By Dogan Akman
At a recent ceremony, the Prime Minister declared that hate speech and politics of division are creating “a dangerous path” for Canada and he vowed to steer clear of such roads and to continue calling out those who rely on “extremist” methods to make their voices heard.
At another public meeting around the same time, he picked up where he had left off and said that he fears a rise in extreme populism particularly surrounding immigration issues with some feeding fear and intolerance using “partial truths” and “outright lies.” He went on to say, ”There has been in our political discourse…and there are people who are trying to feed fears and intolerance for a broad range of reasons…I will remain positive and remain pulling people together, pulling communities together.”
The Prime Minister does not identify for Canadians the causes of the alleged rise in extreme populism particularly surrounding immigration issues. He does not identify those whom he alleges are feeding fear and intolerance nor enlighten us as to the contents of the alleged “partial truths” and “outright lies, and those who are trying to feed fears and intolerance [and racism] or spell out the contents of their discourse and the specific reasons for doing so.
Regretfully, the Prime Minister was either not taught or failed to learn how to listen respectfully to Canadians’ bona fides concerns, and to participate, again, respectfully, in the current debates that focus on his policies in the aforementioned subjects and their shortcomings, to formulate specific remedial action that numerous segments of the Canadian society, including the Muslim community, considers to be appropriate and in the best interests of Canadians.
As to the Prime Minister’s assertion that faced with the alleged mischief and rise in populism, he will remain positive and continue pulling people and communities together begs a lot of questions.
It does not seem to occur to him, who appears to lacks any empathy with or sympathy for the people who disagree with him, criticise or condemn his definition of Canada, his multicultural and immigration and refugee policies and practices, that subjecting these people to what Nonie Darwish has described as the “Tyranny of Shaming”, by calling them, at the drop of a hat, “intolerant”, “racist”, “xenophobes”, “Islamophobes”, “liars”, “fear-mongers”, may well cause or further reinforce the most regrettable instincts of some people to engage in the kind of behaviour he condemns.
A favourite term of Trudeau and of his brand of Liberal party members is “divisive”. The term is the standard accusation in their armour of identity politics, hurled at anyone and everyone who disagrees with their undiscriminating multicultural policies that raise genuine concerns about the unsettling news concerning the happenings in the Islamist extremist segment of the Canadian society and its mischiefs, not to mention his disturbing immigration and refugee policies and practices tied-in with his peculiar notion of multiculturalism.
Hence the Conservative Party has been accused of being divisive, for example, when tabled an anti-BDS parliamentary motion or when it proposed to amend the wording of a Liberal motion seeking a study of the various grounds of discrimination which highlighted “Islamophobia”, by excising the term from the text of the motion, and upon Trudeau’s refusal to do that, introduced an identical motion without the term only to be faced by Trudeau’s cynical use of his majority to defeat it.
Obviously, the Prime Minister hasn’t quite grasped the principles of cause and effect
My own assessment of the issues addressed in this paper is based in good measure on the analysis and commentaries of Canadian writers, whom, I venture to, say are the ones who know intimately the score on these issues. They include, Tarek Fatah, Shabnam Asadolahi, Raheel Raza, Maha Soliman, Majid Rafizadeh, Sohail Raza, Tahir Gora, Saied Shoaaib and one other whose name I fail to remember at the moment).I supplement their narratives with those of foreign commentators such as Ftouh Souhail, A.Z. Mohamed Nonie Darwish, Amil Imani,Sohrab Ahmari, Shireen Kudosi and Raymond Ibrahim. Finally, I compare and contrast their analysis and opinions with those of other domestic and foreign writers.
Based on my reading of the foregoing materials, tested against the news , opinions and commentary found in the Canadian mass media and my readings on Canadian history, I consider Trudeau, to be dangerously divisive Prime Minister .And this divisiveness is more evident than in his failure, nay, his refusal to engage with the dominant reformist Muslim community that also fears religious extremism.
Trudeau’s divisiveness is, among other things, rooted in his failure to understand let alone appreciate fully what Canada is about.
His description of Canada, as he puts it, as a “country without a core or mainstream”; “the first post-national country of the 21st century”, i.e., a country with open borders and without a specific national identity; or to put it differently, a country which amounts to a hodgepodge of communities and whose name to fame is its multiculturalism, and more tragically, a country where nationalism and patriotism are allowed to be progressively extinguished by some newcomers.
As a former immigrant and a Canadian for over half a century, I find Trudeau’s notion of Canada utterly repugnant. And I dare say repugnant to the vast majority of Canadians who rightfully take pride in the generic process by which newcomers are made to feel at home, save for those who have no sense of belonging, love, loyalty to the country; who do not care for its multicultural characteristic; save to the extent it gives them a license to pursue their ideological and religious mission to re-invent it as another country whose dominant belief system, political, economic and socio-cultural structures are alien and aggressively hostile to those of Canada and of its inhabitants of yesteryears.
This divisiveness is further compounded by Trudeau’s indifference to or lack of patriotism, which he conflates with nationalism which in turn, he considers to be “very dangerous” and to be avoided at all costs.
I venture to say that Prime Minister does not seem to have read or thought much about these two concepts or know anything about nationalism as a positive force.
On the matter of patriotism, my fellow Canadian Kaleem Hawa quotes Prime Minister Lester Pearson who inaugurated the new Canadian flag in 1965 and concluded his speech with the following exhortation: “Under this flag may our youth find new inspiration for loyalty to Canada; for patriotism based not on any mean or narrow nationalism, but on the deep and equal pride that all Canadians will feel for every part of this good land.” And as Hawa points out: patriotic are the immigrants who come to this country because they love it and want to do good things not only for themselves but also for their adoptive country.
On the matter of nationalism, Professor Gil Troy, of Mc Gill University, refers to “what… might be called ‘liberal nationalism’ which at its best… infuses democratic ideals into the natural tendency for people to clump together.” He further points out that in the 1950’s, English philosopher Isaiah Berlin “described this constructive nationalism as ‘awareness of oneself as a community possessing certain internal bonds which are neither superior nor inferior but simply different in some respects from similar bonds which unite other nations.”
At the end of the day, Trudeau’s deep-seated inability to envisage and practice the kind of patriotism and nationalism, in our rich heritage of positive national assets, is the causa causans of his extreme multiculturalism and of his wrong-headed immigration and refugee policies which are causing patriotic and nationalist Canadians, nightmares substantiated by the facts and trends on the ground.
This brings to mind the story of an old bull and a young one standing on a hill gazing the valley below when a magnificent herd of most fetching cows enters it. When the young bull excited by the sight, tells the old one that they should run down fast and get one each, the old one replies: Why don’t we just walk down and get them all?
The Prime Minister is not about to change course and take measures to prevent the old bulls in Canada from realising their plans.
The most depressing post-script to this tale is that, as matters stand at the moment, just like the Conservative government that preceded the Trudeau government, the one that stands a chance to replace it in the next election, is unlikely to improve matters.
Dogan Akman was born and schooled in Istanbul, Turkey. Upon his graduation from Lycee St. Michel, he immigrated to Canada with his family. In Canada, he began his professional career by teaching university in sociology-criminology and social welfare policy. After a stint as a Judge of the Provincial Court (criminal and family divisions) of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, he joined the Federal Department of Justice working first as a Crown prosecutor, and then switching to civil litigation and specialising in aboriginal law. He retired in 2009 to pursue new endeavours.
Speaking as an expat Canadian who spent most of his life in Canada, I have absolutely no desire to return to the country of my birth while Trudeau is still in control. At least Ontario wised up and booted the entrenched Liberal government, and I sure as hell hope the Conservatives win the next federal election. Trudeau’s defeat of them was a disaster that Canada is now experiencing and I worry it will continue to worsen. Both Canada’s Jewish community and Israel lost out when a true friend of Israel, Steven Harper and his government, were defeated.