The past has once more become the present:
"An anonymous opponent is targeting Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff with a rather pricey political prank laundered through a BBC mailing address.
Members of the parliamentary press gallery recently received a mass mailing of plain brown manila envelopes, postmarked London.
Inside, without cover letter or explanation, was a colour reproduction of a critical, four-year-old Ignatieff profile in the British publication New Humanist - complete with particularly damning paragraphs highlighted in yellow."
What does the article in the 2005 edition of The Humanist say about Ignatieff and torture that enraged Ignatieff, according to the article?
This:
"Nonetheless - and this is critical to the argument that was to develop - he does go so far as to suggest forms of duress that might be permissible. These include "forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in harm to mental or physical health, and disinformation that causes stress.""
And Ignatieff then in later correspondence, summarized his position about the slur to his reputation, as quoted in the article:
"Owen replied to Ignatieff regretting that Gearty's piece had caused him quite so much distress. She had realised that he might like to respond to the article but never expected him to be so outraged and insulted as to reject the standard form of academic response. Gearty had not accused him of supporting torture, on the contrary, he specifically says of Ignatieff that 'he does not approve of the use of torture'. All he had said was that Ignatieff's position provided a moral framework for others to do so. "It seems to him that to hold such a position is to render less than definitive the accompanying rejection of torture." She concluded by hoping that Ignatieff would change his mind and reply to Gearty's piece in the next edition of the magazine.
Gearty was very satisfied with this response. "I think your summary is exactly right…the piece…is not about the torturers per se but about liberals whose position leaves room for others, more brutal than them to act." But he was clearly still stung by the severity of Ignatieff's attack. "I think [Ignatieff] should be a bit more specific about what exactly in the text so misrepresents his position, in particular where it is 'factually false'. This is a very serious allegation to make against me.…On its face it is defamatory."
Ursula's response failed to have a calming effect. Ignatieff replied promptly. "The moral framework claim is not an argument but an insinuation that proceeds to link me with others, as you say 'more brutal' than myself'. This is what is called guilt by association, and if you cannot see that this is how you and he are arguing, I cannot argue with you.""
I believe this summarizes the gist of the article, and it raises the question: Why do some liberal commentators believe the circulation of this article is a smear on Ignatieff?
Consider this. Ignatieff seems to have been correctly quoted with reference to the permissible use of 'certain forms of duress' in order to elicit information. And his position regarding the use of guilt by association seems clearly stated in the Humanist article.
Then were is the beef?
If Ignatieff is correct in these two facts, then discussion of his views re permissible use of duress, and of his defence of his own positions against opponents using guilt by association, seems legitimate to me?
And why should Ignatieff not be discussing these issues, as a politician, as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, and as a possible prime minister of Canada?
Or do we want politicians who simply serve up pap and dress in light blue sweaters to persuade the gullible that they are warm and cuddly people, deserving of support?
Let's be realistic about these issues. Hiding behind knee jerk accusations of 'smear tactics' does not change the record, and in fact lessens Ignatieff by trying to sweep the issues he addressed in his writings under the rug and pretending that he never addressed them.
Ignatieff has a record of public writings and utterances. That is a fact. And having moved out of the academic realm into practical politics, that body of work is part and parcel of Michael Ignatieff, politician.
Suck it up and deal with it. It ain't going away.
And in the absence of a clear, written Liberal Party set of policies addressing such issues, the personal beliefs of the leader of the party become the de factor policy of the Liberal Party.
So deal with that fact,too.
