Email
PrintHarper has determined that fear and loathing is more effective than bridge building
He has been very successful, thus far, in convincing the rest of us that this boatload of people is truly nothing more than Tamil terrorists. Is that really the new face of Canada?
History is supposed to repeat itself. Except this time, Canada seems to be turning its back on a glorious past.
Is anyone old enough to remember the outpouring of support and hospitality that accompanied the arrival of the Vietnamese Boat People more than three decades ago?
So generous was Canada's welcome that the country was given a collective recognition by the United Nations, the first time a country's resettlement effort was so recognized. Church groups, social activists and ordinary citizens stepped up to the plate, sponsoring families and taking strangers into their homes and families without fear or malice.
The government matched whatever citizens were prepared to do, guaranteeing an eventual settlement of about 50,000 refugees. The ancillary public and government spending was in the tens of millions of dollars but no public outcry accompanied that expenditure.
Instead, we witnessed an unprecedented response to a war in a faraway land. As the vanquished scrambled to leave a home beset by civil war and internal strife, Canada was there to help them pick up the pieces of their lives. Offspring of those refugees have even become Olympic gold medalists and esteemed journalists.
That was then and this is now. Thirty-one years later, the mature, prosperous country we have become is turning its back on a single boatload of 492 people. Our prime minister and ministers take to the airwaves, throwing around terms like "terrorist" and "security risk" in a calculated crescendo of fear.
Radio shows are rife with racism. Outraged Canadians are demanding that these boat people be turned back, or worse. Shauna Rae hosts a two-hour daily radio talk show on CJBK in the sleepy southwestern Ontario town of London. Her response rate was typical of what is being said across the country. Rae's program was flooded by callers livid about the arrival of the asylum-seeking Tamils.
The majority of listeners were demanding deportation or worse. Rae couldn't believe her ears when one angry respondent even advocated that the passengers be drowned at sea.
Has Canada really changed that much in the past 40 years or are we simply falling into a well-laid trap sprung by the prime minister?
After all, the month of August is notorious for diversionary traps laid by the government. This wouldn't be the first time a politician has tried to focus attention away from homegrown problems with an international "emergency" caused by a boatload of unexpected visitors.
In 1986 and 1990, the summer recess was cut short when Parliament was recalled to deal with similar "crises"; one involving 174 Sikhs landing in Nova Scotia, the other 150 Sri Lankan refugees.
Political leaders of the day could have whipped Canadians into frenzy, predicting multiple security problems stemming from the newcomers' arrival. Instead, political rhetoric was limited and most refugees melded quickly into the Canadian landscape, becoming productive citizens and making their mark in the new country.
Unlike the current crop, previous governments exercised the kind of moderation that builds bridges between Canadians and potential newcomers.
Not that they weren't tempted to follow a more divisive course.
The "Wag the Dog" theory of governments deflecting attention from domestic problems by creating an enemy from the outside is not new, nor is it uniquely Canadian.
Wily despots from around the world have created furor and galvanized a frightened domestic populace simply by focusing on an external boogie man. They have used divisions to start wars and insulate supporters.
The "us against them" mentality makes for great, short-term politics at home and abroad. It is key to dividing citizens in the name of power.
Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe recently celebrated two decades in Parliament, achieving success by convincing followers that Canada is their enemy.
Historically, most Canadian national leaders have avoided the divisive tendencies that can infect all politicians. They usually are the ones calling for calm, asking the population to reach out to fellow world citizens in need.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has determined that fear and loathing is more effective than bridge building. He has been very successful, thus far, in convincing the rest of us that this boatload of people is truly nothing more than Tamil terrorists.
Had Prime Ministers Joe Clark and Pierre Trudeau followed that path, we would never have opened our hearts to 50,000 boat people.
This time, Canada won't be getting a United Nations award.
Instead, we mount the barricades to keep 492 war torn souls from finding peace. Is that really the new face of Canada?
Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era Cabinet minister and deputy prime minister.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
- 1
Harper has determined that fear and loathing is more effective than bridge building
He has been very successful, thus far, in convincing the rest of us that this boatload of people is truly nothing more than Tamil terrorists. Is that really the new face of Canada?
History is supposed to repeat itself. Except this time, Canada seems to be turning its back on a glorious past.
Is anyone old enough to remember the outpouring of support and hospitality that accompanied the arrival of the Vietnamese Boat People more than three decades ago?
So generous was Canada's welcome that the country was given a collective recognition by the United Nations, the first time a country's resettlement effort was so recognized. Church groups, social activists and ordinary citizens stepped up to the plate, sponsoring families and taking strangers into their homes and families without fear or malice.
The government matched whatever citizens were prepared to do, guaranteeing an eventual settlement of about 50,000 refugees. The ancillary public and government spending was in the tens of millions of dollars but no public outcry accompanied that expenditure.
Instead, we witnessed an unprecedented response to a war in a faraway land. As the vanquished scrambled to leave a home beset by civil war and internal strife, Canada was there to help them pick up the pieces of their lives. Offspring of those refugees have even become Olympic gold medalists and esteemed journalists.
That was then and this is now. Thirty-one years later, the mature, prosperous country we have become is turning its back on a single boatload of 492 people. Our prime minister and ministers take to the airwaves, throwing around terms like "terrorist" and "security risk" in a calculated crescendo of fear.
Radio shows are rife with racism. Outraged Canadians are demanding that these boat people be turned back, or worse. Shauna Rae hosts a two-hour daily radio talk show on CJBK in the sleepy southwestern Ontario town of London. Her response rate was typical of what is being said across the country. Rae's program was flooded by callers livid about the arrival of the asylum-seeking Tamils.
The majority of listeners were demanding deportation or worse. Rae couldn't believe her ears when one angry respondent even advocated that the passengers be drowned at sea.
Has Canada really changed that much in the past 40 years or are we simply falling into a well-laid trap sprung by the prime minister?
After all, the month of August is notorious for diversionary traps laid by the government. This wouldn't be the first time a politician has tried to focus attention away from homegrown problems with an international "emergency" caused by a boatload of unexpected visitors.
In 1986 and 1990, the summer recess was cut short when Parliament was recalled to deal with similar "crises"; one involving 174 Sikhs landing in Nova Scotia, the other 150 Sri Lankan refugees.
Political leaders of the day could have whipped Canadians into frenzy, predicting multiple security problems stemming from the newcomers' arrival. Instead, political rhetoric was limited and most refugees melded quickly into the Canadian landscape, becoming productive citizens and making their mark in the new country.
Unlike the current crop, previous governments exercised the kind of moderation that builds bridges between Canadians and potential newcomers.
Not that they weren't tempted to follow a more divisive course.
The "Wag the Dog" theory of governments deflecting attention from domestic problems by creating an enemy from the outside is not new, nor is it uniquely Canadian.
Wily despots from around the world have created furor and galvanized a frightened domestic populace simply by focusing on an external boogie man. They have used divisions to start wars and insulate supporters.
The "us against them" mentality makes for great, short-term politics at home and abroad. It is key to dividing citizens in the name of power.
Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe recently celebrated two decades in Parliament, achieving success by convincing followers that Canada is their enemy.
Historically, most Canadian national leaders have avoided the divisive tendencies that can infect all politicians. They usually are the ones calling for calm, asking the population to reach out to fellow world citizens in need.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has determined that fear and loathing is more effective than bridge building. He has been very successful, thus far, in convincing the rest of us that this boatload of people is truly nothing more than Tamil terrorists.
Had Prime Ministers Joe Clark and Pierre Trudeau followed that path, we would never have opened our hearts to 50,000 boat people.
This time, Canada won't be getting a United Nations award.
Instead, we mount the barricades to keep 492 war torn souls from finding peace. Is that really the new face of Canada?
Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era Cabinet minister and deputy prime minister.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
