Post 94 Trudeau: Due Diligence? (1)

Religion and Politics

"Religion and politics" is such a huge subject that it will never be exhausted, no matter how many tomes or conferences are devoted to it. Though it is the subject for a couple of initial paragraphs in this post, it is not our main subject today.

Post 93 deals with what might be considered a “purely” religious and spiritual topic:  Ash Wednesday.  And now, immediately, right after it a dive into politics?  Federal politics even?  That will seem like an awfully wide leap to some, from the sublime to the shady.

Actually, it’s not as big a leap as you may think.  “Purely” religious or spiritual topics are meant to improve your relations with God and man—your neighbor, as per the name of this blog. And it is with this improved or strengthened relationship with both God and your neighbor that you then go forth into the world of culture, including politics. Anyone with poor or absent relations with God or neighbor is likely to pursue unhealthy politics, being guided by all sorts of shady motives and unhelpful worldviews.

So, here I am, unabashed and unapologetic for this move from high spirituality to high politics—that of our Prime Minister (PM).  That’s as high as you can go in our country—but perhaps at the same time as low!  You can go either way. The lowest motives may be the most dominant at the highest or vice versa.

I should hasten to indicate my awareness that the PM of Canada is not the Head of State and that, officially, his is not the highest status, which is reserved for the Governor General, who is appointed by his “inferior,” the PM.  True, but the PM certainly is the highest in terms of political power, influence and responsibility.

PM Trudeau and Due Diligence

My question is whether our new PM is doing due diligence.This question arose first arose during his campaign before Trudeau was “enthroned.” I’ve had no reason to put my mind at ease on this score and note that I am by no means the only one to have a suspicion here. From before his installment to the end of his hundred honeymoon days, I have detected a consistent pattern that keeps the question at the forefront.

Before proceeding, though, I want to praise the PM for some of his earliest actions that delighted my soul. The first one was the composition of his Cabinet. His 50-50 gender cabinet appointments. The second was his racial or ethnic inclusiveness, also in the context of the Cabinet. That was just such a refreshing change from history.  There was his “march” to the Governor General’s mansion in the company of his cabinet, all on foot instead of an ostentatious automobile entourage. And then there was his unfeigned and spontaneous reaction to the unexpected meeting with his daughter who ran into her parents arms during that march. It was all so delightful and different. I initially accepted it all in pure delight. This was going to be a different PM, no doubt about it. The MacLean’s cover photo of the surprised look of the Prime Ministerial couple upon seeing their young daughter run into their arms is pinned to a wall in our apartment. It’s bound to become a classic.

Spontaneity vs Due Diligence

That pattern of seeming spontaneity continued on. With the tremendous pressure of Syrian refugees dominating the news towards the end of the PM’s campaign, he bravely announced that Canada would welcome 25,000 refugees by the end of 2015, a period of just a couple of months. How spontaneous was that?  Or was it?  You may remember previous posts on this blog on the subject of refugees. I pointed out that even under more normal circumstances, those responsible for vetting refugees admitted that it is virtually impossible to do it thoroughly according to established protocol, let alone under the pressure of the moment.  25,000 within the space of a couple of months? I loved the sentiment behind it. But was it feasible to do it within the protocol?  I judged “no.”  Not possible. Only if various steps were ignored or omitted, even if those chosen would already have been vetted by the UN.  Canadian officials sent to the Middle East to sort them out would hardly be capable of reading between the lines of the oral and written claims of Third World refugees, whose logic, culture, religion and, not to forget, their interests are so radically different from their own. 

Populism vs Due Diligence 

The question of due diligence bubbled to the surface. Was this true spontaneity, genuine spontaneity?  Does spontaneity exclude or bypass due diligence?  Of course, the PM himself recognized his decision for what it was and moved the deadline for the 25,000 forward several times. Or was this populism?  That is, playing on the emotions of the public that was exposed regularly to the pitiful scenes of hordes of refugees, women, children and the elderly, making their way across seas and land borders in their search for safety. Playing on their emotions without doing due diligence?  And let the chips fall where they may?  Like spontaneity, populism, that is, listening to the hearts of the people is good democracy, but not without due diligence.  It is the duty of our politicians to listen to the people and to practice due diligence at the same time.

(To be continued in Post 95)

Post 81--Better Help to Refugees

Douglas Todd of the Vancouver Sun (VS) wrote a very sensible column under the title “Poviding better help to refugees” (Nov. 28, 2015, D5) that I am going to partially summarize for you. And unless I come across something else spectacular on the subject of refugees, I will try to let the topic rest for a while after this one. Notice the careful nature of this promise? “I will try….”

Todd reports how almost every Canadian supports Trudeau’s efforts to welcome refugees, thousands of them. There’s a lot of Canadian compassion floating around in Canada’s frigid airspace, along with sympathy. Many people look at it as a “feel-good policy,” a phrase Todd borrows from Oxford’s economist Paul Collier.

You see how we all borrow from each other? I borrow from Todd, who borrows from Collier and others whom you’ll meet in this post. Except perhaps for the most brilliant among us, we all do so borrow. It’s a borrowing world. We are “homo mutuatis,” a "somewhat Latin" for “borrowing man,” a phrase I just concocted from a more classic expression. And sorry for the exclusive male reference. That’s just the way Western cultures formed their languages in the past. There might be some alternatives: “Thinking person” would be something like “persona mutuatis,” while “thinking woman” might come out as “femina mutuatis.”  Don’t mind me. I just like to play around with such expressions, even when I’m not sure of their exact forms.

All this “feel good” stuff turns it into an emotional issue for many. Now there’s nothing wrong with emotions, but when it beclouds reasonable judgement, it can become dangerous, especially if it involves the destinies of many thousands of people and even of nations. When I expressed my misgivings about the 25,000 goal and the need for proper vetting to a retired professor for whom I have high respect, he dubbed my reaction as “paranoia.” Me paranoia?  Me, who has lived for 30 years in a country that now has some 80 million Muslims, who has throughout all these years kept a research eye on events around me and collected research materials on the subject all these years, me who ultimately published a series of eight volumes on Christian-Muslim relations in that country and numerous other articles? (Go to www.SocialTheology. com/Islamica.htm.) That went too far for me and, though I hid my reaction from him, I felt insulted at his unthinking (?) dismissal of my experience and surprised that someone of his stature could be so misled by emotions as to isolate him from larger reality. Remember my earlier warning that compassion, like love, should not be blind. As to the impossibility of proper—and, thus, safe--vetting, also remember that letter to the Prime Minister in Post 78. 

But maybe I am doing the same thing, when I so dismiss the man’s opinion about paranoia. He is an experienced psychologist and thus knows a thing or two about paranoia as I do about Christian-Muslim relations! Now where do I go?!

But sympathetic as most of us are, polls also indicate that roughly half of us question the Government’s asylum programme.  We mostly approve of their intentions but doubt the way it is being done. The CBC, being aware of the deep suspicion floating around in our collective mind, has gone out of its way to make the process of accepting individual refugees transparent, In the meantime, even the Government itself has already scaled back from its campaign promise of 25,000 by end 2015, which, truth be told, could only be described as something close to ridiculous. Germany and Sweden, two countries who are accepting far more refugees per capita than we are, Todd reminds us, are having second thoughts about their “carrying capacity.” Sweden, in fact, has since “closed its borders.” 

Todd also adduces the opinions of recognized experts on refugees such as Michael Teitelbaum of Harvard and Collier, whom you’ve already met. Since the number of refugees accepted by the West, though perhaps overwhelming for the host countries, in reality represents only a tiny fraction of displaced persons, the money spent on that fraction would go a lot farther if spent on helping “the ten million Syrians who are living safely, but in poverty, in refugee camps or on the margins of society in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey.” The West, according to Teitelbaum, needs to far more support the UN refugee agency, which is “chronically underfunded.” Todd quotes Teitelbaum that this is “hardly a humanitarian” situation. “It is well established that most refugees would prefer to stay near their home countries in hopes of returning when conditions stabilize.”  “The same funds now spent on refugees “could protect far more people in need.”  Germany alone has budgeted $ 7 billion for its refugee programme. That’s more than one-third of the amount needed by the UN to adequately fund its programme for the entire global refugee situation. That one-third would proportionally help a lot more people than Germany’s expected 800,000.  The same would be true of the Canadian budget.

Collier describes Western refugee policies as “often short-sighted.”  “Encouraging the mass emigration of their most enterprising young people” is not helpful in the long run. Canada today is struggling with a lack of skilled labour and professionals. Perhaps behind the scenes of government our refugee approach is less compassion than a cynical and calculated effort to supply our own manpower needs.  Who knows? Governments are extremely clever in their public relations. 

I am reminded of the colonial era during which Western governments hoodwinked their citizens with the ideology of a God-given “white man’s burden” for other races and nations.  In reality it was our own economic self-interest that was the real motivation. Believe me on this one, for here, too, I published a dissertation on the subject, a summary of which can be found on my < www.SocialTheology.com/boeriana.htm >.  

But then again, perhaps the Canadian Government’s motive is a combination of compassion wedded to self-interest, but that would then be short-sighted compassion for thousands of individuals while it short changes their home countries. No doubt someone will come out with a book explaining the full picture for us. I am eagerly waiting….

In the meantime, let us welcome with Christian grace and compassion all the refugees Canada is accepting. I am happy I am member of the Vancouver Christian Reformed Church that “happens” to be next door to the world’s very first refugee welcoming centre that is soon to open its doors to the incoming crowds and that does not constitute a welcome into a refugee camp. Even if their arrival is/were (The correct form of the verb depends on your opinion of the situation!) the result of short-sighted policies, since they’re coming, let us embrace them wholeheartedly. They need all the love and compassion with which many Canadian hearts are overflowing. Let's not waste that.

Unfortunately, the name of the highly respected long-established organization that will operate the centre is “Immigrant Services Society”—ISS! The greatest of people, but that name! My advice? Change that name! Don’t fill your incoming guests with fear and suspicion even before they cross your threshold! Let them feel welcome, loved and secure at that moment.