I have to agree with John Ivison when I preface this post by saying that I too would like to see the end of the ‘ten percenters’. However, this morning Ivison points out an inconvenient truth about Durban 1 which is worth noting.
According to Ivison, the facts are that the Liberal Government had already decided to remain in Durban and since the Canadian delegation couldn’t be persuaded otherwise, it was then asked to ‘work from the inside’. Cotler of course contends that Canada was asked to remain there by the Israeli government:
…That is when we stood up, that was when we were asked to remain, and that is what we did. We were praised for having been the party that most condemned anti-Semitism at that Durban 1 conference.”
However, that is not the recollection of Alan Baker, Israel’s former ambassador to Canada who was head of the Israeli delegation in Durban. In an interview from Israel, he said that his government asked Canada, the U.S. and a number of European countries to pull out of Durban but the Canadian delegation was directed by Ottawa to stay. Led by Hedy Fry, then the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, and Paul Heinbecker, then the ambassador to the U.N., the delegation was told to attempt to ensure the text of any final declaration was devoid of anti-Israel language.
Mr. Cotler himself seems to have been less than impressed with the Canadian government’s decision. On his return, he gave a speech in Montreal in which he said he felt that by remaining at the conference until the declaration was adopted by consensus, Canada had made itself party to it, despite subsequent attempts to disassociate itself...
According to Ivison, Mr. Cotler’s recollection of events seem to differ sharply with others:
…It all suggests that there is some rewriting of history in Mr. Cotler’s assertion that Canada stayed in Durban at the request of the Israelis. The decision to stay seems to have been made before any such request was forthcoming, which validates the claim that the Liberals were “willing participants” in Durban…
The Liberals are happily playing the victim card now, all full of self-righteous indignation and outrage. Andrew Coyne said it so well:
…there is nothing a politician lives for more than to be unjustly accused of something—even if he has to levy the charge himself. The opportunities to play the victim are too tempting.
What did the Tory literature (“these vile flyers”—the Toronto Star), widely distributed in Liberal ridings with large numbers of Jewish voters, actually say? Not that the Liberal party was anti-Jew, or even anti-Israel, but only that it had not been as robust in the defence of Israel as the Tories have been…
And that does seem to be the truth.
But who’s right or wrong is really not the issue here. It’s about using these ten-percenters to wage political war against the rival parties at tax-payers expense.
There are other ways to do that, for example by using truth-ads on television and radio – and let it come out of the respective party’s own coffer.
However my biggest gripe with ten-percenters is that they’re just more unwanted mail to have to sort through and recycle.
I already get enough junk mail. I don’t want any more.
Ten-percenters, begone!
I agree, let’s get rid of them because although the current Liberal indignation is the big news talking point, I have been the recipient of much trashier propaganda from the whiny Liberals. They really should take a long hard look in the mirror and reflect, long and hard.
As for the excuse and explanation or as he puts it, recollection of Irwin Cotler, from my point of view, a truly principled person would have never stood for toeing the party line in Durban.
Particularly him and my respect for him has gone way down to a low D-.
Bec, I suspect that this is one of those cases when someone experiences a great deal of cognitive dissonance between what they are forced to do politically, and what they really feel is the right thing to do. It’s part of the game. He probably revised it in his own mind just so he could live with it.
I like Cotler and I hope that’s the case.
What this is Joanne is the Liberal attempt to rewrite history re: what actually happened in Durban.
For folks who are politically savvy and keep up with the issues the 10%ers aren’t necessary. I would agree there. I get them but don’t read them because much of what’s on them has usually been covered on-line, on blogs or in the papers. They are simply wasted on my household.
However, for those who aren’t likely to tune in to politics hardly at all I can see the strategy behind having them.
I don’t believe that there was anything in the 10% in question that wasn’t accurate. What it contained is really just Liberal achievement on that file.
Funny the Liberals should be getting all worked up about something they themselves are just as guilty of. Carolyn Bennett or Hedy Fry know a bit about ten-percenters. They’re a waste of paper, who bothers to read them? They do provide fodder for opposing parties as is the case with Cotler’s over-the-top reaction, he really didn’t do his homework on that one.
To me they are a waste of money and paper – I get them – I never read them and toss them in the recycling.
Plus the opposition seems indignant when the Tories use them, but then turn around and do the same thing. Hypocrites that they are!
Get rid of them.
It would be interesting to do a poll to see how many Canadians read the things.
Good comment Joanne. Very fair and you know what, here we have a diplomat (Ambassador) that has an entirely different recollection of the events and the benefit of the doubt is respectfully afforded Cotler.
A few weeks ago, we had the ‘recollection’ of another Canadian diplomat, namely Richard Colvin unleash such an extreme reaction from the Liberal camp and media, that it defies description.
For many reasons, these circumstances are eerily similar and the media reaction, completely opposite.
It’s never quite the same when Liberals do it. Different strokes for different folks seems to be the application used by the media. Controversial actions by the Liberals has a very short life on such matters and memories are shorter. It worked for them in the past but times have changed and more than small credit can be given to the blogosphere.
It may make a short term tactical advantage to ban or limit these ten per centers. Here is a problem a small party (Green’s) if they win a seat or two will be unable to target other ridings through taxpayer funded programs. They will have to rely on other means or require large financial support from their donors.
The next election if the CPC win their majority and the flyers are restricted to only held ridings the opposition will be restricted in reaching other ridings reducing their reach unless donors fund their own flyers.
The flip side is allowing a party enough rope to hang themselves. If a party is abusing them, the HOC has opportunities to fix the problem.
The media is hyping the CPC use of the ten per centers as ‘partisan’ attacks to protect the opposition.
all the hype is on this one conservative one
the one depicting body bags was much more offensive in that it was pure unadulterated lies
the one depicting the Canadian soldiers, the Canadian Flag and a backpack despicable more lies
hypocrisy thy name is Ignatieff Liberals
fh
I now need comment from Mr. Cotler, to clarify what he told the House and Canadians last week, that Canada was asked to stay in Durban by the Israeli government, and this is now demonstrated to be in direct contradiction, to the new revelation by John Ivison that, “that is not the recollection of Alan Baker, Israel’s former ambassador to Canada who was head of the Israeli delegation in Durban. In an interview from Israel, he said that his government asked Canada, the U.S. and a number of European countries to pull out of Durban.”
Mr. Cotler’s attempt to rewrite history, now calls for an explanation on his part, and I am sure his wife would also now be interested to learn the truth, of the Liberal party position on attending Durban, and that it wasn’t the state of Israel that asked Canada to remain there, as her husband contended and may have told her, but rather a position adopted by the Liberal government from the get go. Since her husband is a Liberal she is dealing with Liberal disinformation and not Conservative disinformation and she should be aware of this, in case she wants to rip up her Liberal party card again.
The Liberals should be careful what they ask for. As Flanagan pointed out, ten-percenters were intended to help the Opposition Parties keep the government accountable.
Given that they are free to deliver (for the Party), why would a Party like the LPC which is so strapped for cash, want to eliminate this tool from their kit ?
The Bloc and Dippers seem to understand this, as the Globe article points out, but the Libs are clueless.
I would die of laughter if Flaherty proposes a Bill to eliminate these ten-percenters, and each of the Opps vote against it.
O/T, Rutherford interviews Jim Prentice (probably at 11 AM Eastern/ 9 AM Calgary Time). Listen here
Thanks CJ!
Breaking news:Iggy and the Liberals to support HST motion, after thinking thoughts…………………………….
I’d be happy to see 10%ers go away but only if the $1.95/vote “free” (non accountable) money also goes with it. Otherwise – the 10%ers are a great tactical tool that the Conservatives have used brilliantly – and the Liberals have blundered badly when trying to implement. (Bennett, Fry).
I have never received a 10%er from anyone except my MP, and I do read them and send in the questionaire in them.
Wasn’t there a Durban 11 that Canada did not attend.
It is so sad that so many liberals are showing the first symptoms of alheizerms (sp) by forgetting basic facts that are available to anyone who wants to find them.
Rutherford to have lots of info today, re the change to accepting crededentials of immigrants so they don’t have to drive cabs.
Unfortunately, it is not just the Liberals who are availing themselves of the 10 percenters. I live in BC, and I regularly receive these pamphlets from Jack Layton’s office in Toronto. At work, they arrive for persons no longer atached to that address, and despite numerous “Return to Sender” notations, they continue to arrive. I have received at my residence, several at one time, all addressed to persons who do not live there. It would appear that the NDP are reticent in updating their database.
On the other hand, I have never received one from either the Liberals or the Conservatives.
The coalition party don’t need 10%ers…they have the CBC, CTV, and Travers etc all spreading LIBERAL smears for FREE.
Check out CPAC right now. Coalition motion on the Afghan Detainees. Boob Rae etc.
Once again, Ivison shows he is one of the best working journalists around, but here’s why the ten-percenters should stay.
The CPC uses them a lot, not because they like spending taxpayers’money on junk mail, but because they are an effective communication tool. They are simple in content, straight-forward in language, and they provide feedback to the party.
Other parties use them too, but not nearly so effectively. What sort of feedback do you think the Liberals got from the bodybag fiasco or the Canadian-flag-on-a-backpack flyer.
The NDP keeps sending me ten-percenters to support a taxpayer-funded national pharmacare program. Well, here in BC, we have a pharmacare program, but the NDP seems to be unaware of this.
The flyer in question does not accuse the Liberals of anti-Semitism ; on the contrary, it says the Tories are more pro-Israel, and I don’t think many people can quibble with that. Apparently a lot of people can’t/don’t actually read these things.
So to sum up, we have a communications tool that one party the CPC, uses effectively, and the other parties don’t. The Opposition knows this, and that is why they want to kill the ten-percenters.
The Liberals will hang on for dear life to this Afghan detainee thing until they realize the public are not with them. What I’d like to know is why was Colvin’s testimony sought and by whom? It appears he has no evidence to put forward aside from hearsay and not from the best of sources. Apparently the boneheads in the opposition don’t want to listen to the Red Cross either because they are not playing to the side they’re advancing for this latest maladroit gotcha episode which is all they seem to exist for. They have nothing else to offer the country for the pay they’re taking from us aside from making fools of themselves.
Meanwhile the PM is trucking along, taking care of business while boors like Travers and company whine on with pure crap journalism.
The Libs are twisted into knots over the content (truth) in the 10%ers.
As a result, the pamplets have reached far far further than just the ridings they were sent into, they got national coverage.
And no apology from the CPC (unlike the bodybag 10%er)
The Opps have a majority in the House, it is up to them to follow up their whining with a bill to get rid of them.
If they don’t, carry on CPC.
Calgary Junkie – you’re exactly right! We already know though that the LPOC is only opposed to Conservative 10%ers.
They’re not proposing an end to them.
Michael st. pauls – yep. agree with you too. It’s a strategy and it’s working so that’s why the Liberals don’t like it because anything successful the Conservatives do is wrong.
Watching CPAC….now the coalition of fools are not only just taking the words of Colvin, they are quoting Greg Weston as their latest reliable source. Weston… the guy who never says anything POSITIVE about the Govt. Weekly smear articles only.What makes him and Travisty such experts? Have they ever got out of their nice comfy chairs and gone to Afganistan , like Christy Blanchard did for 6 months at a time?
Now they want a huge EXPENSIVE inquiry to drag this through the mudd forever and yesterday they were talking about child poverty in Canada.Sinking in the poles and they will sink even further after this.
Questions in the HofC re Cotlier and the 10%er. Speaker says it is not up to the Speaker to rule on whether stmts in such mailings are true or false.
He is still debating what went on at Durban 1.
I think the Speaker is giving Cotlier and libs a spanking.
Speaker says it is not up to the Speaker to rule on whether stmts in such mailings are true or false.
Mary T – That is exactly what Ivison said in his column. Milliken is in a tricky situation.
Cotler has [allegedly] destroyed his own reputation. Frankly I am in shock. Either Cotler or Baker is [allegedly] lying. The Foreign Affairs Committee should investigate so that the truth is on the record.
[edited by blog admin]