CKNW Editorial
for November 2, 1999

I am groping for a word and maybe you can help me. The closest I can find is tendentious which, according to the concise English Dictionary means "with an underlying purpose; intended to further a cause."

Let me give you a couple of examples.

Someone makes a speech or writes a story obviously slanted against a person or a group because he doesn’t like them. Doug Collins article in the North Shore News a few years ago entitled Swindler’s List which purported to be a review of the movie Schindler’s List is just such an article. Clearly the true reason for the article and it’s intended consequence was to hurt Jews. Ah, but you see, says Mr Collins this wasn’t racist at all, it was merely exercising free speech.

Out of our Labour Law course at Law school came another example. The labour leader says to his members about strikebreakers – "don’t throw them in the duck pond" and when the duck pond is full of strikebreakers proclaims his innocence and points to his pious request that this not be done.

David Irving writes books calling into question the holocaust because every single person killed wasn’t documented, ignoring the mountains of evidence including the largest single mass murderer, Adolph Eichman. Mr Irving claps his hand to his brow and says "I’m not trying to hurt Jews I’m simply exercising my right as an historian to put my slant on things. Besides it’s a matter of free speech."

I have received much mail over the meeting about ten days ago of parents, a meeting addressed by Kari Simpson who is now suing me. And I might say that others may feel the cold of Libel Chill but I’m not one of them. In any event, parents and supporters of parents at that meeting say that it had nothing to do with gay bashing notwithstanding many of the speeches, though not Ms Simpson’s, which clearly were. No, it’s not that these people are against homosexuals – no siree – all they’re talking about is the right of parents to take their children out of classes when they don’t like what the teachers teach. Indeed this is what the Surrey School District does when they issue press releases saying how they intend to adhere to the Human Rights Code and not discriminate against anyone on the basis of their sexual preferences – precisely what they did according to the Kelleher Report. You cannot listen to the tapes of that meeting or read the mail I have received without knowing that the issue is one and one only – the desire of some parents to take their kids out of a class taught by a gay. These letters are mostly the same. They start out with a strong statement that the issue isn’t homosexuality but parents’ rights – whereupon they launch into an attack on teachers teaching the gay lifestyle … though there’s no evidence of this happening in Surrey … unless you count teachers both gay and straight who have, with the use of three utterly harmless books, taught tolerance of different colours and lifestyles. If you read my mail you would think that teachers in Surrey were actively, though subtly of course, recruiting straight kids to the gay cause.

Now, let’s be clear on this because sensitive ears do not always hear everything. Mr Collins, Mr Irving etc are all entitled to their opinions and, moreover, entitled to state them … just as I’m entitled to comment upon them and, if I think it’s fair, call them as I see them.

The trick employed is an ancient one. Use an excuse with which people will be comfortable rather than giving the real, underlying reason.

I regret to observe that this technique has been applied recently by Marv Storrow QC, counsel to the Apec nearing. You all know the story – Mr Storrow will be called upon to make representations to the Commissioner, Mr Hughes, as to the necessity of calling Jean Chretien as a witness. Mr Storrow, a few days ago, attended a meeting featuring Mr Chretien speaking, the price for which was $400. Mr Storrow claims high democratic reasons for this – to paraphrase, he is a man deeply interested in politics and felt it appropriate for him to go and listen to Mr Chretien – after all that was little more than discharging a civic duty.

The trouble is there is an underlying explanation which would occur to anyone who thinks about it.

The money wasn’t like an admission ticket to a hockey game or a public speaker like me for example, who speaks professionally. No this was a Liberal Party fund raiser.

Ah but, exclaims Mr Storrow, the partnership paid for this - overlooking, one would have to think deliberately, that Mr Storrow is a partner and sharing of expenses is what partnerships are all about.

As I say, the closest I can come up with is tendentious but I’m certainly open to a better one.