Playground politics
Threats ‘usually when exam scheduled’: McCallum
Jacques Marcoux, Volunteer Staff
Congratulations Mr. McFadyen — you have demonstrated to the province of Manitoba that you employ the same desperate political tactics often seen from elementary school students engaged in name-calling by the monkey bars.
Conservative opposition leader, Hugh McFadyen, urged the Doer government during question period last week to denounce a book written by former attorney general Roland Penner. McFadyen stated that the hammer and sickle, the familiar symbol of the former communist Soviet Union, found the cover of a book of Penner’s book published last month is inappropriate since it represents “death and oppression.”
In his book, entitled A Glowing Dream, Penner, former dean of law at the University of Manitoba now turned law professor, recounts his upbringing in a household with strong communist values and his eventual ascent towards public politics in a capitalistic society.
In response to McFadyen`s statement, Manitoba Attorney General Dave Chomiak accused the Conservatives of “red-baiting” the NDP and Liberals. The term “red-baiting” refers to the act of labeling a person or a group of being communist or socialist in ideology, a political tactic used for decades by conservative politicians against their socially democratic counterparts
McFadyen’s response to that was: “In much the same way that if the former minister of any government had used other symbols such as a swastika or any other symbol representative of death and oppression, we would have raised the issue and invited members, either through question period or through debate in the House, to criticize the use of that symbol in our society.” He then wrapped up his argument by pulling out the “taxpayers card,” pointing out the fact that the book was paid for by the publicly-funded Manitoba Arts Council.
The analysis of this political slander is difficult because there is so little substance to McFadyen’s primitive name-calling. There is no need for reading-between-the-lines or employing astute perceptive powers, which is usually required to dissect the strategic political purpose of statements. This truly is the schoolyard equivalent to the “I know you are, but what am I?” comeback.
Everyone knows what McFayden is up to; the jig is up. In fact, this exact political attempt at defamation is akin to the way the Republican Party shamelessly exploited Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama last month. During a television interview, a journalist asked Obama why Obama was not wearing an American flag lapel pin on his suit, to which he responded, “My attitude is that I’m less concerned about what you’re wearing on your lapel than what’s in your heart. And you show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who served.” However, despite Obama`s genuine response, the right-wing media lambasted him by portraying him as a traitor and labelling him as unpatriotic — as though wrapping one’s self in the flag is the only requirement for patriotism. At the end of the day, we are talking about a meaningless metal pin on a shirt that was blown way out of proportion by opportunistic political vultures
The stunt that McFadyen tried to pull over the NPD failed miserably as, for the most part, the media snubbed his comments. Incidentally, McFayden’s ruse backfired on him, ultimately painting the picture of a desperate radical offering a solution for an inexistent problem. No one actually believed for an instant that the Provincial Conservative opposition took offense to the book’s cover. Their objective had “smear campaign” written all over it.
But for argument’s sake, let’s entertain the idea that McFayden truly does believe what he’s saying. What I find offensive is not the sickle and hammer symbol, but rather that a political leader is investing his time on such an irrelevant issue. This kind of action is deserving of some form of public reprimand. (A fourth-consecutive majority NDP term for instance.)
Although this is pure speculation, I would wager that McFadyen did not even read a page out of Penner’s book prior to formulating his argument. Had he done so, he would have realized that given the context the symbol is perfectly appropriate. One has to wonder if the opposition would take offense to a history book on the Third Reich with a swastika on the front cover.
These types of juvenile exchanges that unfortunately take place in the political arena need to come to an end. These political cheap shots from both the ends of the political spectrum bring the implementation of much-needed policies to a near standstill. Unfortunately, these political parties win and lose elections on images and perception from the public, rather than the content of their policies; but we have a responsibility as citizens to not tolerate or endorse these political shenanigans and to expect more from our elected leaders.
Jacques Marcoux is a fourth-year commerce student.
