, his language was almost word for word what the RCMP reports said about organised crime for years.
PS. Just as an illustration of the psychology of our parties: Harper dit oui aux demandes de censure chinoise
25/06/10 13h30 PPS. Further on all-party denial (at best)- Colin Freeze, National security correspondent for Globe and Mail:
# Iggy's a funny guy. In past 24 hrs he's been cozying up to China http://bit.ly/9HCTnQ and called out CSIS http://bit.ly/d7NRA2 ... about 1 hour ago via web # ... which is all fine and good, if you're prepared to be entirely dismissive of #CSIS's PRC concerns, however awkwardly #Fadden voiced em. about 1 hour ago via web
PPPS. Not a fan of Crowley, he's bitter and unhinged about Quebec and Canada, but worth reading his four posts on the matter: The Fadden Files
posted by Eugene Forsey Liberal @ 1:06 AM
6 Comments:
At 1:43 AM,
Anonymous said…
I commented on your earlier post before I realized you made your thoughts a new post so I apologize for the repeat . . .
Well, it's not actually the same thing - at all. And I think you're being a bit too eager to blend them together without actually thinking about the reality of what happened in this interview.
Fadden could easily have said something like, "We are concerned about possible undue influence of foreign governments within our provincial and federal governments. We take that threat very seriously and have active efforts underway to investigate possible influences."
However, the moment you start throwing things out there like, "we know cabinet members in BC and at least one other province who right now are the undue influence of foreign governments . . . oh, and a few mayors as well." then you've just stepped in it.
What Fadden did was the latter, not the former.
I still can't believe you would defend his actions.
Fadden has smeared anyone in the BC cabinet with such a "vaguely specific" accusation. It is NO different than McCarthy running around saying he has a list of communists working at the highest levels of government . . . no difference at all.
Unless there are arrests in BC cabinet this week with specific charges, he owes them all an apology.
Say you were a BC cabinet member now and let's just say you happen to think expanding trade relations with China is a good thing. What do you do now, knowing that any statement to that effect will be viewed under the shadow of, "What if he/she is a compromised citizen under the influence of Chinese officials?"
Don't you see how utterly damning - and ridiculous - that is. And just how likely it is, given his half-ass, off-the-cuff innuendo.
It is not acceptable . . . no matter how you try to spin it.
Perhaps the real reason it is "so difficult to prove" is because it's not true?
When are we going to start bringing the thought police in to determine why a government official has the opinions they have?
Can't you see how irresponsible and dangerous this type of bile is in a functioning democracy? You either have prove and lay charges or you don't. Period. You don't start saying, "Some of the people in 'x' government are traitors." That's not a general warning, it's designed to cast aspersions on those individuals without bothering with proof. And it's wrong!
At 8:40 AM,
Anonymous said…
Ok, but when it takes an even longer post to provide a more nuanced response to the comments on the original post (mine), it proves the pt.: there's something to the criticisms.
And there still is, re the timing. As CSIS made clear, the main pt of this espionage stuff is that it may be costing us billions in unfavourable trade deals, e.g. But, d'uh, w. his timing, he almost torpedoed the side Can/China biz summit, which the biz leaders are hyping as the main reason this is worth the $1-B.+ summit.
www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/news/canadas-turn-on-the-world-stage-is-worth-the-cost-business-leaders-say/article1617066/
So Fadden's inastute timing may have actually just cost us even more in lost biz than the compromised pols might hypothetically cost.
Here's another reasonable crit. from a Con-friendly paper:
www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/editorials/csis-must-provide-more-facts-97049794.html
At 1:11 PM,
Eugene Forsey Liberal said…
I don't know if I'm replying to two different anonymous commentators or one. In any event, capture of Canadian public administrations by outside forces and the threats to Canadian sovereignty and security matter far more to me than business. I would hope they would matter more to all.
His language. The proposed language in the comment is exactly what he and others have said many times, to no effect. We now see what an effect his much criticised remarks have had, with the Public Safety Committee going to have special meetings on the issue. He has seemingly galvanised the country. From his point of view, job done, no doubt, whatever personal costs he may pay.
As I pointed out, his language was exactly that of the RCMP on organised crime for years. What's wrong with saying the same about foreign governments, citing types of positions influenced, mayors, Federal, Municipal and provincial politicians etc. (and the RCMP used to add the judiciary)? All true.
Fadden had three choices:
1) same old generalities
2) specific names, even if difficult to prove in court, and exposing CSIS to libel
3) following RCMP example re. organised crime and giving idea of positions that are compromised.
If people are sensitive about this, good. Time to wake up. And no hiding under covers and denying there are people from specific groups, a tiny minority, but still real, who are working against the national interests of the country they are supposed to represent as elected officials, on behalf of other countries' interests. Exists everywhere, and in Canada too, and given our mosaic, more likely/possible here. The one doesn't invalidate the other. But I would say that those of us who are strong supporters of the mosaic model have a concomitant responsibility to recognise its negatives, and not be too pansily politically correct to say so out loud.
What's more important to you, sucking up to all and sundry, or defending Canada?
If the second, that starts with truth, and awareness. CSIS and others are not winning this battle, and politicians don't want to know, and everyone's too embarrassed to speak.
You're Fadden. You want to wake up country. What do you do?
Say what you want, he achieved his policy aim.
At 1:37 PM,
Eugene Forsey Liberal said…
See PSes in post for updates.
At 2:37 PM,
Anonymous said…
I am the first anon comment on the post, not the second. So there are two different people making similar - but not identical points.
You are still avoiding the crux of the matter . . . purposefully?
He didn't make any general statement on the "types of positions that might be influenced."
Fadden has STATED specifically that there are TWO (again very specific) cabinet members in BC (very specific) who are under undue influence from foreign governments.
That's not an "example." The BC government has a finite number of cabinet members, and the head of the CSIS has just stated that two of them are traitors.
Fadden needs to put up or shut up for having just cast aspersions on the members of the BC cabinet. And you really ought to brush up on your reading comprehension if you honestly can't tell the difference between a general example and a specific accusation.
The head of the CSIS strayed far beyond a general example in his statements. If the means do justify the ends, then the end of this ought to be his resignation.
We do not operate in a society that slanders people in order to make a point, though apparently you wouldn't mind if we did.
At 1:25 AM,
Eugene Forsey Liberal said…
Anon 1, here's what Fadden actually said: "We’re in fact a bit worried in a couple of provinces that we have an indication that there’s some political figures who have developed quite an attachment to foreign countries."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/what-richard-fadden-told-the-cbc/article1618765/
The "cabinet ministers" line is from Stewart's report: "CBC reporter Brian Stewart said in a report that accompanied the interview that the head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service deems the two cabinet ministers to be “agents of influence” or “secret supporters.” Mr. Stewart added that a number of municipal politicians in British Columbia are also being influenced by agents and officials from other countries."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/government-infiltrated-by-spies-csis-boss-says/article1614071/
So first, doubtless Stewart's report is accurate, but those are not apparently words in the interview itself. Which may be why CSIS felt the need to release a full transcript of the interview.
Following on, speaking of evading questions, then you also condemn the RCMP for saying exactly the same thing about organised crime and public officials in their annual reports? They should name names then? Or was Fadden's error leading Stewart to report "cabinet ministers"? He should just have said "elected provincial representatives" and then you wouldn't call him a slanderer and demand names?
Or he shouldn't have said anything at all and all the parties and their enablers, like yourself, can remain in happy denial as they seek votes in politically sensitive communities?
You're probably right. Obsequious subservience and and blandishment to external powers is the traditional Canadian way, after all.
On the other hand, on the off-chance you're wrong, and Canada should defend itself, what should the CSIS director do, when as the latest director to give these warnings in general terms, over and over, he sees all parties ignore them? Should he say nothing? Should he outright accuse x,y and z of treachery, though it may impossible to prove in court? Or should he try to be more specific in his warnings, to wake people up, without naming names though, and take the risk of losing his job?
He did the last. He may lose his job, though I hope not. But whatever happens, he has done a great service to Canada, if this wakes y'all up.
Or are we all so sensitive we shouldn't say that a lot of elected Irish-Canadians, post-Confederation, worked not for the Canadian interest but pursued a foreign cause? Should we not say that a lot of prominent Montreal Italians were enthusiastic fascists in the 1930s? Should we not say that much of the Canadian Communist Party was a Stalinist tool in the 1940s and 1950s? Should we not say that some separatists were the tools of the French Government in the 1960s and early 1970s? Should we not say that the USA worked to undermine the CCF, and defeat Diefenbaker? Should we not say that the Bavarian Christian Democrats (most with former Nazi links) financed and supported campaigns of likeminded conservatives the world over, interfering in domestic affairs in the UK (Thatcher), Canada (Mulroney) and the USA (Reagan), among others?
All these things are true, and known, and reported. As is the fact that there are politicians at every level in Canada who are wittingly or unwittingly the tools of foreign governments. But now you're waking up.
We need more D'Arcy McGees and less Fenians in this country, so to speak.
Post a Comment
<< Home