Thank The Lord For Diane Francis

Remember my column on Rex Murphy who lost logic and lucidity just thinking of Carolyn Parrish, MP from Mississauga, the lady who told Raging Grannies on Parliament Hill that Canada is not going to "join the coalition of idiots" (talking about the Missile Shield for North America). Murphy could hardly contain his fury that a mere elected MP, a mere member of Canada's Parliament, and (it would seem ) a WOMAN dared to express an opinion shared by a very large number of Canadians, when he -- an appointed journalist - thought differently. He gagged and choked and sputtered out whatever phrases he could think of to demean her. Well, some of you probably said, "Oh yeah, Rex Murphy, a bit of a screwball, a bit of an individualist". And then Carolyn Parrish spoke again. What were her startling excesses this time? Like a very large number of her fellow Canadians she was "dumbfounded" by the U.S. election outcome. And hardly breaking into new patterns of thought, she described George Bush (in a really remarkably restrained term) as "war-like". As many of her fellow Canadians have been doing, she also wondered what could have struck the U.S. population, maybe the "profound psychological damage of 9/11". Maybe Rex Murphy will lie low this time. Diane Francis hasn't done so. Not only does she out-Murphy Murphy, but she shows how deeply she is NOT in love with Free Speech when it is used freely by a Canadian MP to express rather modest negative views about the USA. (Diane Francis, "Parrish's anti-American remarks unacceptable", Financial Post, Tues Nov 9 04 FP3) With illogic remarkably similar to that of Rex Murphy, Francis begins the attack by saying that "Freedom is the right to swing your arm, but not to hit anybody with it." Pardon? To begin: free speech misused at its worst is not physical violence. In fact, we all know that one of the values of freedom of speech is that it allows us strong difference and argument without physical violence. But what the hell. Francis simply wants us to hate Carolyn Parrish. Then, in vintage-value, Right argument Francis declares that free speech should not be exercised if it damages commercial profit. And she continues that the Parrish constituency "contains more U.S. head offices than most". Are we to assume that (a) if Canada has U.S. businesses, it shouldn't criticize U.S. politics? (b) And are we to assume that all U.S. businesses with head offices in Canada revere George Bush? (c) Are we to believe that if freely expressed criticism hurts commercial profit, it should be suppressed? (Isn't that why it took so long to end the slave trade -- because so many people were profitting from it despite decades and decades of freely expressed criticism of its barbarity and inhumanity? Criticism wasn't suppressed but it was ignored on behalf of commercial profit. Francis wants it suppressed.) Prime Minister Paul Martin said what a Prime Minister like him would be expected to say: that Carolyn Parrish didn't speak for the government or the caucus, and that her statements were unacceptable. Martin's remarks don't show great courage or imagination. Is anybody surprised? Perhaps nobody. But Diane Francis is outraged. For expressing what (as I have said) a very large number of thoughtful and serious Canadians think, Parrish is named by Francis not only a bigot but different from: "ordinary Canadian bigots". For Parrish is an MP, and as such she is quoted widely. That causes Francis heartburn. That's not all. For her, the best way of seeing government is as a sort of "business". "Just as smart CEOs protect their companies' reputations from brand deterioration, [Martin] must insure that Canada, its Parliament and people, are properly and positively represented around the world." How is that momentous task to be achieved? Why, by the most violent denial of Freedom of Speech that Paul Marin can muster. He must, according to Francis, throw Parrish out of the Party, throw her out of the Liberal Caucus, and -- if possible -- throw her out of Parliament. (Just ignore the solid majority of people in her consitituency who elected her.) Though it's hard to believe -- though it out-Murphys Murphy indeed -- Francis goes on. Carolyn Parrish must be assigned "rogue status". If things such as Francis suggests are not very seriously done, Parrish (think of a serial killer) "will strike again, empowered once more". After more equations of Canadian government with McDonald's hamburger stores, Diane Francis takes great freedom with the truth about Parrish. "She has been swept in [to Parliament, Francis says] serially along with the rest of [the Liberal members]". But come now. Parrish voiced her disapproval of U.S. policy before the last election. And in an election where the Liberals had lots of tough slogging to get enough MPs for a minority government, Carolyn Parrish increased her vote support. Raging unchecked, Francis suggests businesses quantify the "economic damage" done by Parrish and conduct lawsuits "against her or her party". Like Rex Murphy, Diane Francis takes leave of normal human logic. A parliamentarian freely expresses reasonable opinions about the U.S. election, echoing many other Canadians. Diane Francis suggests businesses somehow attribute economic losses (which they most certainly won't have) to the parliamentarian and to sue her and/or the Liberal Party for the losses. Has the Financial Post gone mad, to print such hogwash? If not mad, decidedly Toxic Right! For her wind-up point in favour of ending Carolyn Parrish's career is to quote Thomas d'Aquino, head of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. D'Aquino is alleged by progressives in Canada to be one of the main people working for the integration (and eventual merging) of Canada with the USA, wiping out whatever distinctions of culture and tradition Canadians have. He, obviously, doesn't favour criticism of anything about the USA. He is trump card for Diane Francis. Even Thomas d'Aquino (Even?) wants Paul Martin to decapitate Carolyn Parrish. And he even said so, forcibly. What a surprise! I named this column "Thank the Lord for Diane Francis", and I mean it. For it is at such times as these that the Toxic Right forces of Canada show their contempt for Parliamentary Democracy, freedom of speech, the right of Canadians to differ from the U.S. rulers. It is at this time that the Right forces in Canada show other Canadians just what they would be like if they got power. Stephen Harper, darling of the people attacking Carolyn Parrish, wants us to consider Belgium as a model for our bilingual policies -- Belgium, with a totally different constitutional structure and an area that could be comfortably tucked into Vancouver Island. Smart, eh. He also suggested Alberta build a firewall around itself to protect it from Canadian Medicare and national pension policies. His chief B.C. M.P went to the most recent U.S. Republican Convention. And his economic policies are ably sketched by people like Diane Francis and Thomas d'Aquino. Get it? Yes. Thank the Lord for Diane Francis.