Lessons Learned From Totalitarianism

Reflecting upon a recent visit to Berlin, Toronto Star columnist Edward Greenspon had this to say:

I was particularly struck by the lessons to be drawn from 1933 and 1934, when the Nazis were not yet at full swagger. Arguably, as the depths of their hatreds quickly surfaced, they could have been tripped up by foreign pressures and a modicum of domestic spine. But elite opinion and statecraft took the passive course of hoping the accidental chancellor would fall to his own excesses. When he didn’t, foreign powers sought to mollify rather than confront him.

He goes on to write:

Berlin reminds us that democracy is a precious and a complex garden that requires constant care. It consists of much, much more than free and fair elections. It is everything that happens afterward: constitutional solidity, rule of law, an independent judiciary, checks and balances, a free press, protection of human rights, particularly for minorities.

In writing the following, Greenspon was thinking of Russia:

Societies that chip away at human rights and democratic principles, as with Russia today, must be confronted and challenged. Opposition and dissent must be respected. We owe it to history to call out concentrations of power — political and economic — and even minor incursions on the normal course checks and balances.

Ever astute, some Star readers feel he should be looking closer to home:


Re: Berlin’s Nazi ghosts, Opinion Aug. 4

Edward Greenspon’s column, reflecting on a visit to Berlin after a 20-year gap, finds “The Berlin of the present is an effervescent city. But the Berlin of the past, particularly the Nazi past, has bubbled back to the surface.”

Later, he cautions, “Societies that chip away at human rights and democratic principles, as with Russia today, must be confronted and challenged. Opposition and dissent must be respected. We owe it to history to call out concentrations of power — political and economic — and even minor incursions on the normal course of checks and balances.”

I agree entirely. But I can’t help thinking that had Greenspon substituted Canada for Russia in that sentence, he’d have presented a much more relevant warning as we endure, under Stephen Harper, arguably the most aggressively and enthusiastically anti-democratic government in our history: corporatist, militaristic, secretive, mendacious, evangelical, oppressive and repressive (just ask the peaceful demonstrators at the Toronto G20 gathering), anti-science, anti-environment, punitive of dissent and even debate, defunding any group that dares question its agenda, and dismissing all checks and balances on its authority — including our elected Parliament.

If Greenspon is concerned about creeping fascism, he needn’t look abroad.

Terry O’Connor, Toronto

I would like to draw attention to the following paragraph: “Berlin reminds us that democracy is a precious and a complex garden that requires constant care. It consists of much, much more than free and fair elections. It is everything that happens afterward: constitutional solidity, rule of law, an independent judiciary, checks and balances, a free press, protection of human rights, particularly for minorities.”

We have only to pay close attention to the state of our own “garden of democracy” to observe the creeping weeds already afoot growing from the policies of the Harper Conservatives. So many of the jewels in Canada’s crown have turned to thorns under their watch, we must find the means to protect our nation’s standing in the world community as a fair and compassionate land or we too will slide into the same moral and economic chaos our neighbours to the south now find themselves.

Michael Sherman, Toronto

The message, as always, is the same. If we truly want a healthy and dynamic democracy, we have to be willing to fight for it. Disengagement, complacence or passivity, just like the appeasement advocated so many years ago by Neville chamberlin, are not options.

The Globe and Mail: A Study in Vindictiveness

As one well-acquainted with the scourge of depression and the toll it takes on both the sufferer and his/her family, it was with great interest that I recently read Jan Wong's account of her struggle with the disease in Out of the Blue. In what I view as an act of personal courage, the former Globe and Mail reporter whose wide-ranging work certainly enhanced the Globe “brand,” reveals at length the story of her mental descent as a result of toiling in what ultimately became an unsupportive and toxic workplace.

Even those whose lives have not been either directly or indirectly marred by this insidious sickness will doubtless be fascinated by the vindictive, almost Machiavellian machinations of the Globe's upper management once it no longer had any use for Wong, amply illustrating the sad fact that the newspaper business is just that, a business, with no tolerance for anyone who 'rocks the boat' in ways that discomfit 'the bosses.'

In her book, management at The Globe, both present and past, including Sylvia Stead, John Stackhouse and Edward Greenspon, come across as especially venal, petty and cowardly, essentially 'hanging Wong out to dry' after a story she wrote about the 2006 Dawson College shootings included a comment about cultural alienation in Quebec, linking it to two previous tragedies in La Belle Province. Controversy and condemnation of Wong ensued, and the Globe went into full defensive mode, ultimately essentially abandoning Wong to the rabble.

But the Globe wasn't quite through with Wong. Because the paper carries a great deal of clout and has substantial reserves with which to litigate, Wong wound up self-publishing her chronicle after her publisher, Doubleday, ultimately wanted her to censor her story, excising most references to her experiences at The Globe, an impossibility since her depression was caused by workplace stress.

Eventually, Wong won a severance package from The Globe, on the condition that she not discuss the details of it. In her book, after being fired by the Globe for time missed due to her depression, she talked about how she “fought back and won,” that her former employer “had caved” and that she had received “a pile of money.” It would appear that those comments were too much for the Globe, which will now receive back the severance after an arbitrator ruled that by saying those things, she breached her confidentiality agreement with the paper.

The self-proclaimed 'newspaper of record' would have us believe that they took this action based on principle; others could just as cogently argue that it was simply a continuation of the vindicativeness that essentially drove Wong from the Globe.

If you get the chance, I highly recommend the book; not only does it give valuable insight into mental illness, but it will also enable you to decide for yourself who is in the right and who is in the wrong in this matter.