by Klaus Rohrich
November 29, 2004
The letter arrived via email with little fanfare, but the content gave a rare glimpse at what the liberal left is really all about: "If you don’t agree with us we’ll throw you in jail!" That’s the gist of the letter received by Canada Free Press on November 27. Written by Gloria Bergen the letter’s introduction was straight and to the point, if not reflective of a less than stellar education or intellect, given the grammatically challenged lack of nuance:
"Re: your article in the free press.
(By your tone, and obvious despisal (sic) of the anti-Bush protestors, you and your free press is (sic) no more independent and fair than the corporate owned media. If you and your editors want to affiliate yourself with them, and should you have any say in Bush's visit here, as such you and your colleagues could be personally liable to prosecution under the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes act by virtue of section 21 of the Canadian Criminal Code, for crimes so serious that they are punishable in Canada by up to life imprisonment.)
Here are two articles you may wish to educate yourself by (sic):
Gloria Bergen."
The two "articles" were actually letters to Judy Sgro (our badda-bing Minister of Immigration) and Prime Minister Paul Martin, written by Michael Mandel, a York University law professor and Gail Davidson on behalf of "Lawyers against the War". This group claims to be "a Canada-based committee of jurists and others with members in thirteen countries" and is demanding that the government of Canada refuse George Bush admission to this country on the basis of his being accused of crimes against humanity. There is no mention of who actually filed the charges against Bush or where.
They write, "The evidence of President Bush's past and ongoing criminality is overwhelming. a recent editorial in the Washington Post commented on some of the now well known facts regarding the chain of memoranda from the President and white house White House (sic) counsel alberto R. Gonzales, now attorney General, that led to the use of torture by the U.S armed Forces." according to these two brilliant jurists, if the Washington Post or any of the other liberal media write that someone is guilty of war crimes, then it must be true. as such ban Bush from Canada. End of Story. Oh and let’s lock up anyone who supports him, as well.
So if I understand this correctly, as a writer for Canada Free Press I can theoretically be sent to prison for life because I support George W. Bush. Cool.
Prof. Mandel’s letter is indicative to what lengths left wingnuts will go in efforts to get their way. They will threaten the Prime Minister with the possibility of jail. They will threaten the press with the possibility of jail. They will do anything necessary by whatever means to achieve their goals. But then, this is the paradox of the left as it has exposed itself in recent years. I wonder what happens to Mandel's students when they disagree with him?.
When you examine the history of the left, then it becomes clear that they are prepared to sacrifice any principles and excuse any atrocity so long as it is committed in the furtherance of their goals. Let’s go back 75 years when Walter Duranty, Moscow bureau chief for the New York Times chose not to report on the genocide taking place in Stalin’s Russia, all in the interest of furthering international socialism. Go back 30 years and the Black Panthers, darlings of the 60s and 70s left, who chose to ignore that the Panthers were street thugs because they were spouting Marxist rhetoric.
What sets the left apart from the fascists? Very little. Hitler built the autobahn; Mussolini made the trains run on time; Castro initiated universal education; Trudeau repatriated the constitution. all did other, less laudable things in varying degrees, yet they hail from different ends of the political spectrum.
Prof. Mandel and his trusty sidekick, Gail Davidson, are really nothing more than any would-be tin pot dictator. They will use whatever means necessary to achieve their goals, even facetious use of the law. When Shakespeare wrote "That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet," he was referring to a flower. Had he had to deal with these people he might have said, "That which we call a pile of dung by any other name would smell as rotten".