Harper’s dangerous debate much more than a mere distraction
If Stephen Harper were just using the niqab as a political distraction in the dwindling days of this long campaign, that would be the most charitable description of this gambit that could possibly be found.
If it were just a cynical ploy to avoid late-campaign scrutiny of his economic record, many of us would shake our heads, but others would grudgingly nod to the shrewd political tacticians on the Conservative side.
But this, of course, is no mere distraction, not simply something to hide other issues. There is evidence it is moving votes.
And it is doing something else. It is fuelling hate, discrimination, xenophobia and Islamophobia while the Conservative leader is immersed in the grubby pursuit of votes. It is dangerous.
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and NDP Leader Tom Mulcair want it to be thought of as a distraction because neither has a path to victory that includes a debate over the wearing of veils at citizenship ceremonies or in the public service. It puts the two men in a box. Trudeau has been consistent in his defence of Canadian minority rights from the moment he began his quest for the Liberal leadership.
What were once dismissed as platitudes are now important messages from him because of the manner in which this campaign has unfolded.
Mulcair has not veered from principle on the niqab even as he watches the issue chip away his advantage in his power base of Quebec. It was, sadly, an all too rare display of a Canadian politician saying what was right, not what played to his or her political advantage.
They have both been eloquent on the question when they have had to be, but neither wants to take on the issue head on, so they go after Harper on “fear and divisiveness” without a specific mention of the niqab.
“(Harper is) always trying to pivot to questions of security and fear as a distraction,’’ Trudeau said Thursday.
“I am appalled that Stephen Harper has played the politics of race in this campaign,’’ said Mulcair, before calling the issue a “weapon of mass distraction.’’
Mulcair would rather talk about the Trans-Pacific trade deal and his rejection of Harper’s anti-terror legislation. Trudeau would rather talk about infrastructure funding.
The niqab is the elephant in the room for both men.
Harper is the acknowledged master of solving problems that do not exist, our champion who will storm the ramparts to protect us from the threat that is not there.
There have been a grand total of two women in this country who have sought to take their citizenship oaths while veiled (after unveiling to confirm their identity first).
According to the Public Service Alliance of Canada, no workers have attempted to provide public services while veiled.
Harper has expertly beaten back such dangerous tides, just as he ensured that the fictional backlog of calls over “barbaric social practices” can now be handled by a snitch line.
This election can be determined on a number of fronts.
Harper can win another mandate if voters feel he has struck the proper balance on the economy, or has promised better days with his trade deal, or struck the right balance between security and compassion in the refugee issue, or because he puts cheques in your mailbox.
He can earn your vote by default, because you might think Mulcair lacks the proper temperament for leadership or Trudeau needs more political seasoning. But if a close election turns on an issue that is pure, baseless political expediency, then our system has been debased.
Trudeau has said Harper’s targeting of minorities is unworthy of the office he holds, but a campaigning Harper is a world away from a governing Harper.
Harper has found comfort in the “very responsible” and narrower proposal by Quebec Liberal Premier Phillipe Couillard, one that deals exclusively with face coverings and holds wide support in that province.
In 2013, when the Parti Québécois introduced its much wider, more dangerous, Charter of Values, Harper tiptoed into the fray, but responded this way: “Our job is social inclusion. Our job is making all groups who come to this country, whatever their background, whatever their race, whatever their ethnicity, whatever their religion, feel at home in this country and be Canadians.’’
That was Harper governing. Harper seeking votes is a different man, a world away from the man, who, when handed a majority that May night in 2011 pledged: “Canadians have chosen hope, a united Canada, a strong Canada. We must be the government of all Canadians, including those that did not vote for us.’’
Let’s call that vow a political distraction. Tim Harper is a national affairs writer. His column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. tharper@thestar.ca Twitter:@nutgraf1