Professor Klar has kindly extended me an invitation to write about the exclusion of British MP George Galloway from Canada, so denying him the opportunity to fulfill speaking engagements in Toronto. He did so on the basis that he did not have the background to allow him to comment on the case, and complimented me by saying that I probably did. This is because I teach Immigration Law at his law faculty.
On this basis, I feel obliged to make a few remarks about what I understand to be the legal context of the Galloway decision. However, in the end, I don’t think one’s views on this case should turn on legal niceties. Any of us who care about freedom of expression, as Professor Klar clearly does, have reason to be concerned about the federal government’s decision to keep Mr. Galloway out of Canada. We should be especially concerned that this has been done so casually, by invoking the authority of law and such grand concepts as national sovereignty and security.
Mr. Galloway is, of course, a highly controversial figure. He is a long-time and trenchant critic of Israeli government policies, and a supporter of Palestinian causes. He maintained connections with Saddam Hussein long after most of the rest of the world had declared him a pariah, and bitterly attacked the Blair government for joining in the invasion of Iraq. It is commonplace at this point to agree that he is a most offensive and distasteful person, and in supporting his ability to enter into and speak in Canada, one in no way endorses his views. Well I don’t agree with everything or even most of what I’ve heard Mr. Galloway say in the many public arenas in which we have come to know him—in many TV and radio interviews, in his lengthy testimony before the U.S. Senate—but I also have not heard him say anything on those occasions that is or should be outside the bounds of public discourse in this or any democratic society. Moreover, Mr. Galloway makes his points with verve and, often, humor. In other words, I don’t turn off the TV or radio when he comes on. And I don’t want my government turning him off on my behalf.
OK, now back to the law. The government has ruled Mr. Galloway inadmissible to Canada under s. 34(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act on the basis that there are “reasonable grounds to believe… a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for …engaging in terrorism, being a danger to the security of Canada or… being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages in [these activities.]” Section 34(1) goes on to say that the above grounds do not constitute inadmissibility if the person satisfies the Minister of Immigration that their presence in Canada “would not be detrimental to the national interest.”
The strongest case that seems to be available with respect to George Galloway is that he may have or be intending to fundraise for Hamas, an organization that is listed by the Canadian government as a terrorist group. He denies even being a supporter of Hamas. True, Galloway led a caravan of aid supplies to Gaza in the weeks following the recent military action there, but it would seem a long stretch to say this is proscribed activity. Public Safety Canada’s own website on “listed entities” [http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/index-eng.aspx] says the following:
“It is an offence to knowingly participate in or contribute to, directly or indirectly, any activity of a terrorist group. This participation is only an offence if its purpose is to enhance the ability of any terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity.”
Well, if you take this and that scrap of information, and stretch the meaning of several words in the statute, and make every negative imputation about Galloway’s character and motives, maybe you can get to a technical basis for the government’s ruling. Does anyone sincerely believe these terms do or should apply to Mr. Galloway? I think you can only do so on the basis of saying “the government must know something that I don’t, and I’m happy to trust them on this.” For many reasons, I don’t think that is wise.
I’ve heard and read that this case is more about Canadian sovereignty and our ability to control who does and does not get to enter this country, than anything like freedom of expression. It’s true that immigration remains one area in our law in which ministerial discretion plays a great part. However, arbitrary exercises of state authority have become less and less acceptable in immigration, just as in most other areas of public law. Sovereignty does not and should not mean ‘the government gets to keep out anyone it does not like.’ The grounds set out in the statute have meaning, and if the Galloway goes to Court on judicial review, I expect that point will win out.
Another thing that has been said in defence of the government’s action is that no foreign national, including Mr. Galloway, has a “right” to enter Canada, let alone to speak here. In a constitutional sense, that’s true. However, to speak of rights in this way is not helpful. If any of us wished to have a relative visit us from the U.K. or another country, we would correctly feel that we and they had a “right” to the visit, unless there were very specific reasons and evidence for the state to block it.
Besides, the rights I’m most concerned with here are not Mr. Galloway’s. The main point is the right of Canadians to hear from those people they want to hear from. That’s whose freedom of expression is truly at stake. One of the peculiarities of the Cold War years was that in the name freedom, the U.S. barred many academics, authors and public figures from entering and speaking in the U.S. due to their left-wing views and associations. The U.S. still bars its own citizens from travelling to Cuba. It always seemed an advantage of the Canadian approach (something I know is close to Prof. Klar’s heart) that we avoided hiving ourselves off from opposing and disturbing views. Mr. Galloway is currently touring the U.S. quite peacefully. At the same time that much of the world is expressing sorrow that South Africa may well have betrayed its proud human rights heritage by denying entry to the Dalai Lama because of the controversy surrounding him, it is particularly painful to see Canada doing much the same thing.
Peter Carver is a law professor at the University of Alberta and teaches immigration,administrative and constitutional law.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
So What Do I Really Think About President Obama?
Readers of the Ivory Tower Pundit (and since my site meter went up in January 2009 that totals about 2700 visitors accounting for 6000 page views) can justifiably question my apparent obsession with President Obama. By my calculation, of the 32 postings I have published so far since I started this blog on December 24, 2008, 12, or almost 40%, have in one way or another commented on the President. That may appear to some to be overkill. After all I am not an American voter, and he is not my President. Moreover, I gather that some of you do not think I have been too kind to him. One person commented that I apparently dislike him; another that I have my own anti-Obama bandwagon going; and a third that my reference to the President as a "joke" was frankly not very nice.
So let me set the record straight. It is clear that the election of President Obama is THE story of our times. Moreover, the way the President and his administration handle the USA economic crisis affects everyone, no matter where they live. President Obama is a captivating, exciting and charismatic figure. Not only is the fact that the Americans elected a bi-racial person as President historic, but look at who that person is. He is young, cool, intelligent and a gifted speaker to boot. All other politicians, and certainly our Canadian leaders, are bland and boring compared to Obama. If the topic of a posting is the economy and politics, the subject matter of the story has to be the USA and Barack Obama. So I write about it and will continue to do so.
Do I "like" him? It might surprise some to learn that during the Hillary/Obama primaries, I was a big supporter of Obama. His poise under the enormous criticism from the Clinton camp, his speech on racism after the Jeremiah Wright incident, his refusal to play the race card, and his gift of the gab won me over. The Clinton camp's tactics disgusted me. You might recall that it was the Paul Begala, James Carville, Lanny Davis, and Hillary Rosen types who constantly brought up the Jeremiah Wright stuff, argued that Obama could not beat McCain, that he could not win over the working class voter, that he had no experience, and that he was not ready to be commander-in-chief from day one, although Hillary and John McCain were. They crossed the line more than once in terms of what is acceptable in a primary contest and seemed almost determined to ensure that Obama would lose to McCain, if Hillary was not the nominee. It was Hillary who played the feminist card over and over, talking about the highest glass ceilings, and coming across as some sort of new age suffragette. The suggestion that women in the USA faced bigger barriers than African-Americans seemed to me to be absurd and outrageous.
When it came down to the election, I strongly favoured McCain. This was not because I disliked Obama, but because I thought that McCain would be the better President. He was clearly more experienced, his character and courage impressed me, and he seemed more principled. I admired his willingness to depart from his Republican party when he disagreed with it, as well as his willingness to work with others and to adopt "liberal" policies, when he thought that was the right thing to do. I also had become much less enamoured with Obama. He seemed to too easily drop important "principles" when it suited him, he distanced himself too quickly and apparently without regret from previous friends and allies when they became a political liability. Where he stood on anything became confusing as his positions seemed to change so quickly. He was clearly a better speaker and debater than McCain, and probably a lot smarter. But he was decidedly less experienced and was, at least to me, a much riskier choice.
After two months in office my views of Obama have not changed much. His inexperience is his biggest liability. He seems smart, but not wise. Wisdom comes with age and experience, and he is not yet there. He is a showman and a salesman. He loves an audience, especially one he can dominate. In terms of his policies, especially as they relate to the bailouts and huge deficits, I do not profess to be an expert, but they seem, based on my reading, to be very risky and potentially calamitous.
I hope Obama succeeds in his plans to revitalize the American economy, because if he does, we all do. That, however, remains to be seen. I will also continue to be critical of him when I think it is appropriate. In his press conference last week, President Obama stated that he wanted to be judged on his performance, without allowance being paid to the historic nature of his victory. That is clearly what he is owed and what I will do.
So let me set the record straight. It is clear that the election of President Obama is THE story of our times. Moreover, the way the President and his administration handle the USA economic crisis affects everyone, no matter where they live. President Obama is a captivating, exciting and charismatic figure. Not only is the fact that the Americans elected a bi-racial person as President historic, but look at who that person is. He is young, cool, intelligent and a gifted speaker to boot. All other politicians, and certainly our Canadian leaders, are bland and boring compared to Obama. If the topic of a posting is the economy and politics, the subject matter of the story has to be the USA and Barack Obama. So I write about it and will continue to do so.
Do I "like" him? It might surprise some to learn that during the Hillary/Obama primaries, I was a big supporter of Obama. His poise under the enormous criticism from the Clinton camp, his speech on racism after the Jeremiah Wright incident, his refusal to play the race card, and his gift of the gab won me over. The Clinton camp's tactics disgusted me. You might recall that it was the Paul Begala, James Carville, Lanny Davis, and Hillary Rosen types who constantly brought up the Jeremiah Wright stuff, argued that Obama could not beat McCain, that he could not win over the working class voter, that he had no experience, and that he was not ready to be commander-in-chief from day one, although Hillary and John McCain were. They crossed the line more than once in terms of what is acceptable in a primary contest and seemed almost determined to ensure that Obama would lose to McCain, if Hillary was not the nominee. It was Hillary who played the feminist card over and over, talking about the highest glass ceilings, and coming across as some sort of new age suffragette. The suggestion that women in the USA faced bigger barriers than African-Americans seemed to me to be absurd and outrageous.
When it came down to the election, I strongly favoured McCain. This was not because I disliked Obama, but because I thought that McCain would be the better President. He was clearly more experienced, his character and courage impressed me, and he seemed more principled. I admired his willingness to depart from his Republican party when he disagreed with it, as well as his willingness to work with others and to adopt "liberal" policies, when he thought that was the right thing to do. I also had become much less enamoured with Obama. He seemed to too easily drop important "principles" when it suited him, he distanced himself too quickly and apparently without regret from previous friends and allies when they became a political liability. Where he stood on anything became confusing as his positions seemed to change so quickly. He was clearly a better speaker and debater than McCain, and probably a lot smarter. But he was decidedly less experienced and was, at least to me, a much riskier choice.
After two months in office my views of Obama have not changed much. His inexperience is his biggest liability. He seems smart, but not wise. Wisdom comes with age and experience, and he is not yet there. He is a showman and a salesman. He loves an audience, especially one he can dominate. In terms of his policies, especially as they relate to the bailouts and huge deficits, I do not profess to be an expert, but they seem, based on my reading, to be very risky and potentially calamitous.
I hope Obama succeeds in his plans to revitalize the American economy, because if he does, we all do. That, however, remains to be seen. I will also continue to be critical of him when I think it is appropriate. In his press conference last week, President Obama stated that he wanted to be judged on his performance, without allowance being paid to the historic nature of his victory. That is clearly what he is owed and what I will do.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Move Over "American Idol"
Move over "American Idol". The real deal wants some more T.V. time. So on this Tuesday, "American Idol's" performance show will be postponed until Wednesday. Other television network programs will also be shuffled around to give President Obama time to address the American public.
In case you haven't been paying attention, President Obama and his folks have been all over US television screens in the past week. President Obama, of course, made his now infamous appearance on Jay Leno's "Tonight Show" with, well, to be polite, mixed reviews. He appears today on CBS's "Sixty Minutes". Obama of course had his regular weekly address on Saturday. Moreover, his spokespersons have been out there in full force, led by Secretary Treasurer Geithner's March 19 television interview with CNN.
One wonders, therefore, what new things there are left to be said which necessitated the President's decision to go prime time in yet another speech to the American public. Last week's "American Idol" show had approximately 25,000,000 viewers: http://ca.movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.eonline.com/104051-. Watching the screaming fans who are in the audience live for the show, tells me that not many of these 25 million viewers are going to be that thrilled that "Idol" is being preempted by a speech from the President, even if it means only that they will have to put their anticipation on hold for one day. I doubt that many of them will even bother to stick around to watch the Obama speech. So this whole idea may turn out to be a mistake.
I will watch it and of course will let you know what I think about it. But quite frankly, I would prefer to be watching "American Idol" especially since I already have other plans for Wednesday night.
In case you haven't been paying attention, President Obama and his folks have been all over US television screens in the past week. President Obama, of course, made his now infamous appearance on Jay Leno's "Tonight Show" with, well, to be polite, mixed reviews. He appears today on CBS's "Sixty Minutes". Obama of course had his regular weekly address on Saturday. Moreover, his spokespersons have been out there in full force, led by Secretary Treasurer Geithner's March 19 television interview with CNN.
One wonders, therefore, what new things there are left to be said which necessitated the President's decision to go prime time in yet another speech to the American public. Last week's "American Idol" show had approximately 25,000,000 viewers: http://ca.movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.eonline.com/104051-. Watching the screaming fans who are in the audience live for the show, tells me that not many of these 25 million viewers are going to be that thrilled that "Idol" is being preempted by a speech from the President, even if it means only that they will have to put their anticipation on hold for one day. I doubt that many of them will even bother to stick around to watch the Obama speech. So this whole idea may turn out to be a mistake.
I will watch it and of course will let you know what I think about it. But quite frankly, I would prefer to be watching "American Idol" especially since I already have other plans for Wednesday night.
Friday, March 20, 2009
The Joke of the Week
It has been a fascinating week in US politics. The AIG bonuses issue has provided political junkies with much to talk about. Nobody in public life has come off looking particularly good.
As I noted in one of my earlier postings, it is much easier for folks to debate to death small, easily defined, issues than it is to focus on the biggies. So billions, no trillions, of dollars in spending bills can be passed in a matter of a few hours, without anyone even knowing what these bills contain, never mind anyone actually giving them anything resembling careful consideration.
As Charles Krauthammer (my favourite commentator by a mile) so astutely points out in his article "Bonfire of the Trivialities" posted today (March 20, 2009) on Real Clear Politics, the $165 million AIG bonuses being debated in Washington amount "to less than 1/18,500 of the $3.1 trillion federal budget". The bonuses are "less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the bailout money given to AIG alone", Krauthammer observes. By my reckoning, if a proportionate amount of time spent by politicians on dissing AIG and the bonus babies had been directed at debating the AIG bailout in the first place, they would have had to spend 1000 weeks considering it. The fact that they didn't spend a tiny fraction of that time on it and do not even seem to know what was in the bailout package confirms my point. The bigger the issue, the smaller the thinking.
To relieve the pressure of his job, President Obama decided to go on the Jay Leno Tonight Show. That was his first mistake. In my stodgy world, presidents, especially rookie ones who are still trying to figure out where all the bathrooms in the White House are, do not appear as guests on late night talk shows. Especially during a crisis. Leave that to the celebrities - it is their job to entertain the folks, not the president's.
If you make the first mistake and go on the show, do not make the second mistake. The second mistake is wisecracking. Talking without thinking. That is, of course, what President Obama did when he compared his weak bowling skills to those of the athletes in the "Special Olympics". Of course the Obama team quickly realized what a thoughtless gaffe this was and apologized for it after the taping session ended, even before the show was aired. (I give credit to the Tonight Show people for not protecting the President's image by editing it out. I wonder whether they were placed under any pressure to do so?)
I suspect that some will argue that President Obama meant no disrespect to disabled athletes by mocking their skills, that he was just being careless and casual as could be expected in the context of that type of show(hence my first rule for presidents), and that since he apologized, we should all just move on.
My problem, however, with the President's insult runs deeper than that. There are three types of persons. The first person thinks something is funny, even though it is offensive and demeaning of others, but yet still blurts it out. This person can be criticized for not only finding insulting comments about others to be humourous, but for not having the smarts to keep these "jokes" to himself. The second person is similar to the first, except that he has the foresight to know that the comment will make him look bad. Thus he is strategic enough to know that for public relations purposes, if for no other reason, the comment is better left unstated. Then there is the third type of person. That person would never have thought of the "joke" in the first place, because it would never have struck him as something which anyone would consider funny.
I leave it to you to decide into which category President Obama falls. As for the "joke of the week", it is not President Obama's wisecrack about the Special Olympics. It is President Obama for having made that remark.
As I noted in one of my earlier postings, it is much easier for folks to debate to death small, easily defined, issues than it is to focus on the biggies. So billions, no trillions, of dollars in spending bills can be passed in a matter of a few hours, without anyone even knowing what these bills contain, never mind anyone actually giving them anything resembling careful consideration.
As Charles Krauthammer (my favourite commentator by a mile) so astutely points out in his article "Bonfire of the Trivialities" posted today (March 20, 2009) on Real Clear Politics, the $165 million AIG bonuses being debated in Washington amount "to less than 1/18,500 of the $3.1 trillion federal budget". The bonuses are "less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the bailout money given to AIG alone", Krauthammer observes. By my reckoning, if a proportionate amount of time spent by politicians on dissing AIG and the bonus babies had been directed at debating the AIG bailout in the first place, they would have had to spend 1000 weeks considering it. The fact that they didn't spend a tiny fraction of that time on it and do not even seem to know what was in the bailout package confirms my point. The bigger the issue, the smaller the thinking.
To relieve the pressure of his job, President Obama decided to go on the Jay Leno Tonight Show. That was his first mistake. In my stodgy world, presidents, especially rookie ones who are still trying to figure out where all the bathrooms in the White House are, do not appear as guests on late night talk shows. Especially during a crisis. Leave that to the celebrities - it is their job to entertain the folks, not the president's.
If you make the first mistake and go on the show, do not make the second mistake. The second mistake is wisecracking. Talking without thinking. That is, of course, what President Obama did when he compared his weak bowling skills to those of the athletes in the "Special Olympics". Of course the Obama team quickly realized what a thoughtless gaffe this was and apologized for it after the taping session ended, even before the show was aired. (I give credit to the Tonight Show people for not protecting the President's image by editing it out. I wonder whether they were placed under any pressure to do so?)
I suspect that some will argue that President Obama meant no disrespect to disabled athletes by mocking their skills, that he was just being careless and casual as could be expected in the context of that type of show(hence my first rule for presidents), and that since he apologized, we should all just move on.
My problem, however, with the President's insult runs deeper than that. There are three types of persons. The first person thinks something is funny, even though it is offensive and demeaning of others, but yet still blurts it out. This person can be criticized for not only finding insulting comments about others to be humourous, but for not having the smarts to keep these "jokes" to himself. The second person is similar to the first, except that he has the foresight to know that the comment will make him look bad. Thus he is strategic enough to know that for public relations purposes, if for no other reason, the comment is better left unstated. Then there is the third type of person. That person would never have thought of the "joke" in the first place, because it would never have struck him as something which anyone would consider funny.
I leave it to you to decide into which category President Obama falls. As for the "joke of the week", it is not President Obama's wisecrack about the Special Olympics. It is President Obama for having made that remark.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The Bogus Bonus Debate And What It Says About Obama
Remember during the election campaign when John McCain "suspended" his campaign, flew back to Washington, and suggested that the Presidential debate be cancelled so that Washington could deal with the pending $700 billion Wall Street bailout proposal? Candidate Obama, on the other hand, kept his "cool" and waited to see in what direction the wind was blowing before saying too much of anything. Remember how impressed everyone was with Obama, and how critical they were of McCain? Obama was so measured, thoughtful and in control - so "presidential", they thought. It was the more experienced McCain who seemed to them to be the one who was flustered, rash and intemperate. Some say that one incident lost McCain the election.
My, how things have changed! President Obama is the one who is now fulminating, literally foaming at the mouth, over the AIG bonus payments. AIG "is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklesness and greed", declares the President. "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat", he asks rhetorically. "I've asked Secretary Geithner to use [the bailout] leverage and pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the taxpayers whole", he promises. This is not "just a matter of dollars and cents. It's about fundamental values", he observes. The President is mad like hell and he isn't going to take it any more.
Temperate? Reasoned? Helpful? "Presidential"? I think not. This sounds more like a "Lou Dobbs rant" than a measured Presidential statement on a complicated issue. It is an issue which has provoked the anger of the American taxpayer, their emotions inflamed by the angry denunciations of AIG executives by politicians and commentators. The mob has been incited. One Republican Senator has even suggested that AIG executives should resign or commit suicide. Others have suggested that US tax laws be changed retroactively so that 90% of the bonuses which have been paid out can be recovered. The American taxpayers have been provoked and they are looking for answers. They are looking to their President to provide them.
I guess one should never let the facts of a problem get into the way of a good tantrum. Fact - it was the bailout itself which allowed and maybe even required that these bonuses be paid. If the Bush administration supported by Congress and President-elect Obama, had allowed AIG to go into bankruptcy protection, rather than keeping it afloat with taxpayers' money, the issue of the contractual obligations of AIG would have been legally and appropriately resolved. Fact - these were not performance bonuses, but retention payments. They were made to retain certain AIG employees and were not based on the current or future profitability of the company. If a star athlete is paid a "signing bonus" to induce him to sign a contract, the team cannot ask for the money back if the player does not perform well or if the team later on runs into financial difficulties. Fact - these contractual agreements were entered into before the bailouts were approved. How far back in time does Obama and the public want to go in retrieving money paid pursuant to the the terms of pre-bailout contracts? Fact - the Bush administration, backed by Congress and approved by Obama, negotiated these bailouts. Why didn't they think about these issues in advance and work them in as conditions of the bailouts before AIG was given its money? Incompetence? Or is the anger of all of those who either passed these bailouts or approved them now just a feigned one, necessitated by the fact that public is furious and no-one in power seemed to see this train wreck coming?
President Obama, the campaign is over. You won. Let the "cable chatterers" do all the screaming and yelling. Your rhetoric is unbecoming, unconvincing, and unhelpful.
My, how things have changed! President Obama is the one who is now fulminating, literally foaming at the mouth, over the AIG bonus payments. AIG "is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklesness and greed", declares the President. "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat", he asks rhetorically. "I've asked Secretary Geithner to use [the bailout] leverage and pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the taxpayers whole", he promises. This is not "just a matter of dollars and cents. It's about fundamental values", he observes. The President is mad like hell and he isn't going to take it any more.
Temperate? Reasoned? Helpful? "Presidential"? I think not. This sounds more like a "Lou Dobbs rant" than a measured Presidential statement on a complicated issue. It is an issue which has provoked the anger of the American taxpayer, their emotions inflamed by the angry denunciations of AIG executives by politicians and commentators. The mob has been incited. One Republican Senator has even suggested that AIG executives should resign or commit suicide. Others have suggested that US tax laws be changed retroactively so that 90% of the bonuses which have been paid out can be recovered. The American taxpayers have been provoked and they are looking for answers. They are looking to their President to provide them.
I guess one should never let the facts of a problem get into the way of a good tantrum. Fact - it was the bailout itself which allowed and maybe even required that these bonuses be paid. If the Bush administration supported by Congress and President-elect Obama, had allowed AIG to go into bankruptcy protection, rather than keeping it afloat with taxpayers' money, the issue of the contractual obligations of AIG would have been legally and appropriately resolved. Fact - these were not performance bonuses, but retention payments. They were made to retain certain AIG employees and were not based on the current or future profitability of the company. If a star athlete is paid a "signing bonus" to induce him to sign a contract, the team cannot ask for the money back if the player does not perform well or if the team later on runs into financial difficulties. Fact - these contractual agreements were entered into before the bailouts were approved. How far back in time does Obama and the public want to go in retrieving money paid pursuant to the the terms of pre-bailout contracts? Fact - the Bush administration, backed by Congress and approved by Obama, negotiated these bailouts. Why didn't they think about these issues in advance and work them in as conditions of the bailouts before AIG was given its money? Incompetence? Or is the anger of all of those who either passed these bailouts or approved them now just a feigned one, necessitated by the fact that public is furious and no-one in power seemed to see this train wreck coming?
President Obama, the campaign is over. You won. Let the "cable chatterers" do all the screaming and yelling. Your rhetoric is unbecoming, unconvincing, and unhelpful.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Israel "Lobby"
A recent incident involving Charles (Chas) Freeman has provoked the anti-Israel crowd. The background facts are these. Charles Freeman, a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and diplomat, was President Obama's choice for the position of Chair of the National Intelligence Council. According to its website, the NIC is a center for "strategic thinking within the U.S. Government" and provides the President with "analyses of foreign policy issues" etc. News of Charles Freeman's pending appointment provoked opposition. Critics of the appointment were concerned that past statements made by Freeman concerning Israel's treatment of Palestinians and China's Tiananmen Square massacre, as well as his past ties with the China National Offshore Oil Co., and a Middle East think tank funded in part by Saudi Arabia, made Freeman a poor choice for the position. This week Freeman withdrew his candidacy for the position and the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, accepted the withdrawal.
End of story? Not quite. The episode, which has been hotly debated in the blogosphere, is to some yet another example of the undue power and influence of the nefarious Israel "Lobby". Charles Freeman himself blamed the "Lobby" for his decision to withdraw. The Lobby, according to Freeman, is "intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government" in opposition to the best interests of the United States. This is of course a common refrain, popularized by such writers as Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, who wrote the book "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy".
It is not my intent in this posting to comment on the choice of Freeman to head up the NIC, his decision to withdraw, the strength of the reasons for the opposition to the appointment, or the wisdom of the administration's decision to accept the withdrawal. What I do want to comment on is this whole notion that there is a powerful Israel Lobby out there which has distorted US foreign policy and has somehow forced the electorate and their governments to make stupid decisions which are contrary to their own best interests.
The fact that there are interested individuals and associations which attempt to persuade their governments to adopt policies, whether they be domestic or foreign, which they support and advocate, is a good thing. It is called democracy. It is what people do in free societies. It is normal. By calling it a "Lobby", with a capital L, is to attempt to convert a normal, accepted, good idea into some sort of nefarious conspiracy. There is no secret "Lobby" at work here with spooky music in the background. Those who advocate for Israel and for the United States' support of it do so openly and strongly. Other "Lobbyists" do the same thing with respect to the policies which they believe in. Good, I say.
Secondly, the theory that this pro-Israel "Lobby" is so powerful that it can somehow trick the electorate into democratically voting for governments who will not act in their country's best interests, but in the interests of a "foreign" government, is incredibly naive and presumptuous on the part of the persons who push it. More seriously, it is unbelievably dismissive and insulting of the electorate themselves. The governments of Canada, the United States, Great Britain, Western Europe, among others, are all strong supporters and allies of Israel. The populations of these countries know this in advance of elections but yet still vote these governments into power, election after election. Why? Why would they vote for governments who do not, according to the Freemans of this world, act in the best interests of their own countries, but bend to the will of a foreign government? Is the electorate too stupid to realize who and what they are voting for? Have these poor, ignorant rubes been duped by the "Lobby"? Or is it just that the populations of these countries have intelligently judged these matters and actually support their governments' allegiances to the State of Israel? Is it that the "Lobby" is so powerful, or is it that the "Lobby" actually promotes the same principles and goals that the majority of the electorate stand for? If the latter is true, the Freemans, Mearsheimers and Walts of the world would be better off aiming their guns at their fellow citizens rather than at some devious "Lobby".
The same point could be made of the elected officials themselves. Are they too stupid to realize that they have been taken in by the "Lobby" and are not acting in the best interests of their countries, as they are sworn to do? Has the "Lobby" duped them as well? Or is it that they are actually acting in the best interests of their countries and are carrying out the policies and principles that they and their electorates believe in? The preposterous presumptuousness displayed by Freeman, Mearsheimer and Walt that they alone have discovered the "truth" about Israel and the Lobby, and only they have been able to avoid its power and influence, while everyone around them has lost their heads, is offensive.
One final point. Yes there is an Israel lobby that supports the State of Israel. But it is miniscule compared to the Anti-Israel Lobby which wishes the state harm. When you consider the contempt displayed for Israel and even the expressed wish to see it destroyed as a Jewish state by countries such as Iran, much of the Arab world, the so-called non-aligned countries, many of the countries in the United Nations, many of the attendees at the Durban-type conferences, and other states ruled by dictators, the size of the global Anti-Israel Lobby dwarfs that of the Israel Lobby which Freeman, Mearsheimer and Walt rail against. We all to some degree belong to one "lobby" or the other. Which one do you choose Ambassador Freeman?
End of story? Not quite. The episode, which has been hotly debated in the blogosphere, is to some yet another example of the undue power and influence of the nefarious Israel "Lobby". Charles Freeman himself blamed the "Lobby" for his decision to withdraw. The Lobby, according to Freeman, is "intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government" in opposition to the best interests of the United States. This is of course a common refrain, popularized by such writers as Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, who wrote the book "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy".
It is not my intent in this posting to comment on the choice of Freeman to head up the NIC, his decision to withdraw, the strength of the reasons for the opposition to the appointment, or the wisdom of the administration's decision to accept the withdrawal. What I do want to comment on is this whole notion that there is a powerful Israel Lobby out there which has distorted US foreign policy and has somehow forced the electorate and their governments to make stupid decisions which are contrary to their own best interests.
The fact that there are interested individuals and associations which attempt to persuade their governments to adopt policies, whether they be domestic or foreign, which they support and advocate, is a good thing. It is called democracy. It is what people do in free societies. It is normal. By calling it a "Lobby", with a capital L, is to attempt to convert a normal, accepted, good idea into some sort of nefarious conspiracy. There is no secret "Lobby" at work here with spooky music in the background. Those who advocate for Israel and for the United States' support of it do so openly and strongly. Other "Lobbyists" do the same thing with respect to the policies which they believe in. Good, I say.
Secondly, the theory that this pro-Israel "Lobby" is so powerful that it can somehow trick the electorate into democratically voting for governments who will not act in their country's best interests, but in the interests of a "foreign" government, is incredibly naive and presumptuous on the part of the persons who push it. More seriously, it is unbelievably dismissive and insulting of the electorate themselves. The governments of Canada, the United States, Great Britain, Western Europe, among others, are all strong supporters and allies of Israel. The populations of these countries know this in advance of elections but yet still vote these governments into power, election after election. Why? Why would they vote for governments who do not, according to the Freemans of this world, act in the best interests of their own countries, but bend to the will of a foreign government? Is the electorate too stupid to realize who and what they are voting for? Have these poor, ignorant rubes been duped by the "Lobby"? Or is it just that the populations of these countries have intelligently judged these matters and actually support their governments' allegiances to the State of Israel? Is it that the "Lobby" is so powerful, or is it that the "Lobby" actually promotes the same principles and goals that the majority of the electorate stand for? If the latter is true, the Freemans, Mearsheimers and Walts of the world would be better off aiming their guns at their fellow citizens rather than at some devious "Lobby".
The same point could be made of the elected officials themselves. Are they too stupid to realize that they have been taken in by the "Lobby" and are not acting in the best interests of their countries, as they are sworn to do? Has the "Lobby" duped them as well? Or is it that they are actually acting in the best interests of their countries and are carrying out the policies and principles that they and their electorates believe in? The preposterous presumptuousness displayed by Freeman, Mearsheimer and Walt that they alone have discovered the "truth" about Israel and the Lobby, and only they have been able to avoid its power and influence, while everyone around them has lost their heads, is offensive.
One final point. Yes there is an Israel lobby that supports the State of Israel. But it is miniscule compared to the Anti-Israel Lobby which wishes the state harm. When you consider the contempt displayed for Israel and even the expressed wish to see it destroyed as a Jewish state by countries such as Iran, much of the Arab world, the so-called non-aligned countries, many of the countries in the United Nations, many of the attendees at the Durban-type conferences, and other states ruled by dictators, the size of the global Anti-Israel Lobby dwarfs that of the Israel Lobby which Freeman, Mearsheimer and Walt rail against. We all to some degree belong to one "lobby" or the other. Which one do you choose Ambassador Freeman?
Monday, March 9, 2009
Selecting the Right Gift Can Be a Real Pain
Everyone has experienced the torment of having to select the right gift for a relative or a friend. What does she really need? I hope she likes it. Better put in the receipt so it can easily be returned. Ah - no big deal. It's the thought that counts.
And so it goes. I was heartened to see that even the President of the United States and the First Lady are just like the rest of us. This despite the fact that there is a whole coterie of White House staff who can help out with the difficult gift selecting decision. Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his wife Sarah were coming to visit. What to get them? What do they really need?
I understand that a few ideas were tossed around. A year's supply of "shamwows", some "authentic" not for circulation gold layered Obama "coins" from the famed New England Mint, or some stick-up lights for those dark closets. But wait! How about 25 DVDs of American movie classics! Perfect. The Browns can wile away their evenings watching, I don't know, ET, Lassie, When Harry Met Sally etc. They probably haven't seen them, and likely don't go out often, what with having two young boys to look after.
Done. The Obamas gave the Browns the DVD collectors set. In return, the Obamas got a pen holder made from a Royal Navy vessel dating back to the slave trade, and a first edition set of the 8 volume biography of Winston Churchill begun by Randolph Churchill and completed by Sir Martin Gilbert.
What was he thinking? The ridiculous gift was in keeping with what all seem to agree was a disastrous White House visit. No state dinner, no flags, no rose garden news conference. The Browns went home, after, I should add, a very well received address to Congress. The British press and bloggers have had had a field day writing about it.
What to me is most telling about this episode is that it seems to be in keeping with President Obama's "cool" Presidency. No jackets in the Oval office, most office holders (except Mr. President) are referred to by their first names and not their positions, the press gallery are the "guys", the protocol people are the "White House protocol police", and so on. I can tell you this, if I were Vice President of the United States, I would want to be called the Vice President when I was being referred to by the President in press conferences - not just good old Lew. I suspect that good old Joe feels the same way. The offices are serious ones occupied by dignified people, and the times are indeed serious.
This is not merely a question of style. There is an issue of respect here; respect not only for the office of the President, but for the people who work with the President. The more I observe President Obama, the more I get the impression that he truly sees himself as a one man show. To use the George Bush line, he is the "decider", and those around him, not only at home but also his allies away from home, are there to implement his vision. It is that hint of messianic fervour which troubled me during the campaign and continues to trouble me as it creeps into the speeches and the behaviour.
The obligation to do the right thing when visiting leaders of your most important allies come to town, is more than just stuffy, old-fashioned good manners. It is what these leaders expect. It is what the public expects. It lends dignity to the office of the President. It gives the appropriate recognition to the status of your visitor and his or her electorate and political system. This is not the movie "Dave", Mr. President. Get with the program.
So there it is. Call me boring, stuffy, and old. And, by the way, if you are planning to give me a gift, I would prefer a set of the "shamwows".
And so it goes. I was heartened to see that even the President of the United States and the First Lady are just like the rest of us. This despite the fact that there is a whole coterie of White House staff who can help out with the difficult gift selecting decision. Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his wife Sarah were coming to visit. What to get them? What do they really need?
I understand that a few ideas were tossed around. A year's supply of "shamwows", some "authentic" not for circulation gold layered Obama "coins" from the famed New England Mint, or some stick-up lights for those dark closets. But wait! How about 25 DVDs of American movie classics! Perfect. The Browns can wile away their evenings watching, I don't know, ET, Lassie, When Harry Met Sally etc. They probably haven't seen them, and likely don't go out often, what with having two young boys to look after.
Done. The Obamas gave the Browns the DVD collectors set. In return, the Obamas got a pen holder made from a Royal Navy vessel dating back to the slave trade, and a first edition set of the 8 volume biography of Winston Churchill begun by Randolph Churchill and completed by Sir Martin Gilbert.
What was he thinking? The ridiculous gift was in keeping with what all seem to agree was a disastrous White House visit. No state dinner, no flags, no rose garden news conference. The Browns went home, after, I should add, a very well received address to Congress. The British press and bloggers have had had a field day writing about it.
What to me is most telling about this episode is that it seems to be in keeping with President Obama's "cool" Presidency. No jackets in the Oval office, most office holders (except Mr. President) are referred to by their first names and not their positions, the press gallery are the "guys", the protocol people are the "White House protocol police", and so on. I can tell you this, if I were Vice President of the United States, I would want to be called the Vice President when I was being referred to by the President in press conferences - not just good old Lew. I suspect that good old Joe feels the same way. The offices are serious ones occupied by dignified people, and the times are indeed serious.
This is not merely a question of style. There is an issue of respect here; respect not only for the office of the President, but for the people who work with the President. The more I observe President Obama, the more I get the impression that he truly sees himself as a one man show. To use the George Bush line, he is the "decider", and those around him, not only at home but also his allies away from home, are there to implement his vision. It is that hint of messianic fervour which troubled me during the campaign and continues to trouble me as it creeps into the speeches and the behaviour.
The obligation to do the right thing when visiting leaders of your most important allies come to town, is more than just stuffy, old-fashioned good manners. It is what these leaders expect. It is what the public expects. It lends dignity to the office of the President. It gives the appropriate recognition to the status of your visitor and his or her electorate and political system. This is not the movie "Dave", Mr. President. Get with the program.
So there it is. Call me boring, stuffy, and old. And, by the way, if you are planning to give me a gift, I would prefer a set of the "shamwows".
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Have You Ever Tried Bailing Out A Sinking Boat?
Have you ever tried bailing out a sinking boat? If you have, you will know that it doesn't work. Unless the leak has been repaired or the rain stops, the boat will continue to take on water faster than you can remove it. It will eventually sink, taking you along with it. You would be better off abandoning the boat and trying to save yourself while you can.
That brings me to the auto industry bailouts, or in fact the bailout of any business that is taking on debt faster than the government can plug the holes. Take the case of General Motors. It has already received nearly $14 BILLION in bailouts and is looking for a lot more money, reportedly more than $16 BILLION (See Mlive.com, Rick Hagland, March 3, 2009). Peter Cohan writing in Daily Finance on March 4, 2009 estimated that the bailouts of the three major auto companies may amount to $100 BILLION when all is said and done. Have the leaks, however, been fixed? No, not at all. GM's sales reportedly fell 53.1% in February, the worst sales figures in 27 years. It has lost $82 BILLION dollars over the last four years. In a government filing made today Thursday, March 5, GM's accounting firm has reportedly stated that there is "substantial doubt" that GM can survive ( See CNMoney.com). As with a sinking boat, there are not enough hands on deck with bailing cans to avoid the inevitable collapse.
My rudimentary knowledge of economics tells me that something is wrong here. The automobile companies seeking bailouts are being heavily subsidized by government, i.e. taxpayer, money. This means that the prices of their products do not accurately reflect the true costs of their production. This artificially inflates the consumer demand for these products, since the costs of these products are being externalized. Rather than consumers shifting their purchasing decisions to more cost efficient products, they are being encouraged to stick with the less efficiently produced ones.
But do not take it from me. The argument against bailing out automobile manufacturers has been succinctly explained by my colleague, Dr. Moin Yahya, in an article which he wrote in the February 6, 2009 issue of the Lawyers Weekly. Here is part of what Moin had to say:
"Conservative governments proclaim their loyalty to free markets, but it seems that when markets fail, their loyalty fails too. Just recently, the federal government announced that it would offer some taxpayer funds to the troubled automakers in order to "bail" them out. But for these bailouts, the politicians scream, the auto sector and the millions of jobs associated with it would disappear.
These claims are nonsensical. If the automakers are unable to pay their debts, they should do what other companies have to do, namely file for bankruptcy protection. This is, in fact, what hundreds of companies big and small have done with no expectation of any bailout from treasury. The protections afforded under the various insolvency statutes allow those companies who are in temporary fiscal distress, but otherwise fundamentally sound, to gain some breathing room and reorganize. Such companies can insulate themselves from creditors while they restructure their costs structures. They may require that wages of both upper management and workers be readjusted for the new harsh times. On the other hand, those companies that are unsound in their economic fundamentals will be liquidated, and their assets can be redeployed for better use.
The bailout, therefore, is a terrible deal for taxpayers on two grounds. First, it discriminates against those companies and individuals who do not have political presence or persuasion. Second, throwing such dollars without account, since the public program has little accountability, is doomed to failure. In other words, this bailout is a pure wealth transfer from the diffuse taxpayers to the concentrated special interests. Worse, these measures will not save the automakers from their fundamental inefficiencies, which will inevitably mean more bailouts in the future. These bailouts provide the companies with an unfair competitive advantage over the rest of the market participants."
Dr. Yahya goes on to argue that these bailouts should be challenged in court and suggests what legal arguments can be made. The piece makes for interesting reading and I recommend it. Meanwhile, let's see what our governments do when the next request for more money comes, as it surely soon will.
That brings me to the auto industry bailouts, or in fact the bailout of any business that is taking on debt faster than the government can plug the holes. Take the case of General Motors. It has already received nearly $14 BILLION in bailouts and is looking for a lot more money, reportedly more than $16 BILLION (See Mlive.com, Rick Hagland, March 3, 2009). Peter Cohan writing in Daily Finance on March 4, 2009 estimated that the bailouts of the three major auto companies may amount to $100 BILLION when all is said and done. Have the leaks, however, been fixed? No, not at all. GM's sales reportedly fell 53.1% in February, the worst sales figures in 27 years. It has lost $82 BILLION dollars over the last four years. In a government filing made today Thursday, March 5, GM's accounting firm has reportedly stated that there is "substantial doubt" that GM can survive ( See CNMoney.com). As with a sinking boat, there are not enough hands on deck with bailing cans to avoid the inevitable collapse.
My rudimentary knowledge of economics tells me that something is wrong here. The automobile companies seeking bailouts are being heavily subsidized by government, i.e. taxpayer, money. This means that the prices of their products do not accurately reflect the true costs of their production. This artificially inflates the consumer demand for these products, since the costs of these products are being externalized. Rather than consumers shifting their purchasing decisions to more cost efficient products, they are being encouraged to stick with the less efficiently produced ones.
But do not take it from me. The argument against bailing out automobile manufacturers has been succinctly explained by my colleague, Dr. Moin Yahya, in an article which he wrote in the February 6, 2009 issue of the Lawyers Weekly. Here is part of what Moin had to say:
"Conservative governments proclaim their loyalty to free markets, but it seems that when markets fail, their loyalty fails too. Just recently, the federal government announced that it would offer some taxpayer funds to the troubled automakers in order to "bail" them out. But for these bailouts, the politicians scream, the auto sector and the millions of jobs associated with it would disappear.
These claims are nonsensical. If the automakers are unable to pay their debts, they should do what other companies have to do, namely file for bankruptcy protection. This is, in fact, what hundreds of companies big and small have done with no expectation of any bailout from treasury. The protections afforded under the various insolvency statutes allow those companies who are in temporary fiscal distress, but otherwise fundamentally sound, to gain some breathing room and reorganize. Such companies can insulate themselves from creditors while they restructure their costs structures. They may require that wages of both upper management and workers be readjusted for the new harsh times. On the other hand, those companies that are unsound in their economic fundamentals will be liquidated, and their assets can be redeployed for better use.
The bailout, therefore, is a terrible deal for taxpayers on two grounds. First, it discriminates against those companies and individuals who do not have political presence or persuasion. Second, throwing such dollars without account, since the public program has little accountability, is doomed to failure. In other words, this bailout is a pure wealth transfer from the diffuse taxpayers to the concentrated special interests. Worse, these measures will not save the automakers from their fundamental inefficiencies, which will inevitably mean more bailouts in the future. These bailouts provide the companies with an unfair competitive advantage over the rest of the market participants."
Dr. Yahya goes on to argue that these bailouts should be challenged in court and suggests what legal arguments can be made. The piece makes for interesting reading and I recommend it. Meanwhile, let's see what our governments do when the next request for more money comes, as it surely soon will.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
The Case of Richard Williamson
In my last posting, I advanced the argument that despicable as they may be, promoters of hate should not be criminally punished for expressing their views. My argument was based on three principal grounds. First, freedom of speech is a fundamental value that should be protected, absent strong justification. Second, criminalizing hate speech does not reduce hate, only its expression. Third, it is preferable that hate mongers be publicly exposed as such, rather than having their views remaining hidden. Through public exposure and censure those who espouse hate can be identified and prevented from potentially occupying positions of influence and importance.
The cases of David Ahenakew and Richard Williamson can usefully be compared. As noted in my earlier posting, David Ahenakew expressed his anti-Semitic views in 2002 and was prosecuted under the Canadian Criminal Code provision 319(2). Seven years later, after two trials and one appeal, Mr. Ahenakew was acquitted. This acquittal provoked anger and disappointment among some, and no doubt relief among others. It is difficult to know what ordinary people who do not read law judgments for a living will read into the Ahenakew verdict. Perhaps they will think that the verdict means that Ahenakew was correct in his opinions about Jews, or that he was unfairly prosecuted? Perhaps they will be disgusted with the judicial system or the inadequacy of the law that sent him to trial in the first place? I do not know. What I do know, however, is that most will agree that a lot of time and money was spent on a prosecution that, in the end result, accomplished little.
Compare this with the case of Bishop Richard Williamson. Richard Williamson is the disgraced British Bishop who in a television interview denied that any Jew died in a Nazi gas chamber. He did acknowledge that Jews died in concentration camps, and put the figure at about "200,000 to 300,000". His comments provoked an international furore, particularly because Bishop Williamson had only recently been readmitted to the Catholic Church by Pope Benedict XVI. Bishop Williamson had been excommunicated by the Church 20 years ago due to other Church issues.
The spot light on Bishop Williamson and his denial of the Holocaust resulted in a number of consequences for Williamson. He was ordered by the Vatican to retract his comments. As a result he issued an apology in which he stated that he regretted having made his remarks and conceded that had he known how much harm and hurt they would cause to the Church and to "survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich", he would not have made them. This "apology" was rejected as being insufficient by the Vatican and by many others. The Vatican then called upon Williamson to "unequivocally and publicly" withdraw his comments. In addition, Williamson was ordered to leave Argentina, where he had been residing, because of his "deeply offensive" comments, and he returned to a hostile reception in Britain. Other reactions included Williamson being banned by Cardinal Roger Mahony from entering any Roman Catholic Church, school or facility in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and a similiar condemnation of Williamson by the Catholic Church in England and Wales.
These repercussions resulted despite there having been no criminal charges laid against Williamson, although future criminal prosecution is possible under German law for denial of the Holocaust. The beliefs of Williamson only came to light because he had made the mistake of making them public. The views of this ignorant and hateful man have caused him to be shunned and dishonoured in the court of public opinion. And that, in my opinion, is the way it should be.
The cases of David Ahenakew and Richard Williamson can usefully be compared. As noted in my earlier posting, David Ahenakew expressed his anti-Semitic views in 2002 and was prosecuted under the Canadian Criminal Code provision 319(2). Seven years later, after two trials and one appeal, Mr. Ahenakew was acquitted. This acquittal provoked anger and disappointment among some, and no doubt relief among others. It is difficult to know what ordinary people who do not read law judgments for a living will read into the Ahenakew verdict. Perhaps they will think that the verdict means that Ahenakew was correct in his opinions about Jews, or that he was unfairly prosecuted? Perhaps they will be disgusted with the judicial system or the inadequacy of the law that sent him to trial in the first place? I do not know. What I do know, however, is that most will agree that a lot of time and money was spent on a prosecution that, in the end result, accomplished little.
Compare this with the case of Bishop Richard Williamson. Richard Williamson is the disgraced British Bishop who in a television interview denied that any Jew died in a Nazi gas chamber. He did acknowledge that Jews died in concentration camps, and put the figure at about "200,000 to 300,000". His comments provoked an international furore, particularly because Bishop Williamson had only recently been readmitted to the Catholic Church by Pope Benedict XVI. Bishop Williamson had been excommunicated by the Church 20 years ago due to other Church issues.
The spot light on Bishop Williamson and his denial of the Holocaust resulted in a number of consequences for Williamson. He was ordered by the Vatican to retract his comments. As a result he issued an apology in which he stated that he regretted having made his remarks and conceded that had he known how much harm and hurt they would cause to the Church and to "survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich", he would not have made them. This "apology" was rejected as being insufficient by the Vatican and by many others. The Vatican then called upon Williamson to "unequivocally and publicly" withdraw his comments. In addition, Williamson was ordered to leave Argentina, where he had been residing, because of his "deeply offensive" comments, and he returned to a hostile reception in Britain. Other reactions included Williamson being banned by Cardinal Roger Mahony from entering any Roman Catholic Church, school or facility in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and a similiar condemnation of Williamson by the Catholic Church in England and Wales.
These repercussions resulted despite there having been no criminal charges laid against Williamson, although future criminal prosecution is possible under German law for denial of the Holocaust. The beliefs of Williamson only came to light because he had made the mistake of making them public. The views of this ignorant and hateful man have caused him to be shunned and dishonoured in the court of public opinion. And that, in my opinion, is the way it should be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
