On Jan. 13, Stephen Taylor—a prominent Canadian conservative blogger—posted a photo series documenting students protesting at the UTM stop on Michael Ignatieff’s recent university tour. The slogans written on the protestors’ placards were full of blatant mistruths, outright xenophobia, misspellings, brazen irony, and a complete ignorance of reality. These photos are absolutely shameful, especially because the students in them—some of whom are students at our very own university—are supposed to be the best and brightest our country has to offer. They made a mockery of Canada’s youth.
One placard read “Welcome father of the Liberal Caron Tax” and another quoted Ignatieff as saying “we’ll have to raise taxes.” Ignoring the obvious spelling and grammatical errors, these signs raise a number of questions. Firstly, considering that people around the world have reached a near-consensus on the reality of climate change, what do these protestors suggest we do? Notwithstanding the perversion of conservatism present in neo-Conservative policy, right-wing values are supposed to be about resisting change and maintaining the status quo when it makes sense to do so. What could be more conservative than fighting climate change?
Secondly, how do the protestors suggest the Conservative government address the structural deficit (that is, a budget that is fundamentally unbalanced, regardless of economic conditions) that Kevin Page, the parliamentary budget officer, outlined in a recently-released report? The Conservatives have cut taxes and repeatedly ruled out raising them, yet seem to have no credible plan to cut spending outside of vague talk of “discipline.”
The federal government spends the majority of its money on transfer payments, which the government has promised to not touch. Much of the rest of the federal funds go to federal responsibilities such as justice, customs, agriculture, national defence, public safety, and public works, all areas where the government would find it politically unpalatable to cut spending. In some of these areas, the government has in fact increased spending or promised to do so (particularly on national defence and justice). Cutting taxes and maintaining, if not raising, spending is not a credible economic plan, especially not for a government that was elected on the promise of fiscal responsibility.
Another placard read, “Count Iggy loves torture.” Let’s ignore for a moment the xenophobic and anti-elite message implicit in calling Ignatieff “Count,” and the discourtesy of referring to him as “Iggy” (isn’t politeness also a conservative value?). The slogan is brazenly ironic considering that just weeks ago, Stephen Harper prorogued parliament in part to avoid scrutiny over his government’s knowledge of the torture of Afghan detainees. While Ignatieff has expressed regret for the position taken on the issue of torture, by suspending parliament Harper has implicitly admitted to (at best) turning a blind eye to it.
The University of Toronto is one of the highest ranked universities in Canada, and its students are supposed to be some of Canada’s most intelligent youth. These protestors displayed astounding ignorance, a lack of basic literacy (another protestor proudly held up a sign saying “Our flag is not a beer lable”), and shameful disrespect for a high-ranking public servant, honoured public intellectual, and, more importantly, a fellow human being. In doing so, they made a mockery of the university and, most of all, themselves.
Photo by Matthew Filipowich











Comments
What is quite funny is that if Stephen Harper had engaged in this same activity and he was protested, I highly doubt a Varsity comment piece would spring up in his defense. Behind the veil of lies in this article, including the false accusation that Conservatives had created the deficit (when, in fact, the Liberal Coalition had threatened to vote down the government if Harper and his allies failed to make a stimulus), restatement of the torture allegatios, and, of course, resorting to the useless straw-man of '[Ignatieff]'s a fellow human being!', the reality dawns on us that if we accept the freedom of opinion and protest that sometimes you'll inevitably run into someone who disagrees with you.
The bad news is this: you can't state that you want an increase in spending but refuse to accept a raise of taxes or cutbacks on spending. I don't know where you learned your economics from, but somehow you expect both stimulus spending and structural balance without taking any hits. If Ignatieff (or yourself) are somehow far more ingenious than I have suspected, then please show me the plan to make this possible and I will sign-up. Until then, let's not make contradictory accusations. You can't have you cake and eat it too.
I understand you guys love Iggy. No problem. I know you think UofT ought to love Iggy as well. I couldn't really care less if they did or did not. However, when a politician runs for office they make their life public and openly debatable as a matter ethical and moral standing. Since you didn't have the gall to admit it, I will say this: some people are stupid and ignorant and they will make very irrational arguments. The best thing to do is not to cry foul over spilt milk but to just move on and let fools say what they wish not to write ugly articles like this and 'Liberal is not a dirty word' (See Jan. 14th) complaining about how people disagree with your opinion.
Finally, regarding the torture allegations: firstly, they have not been verified nor lack substantial evidence other than the original claims. Additionally, they occurred during the time of transfer from the Martin to Harper government, so even if they did occur, it would arguably not lay solely in the fault of the Harper cabinet. Moreover, people have a fallacy to jump to conclusions about things which have not been proven or need far more research to derive the truth (i.e.) global warming, Afghan torture allegations). Facts are not democratic - that is, just because more people say it's true doesn't make it so. The fact is that, without real evidence, the prospect of wasting millions of dollars on a possibly fruitless search for proof of torture when the Red Cross, of all organisations, was supposed to be monitoring the prisoners seems like looking for a needle in a haystack. And the only thing worse than looking for a needle in a haystack is not knowing if there even is a needle at all.
Jan 26, 2010 at 10:51 AM
Hey Keegan, I don't have a whole lot of time to write up a full response, but I'll try to address your points.
I agree that we would have ended up with deficit no matter what government was in power at the time of the economic meltdown, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the current deficit is structural, and we would be in a lot better shape if the Conservatives hadn't cut taxes while increasing spending prior to late 2008. The fact that they have all but ruled out most of the most credible options for balancing the budget also doesn't help. Also keep in mind that the last few Liberal governments made significant progress at paying down our debt (especially while Martin was finance minster) while the Conservative governments have tended to build it up. I know this isn't entirely fair as the Liberals have tended to be in power in better economic times, but I don't think it's insignificant.
I know Ignatieff has flip-flopped a bit on increasing taxes, but many of us would fully support it. Unfortunately many voters tend to support tax cuts and oppose increases while simultaneously raising a stink whenever the government has to cut spending, seemingly not realizing that you can't have your cake and eat it too. My impression is that Ignatieff understands this, but he also realizes that too much talk of raising taxes is likely to hurt him electorally. The Conservatives jumped on the "The Liberals wants you tax you!" bandwagon during the last election, and I have no doubt that they will again during the next one. I completely agree with you that either taxes need to go up or spending needs to go down, but the Conservatives seem to have more or less ruled both options out.
I want to make this clear: I'm not particularly pro-Liberal. I think they're probably the most credible option out there right now, but given the state of Canadian politics that's not exactly a ringing endorsement. The Liberals are a dysfunctional, entitled, fickle, and quite frankly often infuriating, but I tend to agree with their positions much more than those of the Conservatives. This article isn't so much about why the Liberals are totally awesome as it is about what's wrong with the Conservatives and an admittedly small subset of their supporters. And no, just because you expose yourself to the public, it doesn't mean you somehow deserve to be treated like trash. I have no problem with legitimate disagreement with Ignatieff, but I have no time for personal attacks. The people attacking Ignatieff because of his time spent abroad, academic history, or his heritage remind me a bit too much of those who attacked Obama because of his "elitism", skin colour or alleged religion. Who cares? Politics should be about debating real issues, not personalities, demeanour, or outright false accusations. I also don't have much time for hypocrisy like attacking Ignatieff for his past views on torture unless those making the accusations are ready to admit that the problem goes beyond simple partisanship.
Lastly, regarding the torture allegations, you seem to be implying that because it might be too difficult to prove that it happened, we shouldn't be worrying about the fact that Canada may have presided over war crimes (under the Geneva conventions) and then proceeded to, if Colvin is to be believed, make systematic efforts to cover them up (see this article in the Star today for yet another accusation). It's entirely possible that the accusations are false or misleading (for all I know this is all the Liberals' fault), but we shouldn't assume this is the case. This is what public inquires are for. Also, I'm not completely familiar with the Red Cross's involvement, but it strikes me that we shouldn't be relying on a third party to make sure we aren't committing war crimes.
Thanks for your reply, and sorry if I failed to address something.
Jan 26, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Grant,
Doesn't it seem unusual to you that such such a grave misspelling occured? Caron as a stand in for Carbon seems more like parody than a genuine attempt to make a point about Ignatief. I wouldn't be very surprised to find out that some of these protestors were not entirely forthright about their political views.
Jan 26, 2010 at 04:50 PM
Phineas,
I tend towards Hanlon's Razor when it comes to stuff like this, and to be honest probably didn't consider this as seriously as I should have. It is definitely possible, and if it is the case, pretty deplorable. I tried to avoid harping on it too much since it wasn't really relevant either way; nobody should assume that a couple of people (whether they're anti-Conservative pranksters or not) with bad spelling means anything about Conservative supporters as a whole.
The talking points raised were by no means new—this is stuff that has been brought up again and again by supporters, pundits, right-leaning media, cabinet ministers, and the prime minister himself, and I'm sure we'll see more material of the same vein shortly. If these protesters were trying to construct a straw man for gullible writers like me to knock down, they should have realized that it was hardly necessary given the amount of hard evidence already out there, and would probably hurt their cause as it would make them look more than a bit desperate and juvenile.
Jan 26, 2010 at 06:45 PM
Say hello to the biased media era of the Varsity, where in some articles (Liberal is not a dirty word) it criticizes the liberal media for not telling both sides of the story, while in others (Shameful Showing at UTM) it inconspicuously embraces such actions. It appears that the Varsity along with other supposedly 'liberal media' are no longer about getting the facts to its audience, but rather altering how the audience reacts to the facts with biased articles and connatative language. It is disappointing that the Varsity has become nothing but a social liberal manipulator. While it is supposed to be run by 'the best and the brightest students this country has to offer', they seem to be attempting to destroy the mind of their readers with carefully chosen manipulative words rather than letting the readers decide for themselves. The Varsity, now part of the 'mainstream' - where only the dead fish flow with the river, while the live ones swim against. Yes, I understand that the Varsity stands for liberal media without censorship and control but let me ask you this: which is better, media controlled by an individual or state, or the media who in turn wishes to control and manipulate its audience (even if indirectly)? I shan't be biased; I'll let you form your own answer.
Jan 30, 2010 at 07:45 PM
Hey Keegan and Andy, as a member of the Varsity staff, let me assure you that there is no overarching ideology being imposed on writers (or the campus) here. Alixandra, the comment editor, has done a great job running politically diverse articles this year, and she's not pushing any agenda. If someone has a strong opinion on a matter and they can articulate it well, she wants to hear it.
That being said, political interest at U of T tends towards the left, and so for every one right-leaning writer there are probably six that vote NDP. That's it! No conspiracy.
Thanks for commenting.
Feb 1, 2010 at 12:03 AM
The population being overwhelmingly left-leaning, does not justify that the Varsity is not portraying an unbiased voice. It does not solely state the facts, it implies that certain things are right, while others are wrong, which is generally considered as biased. It matters not that the majority of the population will agree with what you say is right or wrong; their acceptance of your biased articles will not make the bias disappear.
Some consider it correct to not bother with the truth but only gain approval; some consider everything subjective with no real answer; some will say that the human element, above all, trumps other philosophical matters. It is much easier to live in the latter method than its opposite but not necessarily correct. Is the truth democratic in this manner? I guess if circulation flows. Besides, who wants to go against the current, even if it might be true? Better safe than sorry, right? Can nothing go wrong if everyone is in agreement about being wrong? Think about it.
Thanks for the comment!
Feb 1, 2010 at 02:10 PM
I hear what you're saying. But please remember that this is not an unsigned editorial intended to represent "The Varsity's" view, as if dozens of students could truly have a monolithic opinion (although, it's worth noting that we attempt to write such unsigned pieces collaboratively).
Instead, what we have here is Grant Heaslip's individual opinion. That's what the comment section exists for: a range of opinions, all of them "biased" in their own way, in the sense that they're expressing a subjective point of view. The idea is persuasive argument, not "just the facts, ma'am" news coverage.
Feb 1, 2010 at 04:53 PM
I don't think they were referring to the comment section specifically. If you read the Varsity, (as I am sure you do as a staff member) only the sports section and science section really state "the facts" rather than 'the facts' litered with Kantianism.
No point in debating it further, we have our apple you have your orange. Let's leave it at that.
Feb 1, 2010 at 05:16 PM
I prefer socialist orange if you don't mind.
Feb 2, 2010 at 10:01 AM
Keegan and Andy,
Like Joe said, I'm not sure that you really grasp what the point of the comment section is. There's nothing wrong with the fact that the comment section "...does not solely state the facts, it implies that certain things are right, while others are wrong, which is generally considered as biased..."—that's the point of the comment section. If this article was in the news section, you'd have a completely valid point as what I wrote would be extremely inappropriate.
All major newspapers have opinion sections, and some take stances that I strongly disagree with. You're completely free to disagree with opinion pieces, but that fact alone doesn't mean that the Varsity editors were wrong for posting this. If they never published an opinion that could offend someone, the comment section would be pretty bare.
Last Monday, the Varsity printed an excerpt from your first comment on this very article, which is ironic considering you later accused the Varsity of having a liberal agenda and never allowing dissenting opinions. Even worse, despite your seeming fixation on reporting only the facts (though you have yet to actually point out something I wrote that wasn't factually true), in said comment you accused me of writing something that I just plain didn't write: that this deficit is entirely the Conservatives' fault. Of course we would be running a deficit regardless of who was in power at the time of the economic crisis—the stimulus needed to happen and the auto companies needed to be bailed out. The difference is that under a different administration we might not be running a STRUCTURAL deficit. But I digress.
I acknowledge that my articles have a left-wing bias (that's just how I am, sorry!), and that perhaps the same facts in different hands might lead one to different opinions. One of the great things about living in a liberal democracy is that I can have different opinions and publish them, and so can you. And before you're too quick to chastise the Varsity for its liberal agenda, remember that most University students tend to sway left in politics. At least in my experience, it's not too hard to get published, and the reality is that the Varsity probably just gets more left-leaning submissions. If you have a different opinion, get in touch with Alixandra, pitch an article, and get it published as well. Fight the liberal bias!
Feb 2, 2010 at 02:59 PM
This will be the last comment we are going to make on this; you can't make people see what they don't wish to. If you read our comments through you would notice that they weren't solely pitched at the Varsity comment section (otherwise it would have said the biased era of the Varsity comment section). Neither was it pitched at your article, because as you've mentioned you aren't the only one on the Varsity who is left wing. Perhaps liberal left leaning people only see what they want to see and ignore the rest. The other comments you made were touched on when Joe talked to us. As for getting published, you say it as if we are supposed to be thankful for something we didn't ask for. With regards to the fighting the liberal bias, we have very different regards of what it is to be liberal. The true liberal ideals of John Locke are far from what is referred to liberal. The pendulum can only swing so far to the left before it goes over the top.
Finally, what is an opinion? It is, as Plato says, a mid-point between truth and belief. A comment is designed to reflect and explain the truth: a good opinion explains the truth well or in a way we have not thought of; a bad one fails to agree with the facts or provides nothing new. When one constructs a comment or opinion, it can likewise be right or wrong. To claim that a comment section explicitly can be somehow purely subjective or ignore the value of bias is laughable. For example, if one posted a comment in the Varsity of how the tragedy in Haiti was a great thing and the Haitians deserved it, the facts may not seem to add up to this conclusion and many of its readers would cry foul because it would be so - thus it would be a bad article because its opinion was incorrect. Likewise, these liberal pieces, which use flawed arguments (see first comment by 'Keegan') and do not reach proper conclusions due to bias are also wrong. Shrugging them off as acceptable because the readership agrees or because we should automatically accept different opinions does not destroy the fact that they are still wrong and poorly made. Therefore, when one desires more than 'just the facts, m'am', is a good publication one which stresses excellence and reason over the irrational and mythical or vice-versa? Is a good publication one which stresses virtue over belief or vice-versa; one which stresses justice over pity? You can decide for yourself.
PS: Thanks for the cool discussion.
PPS: Your submit button doesn't work for IE8.
Feb 3, 2010 at 01:48 AM
For someone who is—if your Bush-league philosophy name-drops are to be believed (yes, I'm a Political Science specialist, I know what classical liberalism is)—on a quest for The Truth, it might help if you actually tell me what about my article was wrong. From what I read in this discussion, you continue to make vague accusations about my "flawed arguments" but seem to be hesitant to seriously engage me on facts and not rhetoric. I responded to your accusations of writing a "veil of lies" with some clarifications nearly a week ago, and since then you've done nothing but accuse this paper of having a liberal bias. I get the impression that you're only going to be happy once everyone acknowledges your working assumption that your world-view is right and mine is wrong, regardless of where the facts lie.
If you're going to accuse me of lying, at least have the good will to tell me where I'm wrong (in concrete terms!) so I can cure my (contemporary) liberal sickness. Continually spinning back to rhetoric makes it seem suspiciously like you don't actually have any legitimate points to make.
Feb 3, 2010 at 11:30 AM
Post a Comment