- Reaction score
- 3,048
- Points
- 1,260
Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.
Michaelle Jean, Harper on crash course
Governor General's divisive political posturing shouldn't be part of the job
Lawrie McFarlane, Victoria Times Colonist, 3 Nov 06
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=0aad61c6-0447-4043-bec6-7bb7bc33f8af
When Henry VIII caught his new wife, Jane Seymour, interfering in affairs of state, he reminded her what happened to her predecessor. Just a few months earlier, Anne Boleyn had gone to the block for some meddling of her own.
Queen Jane got the message. She cooled her jets. The question out of Ottawa these days is, will Michaelle Jean? Rumour has it that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is frustrated with what he perceives as political meddling by the Governor General. It's said that contact between them has been reduced to an icy minimum.
It was never likely the two would see eye to eye. It might be inaccurate to say Jean is the last Liberal holding office in Ottawa. There's still a bagful of Grits in the Senate. But her credentials were never the sort to warm Tory hearts.
There's her tour of duty with Radio-Canada and her close friendships with Quebec separatists (though as Mark Twain would say, I repeat myself). She holds outspokenly feminist beliefs, has a husband in the left-leaning circles of the film industry and to cap it off, received an award from that nest of terrorist coddlers, Amnesty International.
In conservative circles, that's considered pretty well a full house.
Worst of all, perhaps, it seems Harper, as deadly serious about politics as any prime minister in recent memory, might regard Jean as a lightweight.
Bad enough to be a meddler, but a mere dilettante? Whether the rumours are true or not, the Governor General seems intent on feeding them. Perhaps she relishes the opportunity to make news instead of just reporting it.
But whatever the reason, Her Excellency shows a penchant for embroiling herself in controversial issues.
On Canada's role in Afghanistan, she opined that withdrawing our troops from that country "would be refusing to help a people in danger, of being unaware of their own glaring reality." Quite true. But more than 50 per cent of Canadians disagree with that assessment, many passionately.
Then she invited the prime minister of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, to a private dinner, at which several guests reportedly spoke out strongly against government policy. No member of Harper's cabinet appears to have been present.
On the charge of espousing onesided views, Jean has likewise done herself no favours. The Governor General has waded knee-deep into the same activist swamp she inhabited as a reporter.
She lavishes attention on feminist groups whose agenda is far from inclusive.
She opened a personal website dedicated exclusively to women's interests and encouraged women and youth to discuss their concerns with her. Men were pointedly not invited to participate.
That of course provoked a fathers' group to inquire whether she supports their campaign for fair treatment in custody settlements. No word whether aggrieved husbands will be on the Rideau Hall invitee list any time soon.
Certainly there's no reason the head of state should turn a blind eye to social issues. But there's a right and wrong way to do these things.
By sharing the stage with activists who have a decided way of looking at matters, Jean risks alienating the other half of the population who see things differently. Employing the win-lose language of gender warfare, which she also tends to do, moves solutions beyond reach.
Part of the blame rests with Paul Martin, for nominating someone clearly not ready for the job. Jean is still a young woman with an active career to promote. These are her most productive years. Telling her to put a sock in it and confine herself to formalities is asking a lot.
Still, that's the job and she took it knowingly. The Queen's representative has no place in political controversy. It is her duty to speak for all Canadians, not just those for whom she has special sympathies.
Moreover that duty has a heightened significance at present, with a minority government in Ottawa.
At some point the prime minister will ask her to dissolve Parliament and call an election.
When that occurs, it's not inconceivable that the Liberals could approach the Governor General and offer to form a government. If both the NDP and the Bloc supported that proposal, it would be open for Jean to refuse an election and install a Liberal administration instead. If that eventuality arises, there will be hell to pay in Western Canada, and particularly Alberta.
It's unlikely Michaelle Jean will meet the political equivalent of Anne Boleyn's fate. Governors General, by convention, serve a fixed term.
But unless she wants to spend the next four years in obscurity, it might be wise to remember her job description.
It's right there on the vice-regal coat of arms: Briser les Solitudes. "Briser" means breaking down, not building up.
Lawrie McFarlane is a retired civil servant. He writes on public policy.
Michaelle Jean, Harper on crash course
Governor General's divisive political posturing shouldn't be part of the job
Lawrie McFarlane, Victoria Times Colonist, 3 Nov 06
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=0aad61c6-0447-4043-bec6-7bb7bc33f8af
When Henry VIII caught his new wife, Jane Seymour, interfering in affairs of state, he reminded her what happened to her predecessor. Just a few months earlier, Anne Boleyn had gone to the block for some meddling of her own.
Queen Jane got the message. She cooled her jets. The question out of Ottawa these days is, will Michaelle Jean? Rumour has it that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is frustrated with what he perceives as political meddling by the Governor General. It's said that contact between them has been reduced to an icy minimum.
It was never likely the two would see eye to eye. It might be inaccurate to say Jean is the last Liberal holding office in Ottawa. There's still a bagful of Grits in the Senate. But her credentials were never the sort to warm Tory hearts.
There's her tour of duty with Radio-Canada and her close friendships with Quebec separatists (though as Mark Twain would say, I repeat myself). She holds outspokenly feminist beliefs, has a husband in the left-leaning circles of the film industry and to cap it off, received an award from that nest of terrorist coddlers, Amnesty International.
In conservative circles, that's considered pretty well a full house.
Worst of all, perhaps, it seems Harper, as deadly serious about politics as any prime minister in recent memory, might regard Jean as a lightweight.
Bad enough to be a meddler, but a mere dilettante? Whether the rumours are true or not, the Governor General seems intent on feeding them. Perhaps she relishes the opportunity to make news instead of just reporting it.
But whatever the reason, Her Excellency shows a penchant for embroiling herself in controversial issues.
On Canada's role in Afghanistan, she opined that withdrawing our troops from that country "would be refusing to help a people in danger, of being unaware of their own glaring reality." Quite true. But more than 50 per cent of Canadians disagree with that assessment, many passionately.
Then she invited the prime minister of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, to a private dinner, at which several guests reportedly spoke out strongly against government policy. No member of Harper's cabinet appears to have been present.
On the charge of espousing onesided views, Jean has likewise done herself no favours. The Governor General has waded knee-deep into the same activist swamp she inhabited as a reporter.
She lavishes attention on feminist groups whose agenda is far from inclusive.
She opened a personal website dedicated exclusively to women's interests and encouraged women and youth to discuss their concerns with her. Men were pointedly not invited to participate.
That of course provoked a fathers' group to inquire whether she supports their campaign for fair treatment in custody settlements. No word whether aggrieved husbands will be on the Rideau Hall invitee list any time soon.
Certainly there's no reason the head of state should turn a blind eye to social issues. But there's a right and wrong way to do these things.
By sharing the stage with activists who have a decided way of looking at matters, Jean risks alienating the other half of the population who see things differently. Employing the win-lose language of gender warfare, which she also tends to do, moves solutions beyond reach.
Part of the blame rests with Paul Martin, for nominating someone clearly not ready for the job. Jean is still a young woman with an active career to promote. These are her most productive years. Telling her to put a sock in it and confine herself to formalities is asking a lot.
Still, that's the job and she took it knowingly. The Queen's representative has no place in political controversy. It is her duty to speak for all Canadians, not just those for whom she has special sympathies.
Moreover that duty has a heightened significance at present, with a minority government in Ottawa.
At some point the prime minister will ask her to dissolve Parliament and call an election.
When that occurs, it's not inconceivable that the Liberals could approach the Governor General and offer to form a government. If both the NDP and the Bloc supported that proposal, it would be open for Jean to refuse an election and install a Liberal administration instead. If that eventuality arises, there will be hell to pay in Western Canada, and particularly Alberta.
It's unlikely Michaelle Jean will meet the political equivalent of Anne Boleyn's fate. Governors General, by convention, serve a fixed term.
But unless she wants to spend the next four years in obscurity, it might be wise to remember her job description.
It's right there on the vice-regal coat of arms: Briser les Solitudes. "Briser" means breaking down, not building up.
Lawrie McFarlane is a retired civil servant. He writes on public policy.
