So he tried to wake everyone up, by giving a better idea. You may think he was wrong to do so (I don't), or that he should have been more circumspect (I agree - except how, if one wants to convey importance? The gap between generalities and specifics is huge, otherwise).
Does anyone else remember Zaccardelli and the RCMP annual reports using almost exactly the same language to describe Canada's number one security problem (still is, much more than terrorism), organised crime and how it has infested our institutions and was(is?) threatening our État de droit? I don't remember anyone complaining about the language then. Why is OK to say that organised crime has compromised public administrations at the highest levels, but not OK to say foreign governments have?
As for timing, I would say the G-20 and G-8 are the perfect time.
As for giving comfort to rednecks, I would say fear of encouraging bigots should also not stop us from confronting difficult and dangerous cultural realities.
If we think that way, we end up the same as the well-meaning apologists for Communists when the Soviets really were up to no good. Not everywhere, not everyone, far from it, and McCarthyism is wrong. But it's also wrong to deny reality. Communists were up to no good, and many well-meaning people helped them by defending any accused Communist, however strong the evidence. Many were innocent, and often the security services were stupid and bad. But not always. Far from it.
I think Orwell did the completely right thing at the end, pointing out which of his acquaintances was a danger, and to what degree. To think otherwise is to to delude oneself about the nature of such threats.
But one should not tag everyone of such sympathies. Orwell didn't - he named some, and in his writing gave an idea of stakes, and kinds of people. And Fadden, awkwardly, has done likewise. And I don't see how one speaks potently about such things in public, going beyond the vaguest generalities, without giving an idea of the kinds of posts held. But of course, if you do that, then people want names. Which may be true, but can't be confirmed in a court of law. So then stick to same old generalities? But that doesn't seem to be getting through to parties and public, and ALL the parties may even be (un?)wittingly ignoring it because taking it seriously will be a real problem for them. And if that is so, and things may even be getting worse, dangerously so, then what to do? What to say?
Maybe Fadden got it wrong, but someone tell me how one raises the alarm effectively without alarming people? As I say, his language was almost word for word what the RCMP reports said about organised crime for years.
PS. Just as an illustration of the psychology of our parties: Harper dit oui aux demandes de censure chinoise
25/06/10 13h30 PPS. Further on all-party denial (at best)- Colin Freeze, National security correspondent for Globe and Mail:
# Iggy's a funny guy. In past 24 hrs he's been cozying up to China http://bit.ly/9HCTnQ and called out CSIS http://bit.ly/d7NRA2 ... about 1 hour ago via web # ... which is all fine and good, if you're prepared to be entirely dismissive of #CSIS's PRC concerns, however awkwardly #Fadden voiced em. about 1 hour ago via web
PPPS. Not a fan of Crowley, he's bitter and unhinged about Quebec and Canada, but worth reading his four posts on the matter: The Fadden Files
No comments:
Post a Comment