Post 95--Trudeau: Due Diligence? (2)

  

More “Spontaneity” and Populism?

The same issue arose in my mind with respect to the PM’s announcement that his government was going to accept all the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee—and, if my memory serves me right—they are up into the 90’s!  Again, that mix of spontaneity and populism.  Again, what seems like a serious lack of due diligence. All 90+ without careful analysis, even before he was enthroned?  I loved and still love the composition of his Cabinet, assuming that the Ministers are all fully qualified, but even that I am beginning to wonder in view of this pattern of spontaneity and populism without due diligence. Did he and his advisers possibly practice ethnic and tribal politics by glad handing Canada’s various races and religions, including recent immigrant arrivals as well as more settled non-Caucasians?  In view of already mentioned instances of seeming spontaneity and populism, the question of due diligence refuses to go away, even though I have no doubt that there are people worthy of cabinet appointments among all of us.  Once you have the suspicion of lack of due diligence, rightly or wrongly, you begin to look for it everywhere. 

Andrew Coyne’s Take

I have great respect for Andrew Coyne, one of Canada’s most prominent and, perhaps, most popular political commentators in both Canadian press and TV.  He recently published an opinion column under the title “Maximum political mileage with minimum thought.” The subtitle was “Promises: After three months in office, Trudeau big on smiles and symbolism but short on substance” (Vancouver Sun, Feb. 6, 2016).  Wow! Coming from Coyne, this is like a bomb shell. Under a picture of a smiling, waving Trudeau, the editor comments “A tendency ‘to announce policy first, then figure out the consequences later’ is the modus operandi of PM Justin Trudeau’s government….” 

In case you haven’t caught on yet, I want it understood that the suspicions I am airing are pre-Coyne. That is to say, they were raised in my mind before I read any commentator on the subject. They popped up immediately I first read about the 25,000. But Coyne strongly confirmed these suspicions and he buttresses them with more facts at his fingertips than I can muster.  So, with your permission, here’s a little more of Andrew’s take. I promise that tomorrow I will move on to another subject.

Apart from their tragic content, namely a seemingly light-hearted playing with the destiny of 34 million plus people, Coyne’s article contains so many pithy and humorous quotables, that I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Here are some samples about Trudeau’s government:

It is one part not being Stephen Harper, one part symbolic gesture, one part wriggling out of campaign promises, and one part saying yes to everybody. … Get used to it.

For a government that makes much of its…forward-looking credentials, the Trudeau crew are unusually obsessed with digging up the recent past. The platform itself was filled with promises (my colleague, Bill Watson, puts the number at 50) to reverse this or that Conservative initiative.  … What was common to all was their relentless symbolic focus, achieving maximum political mileage for least expense.   

Is it to be supposed that the “evidence-based” party had any research to support its claim to be able to safely admit 25,000… refugees… by December?

Referring to the announcement of a tax increase for high incomers that would precisely offset a tax decrease for the “middle tax bracket,” Coyne asks, “Was there any basis for the party’s claim?” The original $3 billion income from the increase was subsequently whittled down to $1 billion.  Any basis?

Of course not: they gave…about the same amount of thought as Trudeau did in announcing…that he would implement all 94 of (the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s) recommendation. Which is about twice as much thought as he and his advisers gave to the implications of abolishing party caucuses in the Senate. Or, for that matter, than they gave to their pipeline policy.

You have no idea how hard it is for me to refrain from just reproducing Coyne’s entire article, but I have to watch copyright restrictions and may already have transgressed them.  I plead for mercy from the Vancouver Sun on the grounds that I am such a strong advertiser for them apart from being part of that rare breed of remaining loyal paper subscribers.

Coyne does not relent. Two weeks later, he published another article entitled “Liberals fooled by their own image” with the subtitle “Broken promises: This Trudeau government says one thing and does the other at the same time”  (Feb. 20, p. B2), also loaded with gems:  “It is one thing to say one thing and do another in sequence. But to do both at the same time is deeply worrying.”  But be comforted; things are not as bad as they could be. Andrew writes that he would not go as far as therapist Evan Solomon, who describes Trudeau “as a kind of psychopath, alternatively charming (‘the romantic’) and homicide (‘the killer’). I think…he poses no danger to anyone but the economy. Still a number of recent incidents give one pause.” And then comes another litany of examples.

If Andrew does not relent, I will, right here, before the temptation overpowers me. I am no politician, but I do recognize political irresponsibility when I see it, at least this brazen variety of it. And this is not a political column, but I have stated somewhere in the past that social responsibility is one of my trademarks that comes straight out of my Christian convictions. When I see that, whether political or not, I get my dander up high and mighty. I need time to cool off. See you next time.

P.S.--It’s February 28, 2016. Today the announcement was made that Canada received the quota of 25,000 refugees.  

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 89--Pegida—Germans and Refugees

            

           The following is about a German organization known as PEGIDA. I have taken            it over from Wikipedia and therefore cannot vouch for 100% accuracy. I realize            I am taking a great risk in posting this document, for PEGIDA has a bad name              in the media. But that media is mostly liberal, leftist in orientation and generally            condemns the sentiments expressed in this post without giving it a fair hearing.              Some of the statements below are purely local German politics for which I     

           cannot vouch either. Some of it is definitely questionable and would need    

           greater nuance before I would support it. Nevertheless, the document as a                      whole draws our attention to some refugee issues that the liberal mainline           

           politicians and media tend to hide, obscure or flatly deny, if not ridicule. 

I believe you, my readers, have a right to hear the PEGIDA folk themselves out and make up your own mind. And then see what you can take away from it and apply to Canadian refugee policy. You will note that in the document PEGIDA recommends Canada’s refugee policy. So that their perspective can’t be that bad, right?

Unfortunately, much of Canada’s policy is based on a totally inexperienced and quick-to-talk Prime Minister, who has forced himself into an unceasing process of chipping away at his questionable campaign promise of hauling in 25,000 refugees before the end of 2015. How could Canadians fall for such immaturity? 

It can only be explained in terms of the “monster” that Harper portrayed himself to be, a monster Canadians wanted to get rid of at all costs. Well, they did. I’m glad we got rid of the “monster,” but I’m not so sure we did not simply replace him with another type of monster, one who has shown himself either to be ignorant during his campaign or deceitful or, perhaps worst of all, populist; not sure which. Whether ignorant or deceitful or populist, as one who sought the leadership of a nation, any one of these three would turn him into a monster Prime Minister. Perhaps the jury is still out on that one.

I want it understood that I welcome refugees. A hundred of them are at the moment my next-door neighbours, having been put up in a hotel. I see them every day. I stop to welcome them and chat with them as much as language allows. Before long, an unceasing flow of refugees will be the neighbours of my church, the First Christian Reformed Church of Vancouver on Victoria Drive and Tenth Avenue. A welcoming centre is under construction next door to this church and I have voted for that church to support a chaplain cum social worker to help the Centre “process” refugees, a move the Centre itself welcomes with open arms.

But I do resist careless acceptance of refugees without rigorous due process.  Previous recent posts on this blog have indicated that it is often lacking in rigour.  I don’t need to repeat all that.

I do remember years ago, when I would visit friends and relatives in my “old country,”  The Netherlands, that I predicted that with the end of the Cold War, Islam would become the West’s next challenge. I warned my listeners that the guest workers they were importing at the time, would become serious problems for Europe in the future. They dismissed me as a “red neck.”  Some of them recall those discussions and no longer apply that epithet to me.

So, here then a brief Wikipedia introduction to PEGIDA and then its document translated from its own German words.  Read it. Think about it. Reject the inappropriate and then insist on policies for our own Government that are based on actual facts and have an eye for potential dangers.

Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident^{[note 1]} (German: Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes), abbreviated PEGIDA or Pegida, is a German anti-Islamisation^[1][2][3] political movement founded in Dresden in October 2014. The organisation team in Dresden usually holds demonstrations every Monday, at a location and time specified beforehand on its Facebook page, against what it considers the Islamisation of the Western world, calling for more restrictive immigration rules, particularly for Muslimswho refuse to integrate (see Item 16 of its Position Paper). Offshoots of Pegida have been formed in various countries.

10 PEGIDA Demands on German Asylum Politics

On 11 September 2015, Pegida posted 10 demands on German asylum politics on its Facebook page, as reported by heute.^[62] Although an official Pegida translation exists on its Facebook page, the following is an improved version that harks back to the original German:

1.) We call for an immediate stop on asylum seekers, and we call for a German asylum emergency law - now!

Our asylum laws were conceived after the war for the manageable quantity of approximately 2,000 refugees per year and not for the million we expected to reach in 2015!

2.) We call for strict border controls! We demand IMMEDIATE suspension of the Schengen Agreement - on all of Germany's borders!

Other EU countries already monitor their national borders again - even though the completely failed Dublin procedure is a burden rests mostly on Germany's back. The temporary reintroduction of border controls during the G7 summit has proven that border controls hinder illegal border crossings, the flourishing business of the smuggling mafia and the entry of criminals.

3.) We demand that the group of "safe countries of origin" be expanded to ALL Council of Europe member countries!

This Council of Europe has 47 member countries with 830 million citizens and over 1,800 European officials.

All member states have committed themselves to the preservation of democracy and rule of law as well as the recognition of fundamental human rights. That should be enough to count these countries as safe countries!

4.) We call for a TEMPORARYLY LIMITED right of asylum for war refugees!

Of course, real war refugees and accepted asylum seekers are to be granted temporary protection and full coverage on a MODEST scale. But once the situation in the home country improves, the refugees have to leave our country again.

5.) We call for a binding limit on the annual reception of asylum seekers, set namely by ourselves, the host country Germany!

This vital question about the future of our country must be carried out by means of direct democracy - through a referendum!

6.) We demand honesty, at long last, in the integration debate and the end of the red-green^{[note 3]} social-romantic tale of wanting to integrate masses of male, African asylum seekers here!

No one wants that. The green socialists use the refugees to create a red-green job wonder for bachelor graduates of chatter sciences here. The pathological altruism and do-gooders with feigned empathy are moral invisibility cloaks, which cover the highly lucrative migrant market.

7.) We demand that all rejected asylum seekers and hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants be deported at once, as logic would have it!

Again: We call for MASS deportations - and do it NOW!

8.) We demand that the refugee problem be resolved locally, in their own cultures!

Our so-called representatives of the people should show some backbone and take Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to task.

These wealthy, huge Sharia paradises are much better suited to accommodate the crowds of Muslim asylum seekers than a Europe of unbelievers! And we need, at long last, asylum audits right in the countries of origin. Applications for asylum in Germany have to be decided by fast-track procedure locally even in North Africa!

9.) We demand that foreign criminal, who stand in alliance with Islamic terrorist organizations be deported immediately!

This naturally also includes the adopted "sons and daughters" of German Minister of Internal Affairs de Maiziere, all these jihad returnees and all known and violent Salafists - these people also deserve to be deported from Europe immediately!

10.) The expected resistance from Brussels about any changes in German immigration and asylum policies must be answered with exit from this bullying dump EU.

The future French President Marine Le Pen has summarized it concisely in the demand for "the destruction of this EU"

It’s only this radical way which works! This EU will never be able to reform - who would rationalize away his own highly paid job?

Asylum seekers driven by nothing other than economic reasons are NOT welcome! Christian refugees, especially those who are oppressed by murderous Islamists, are absolutely welcome in Germany and we provide the shelter, food and life support they need, because this is a natural German trait. To all others: STAY OUT!

We, the people of the European nations, need to unite, to conserve and to defend our values, our culture, our freedom. We need to unite against the self-declared kings and queens in Brussels. We, the German people, need international support against our own politicians in our German parliaments.

Our politicians want to change the current form of government of the Federal Republic of Germany substantially, they want to abolish the German state and replace the German people with a multicultural society, they want to establish a multiethnic state on German soil - this behaviour is high treason!

Well, there it is. Plenty of food for thought.  You now have it directly from the horse’s mouth—from PEGIDA, not me!  Does the paragraph above this one not remind you of Trudeau Sr? And now of our current Jr?  I am not sure I'd call it "high treason," but we should ask what it is we are seeing—the inexperience of youth or populism or what? Are we sure we want to go there?  Do we know what that might look like?  Or are we just barging into the unknown and gambling with the future of an entire nation--of our children and grandchildren?

I’m off to one of the largest annual conferences in downtown Vancouver: Missions Fest Vancouver.  I’m on their Board and thus have plenty to keep me busy over the weekend. See you next week. Perhaps I'll give you a report.