Mediaboss Marketing

The essayist and novelist on his latest book, Indian liberalism, the Hindu Rashtra and the evolving Western intellectual establishment

Pankaj Mishra is almost unique among Indian authors in having reflected consistently on modern history, contemporary politics and literary cultures, not only in India and South Asia but also in China, Anglo-America, Europe, West Asia, Southeast Asia and North Africa. His latest book, Bland Fanatics: Liberals, Race and Empire, is a collection of many of his important political essays and polemical pieces, published over the two decades since 9/11. In an interview, he discusses his current preoccupations.

(Stay up to date on new book releases, reviews, and more with The Hindu On Books newsletter.Subscribe here.)

I think the word liberal triggers hostility in India for reasons specific to Indias culture wars. Many of Modis critics claim to be liberal. They may not subscribe to many of classical liberalisms precepts, such as free trade. But they use the word and invoke its morally prestigious Western associations to present themselves as embodiments of a kind of udaarta tolerance and acceptance of different world-views.

For right-wingers, however, the word stands in for an English-speaking metropolitan class whose cultural hegemony they are fighting to overthrow. I think we should examine the genealogy of this word in India more closely, and who deploys it and for what reason. Its worth remembering that Nehru himself did not repeatedly claim to be a liberal in the way his present-day followers do. Nor did most significant figures of the freedom movement. I am not sure that many intellectuals and activists who work primarily in Indian languages describe themselves as liberal.

Yes, success and honour are almost exclusively reserved for those who flatter Western self-images and boosterish discourses prevalent in the West. I was often accused of making a living by running down India internationally when all I did was point to some serious problems confronting a vast majority of Indians. Ironically, those talking up the New India were being lavishly rewarded by the Western establishment that had bought into a fantasy of India as a great democracy, economic superpower, counterweight to China etc.

The propagandists are now in retreat, partly because the Western establishment has lost its old certainties in recent years, and spaces have opened up for discourses whether about imperialism and slavery or global capitalism, inequality and our ruined environment that it either suppressed or ignored. When The New York Times, which carried articles about the need for a new Anglo-American empire not so long ago, starts questioning with its 1619 project the accepted narrative of American freedom and democracy, the mainstream does not seem wholly resistant to some long overdue corrections.

Ideas often cross-pollinate in ways that would bewilder those who hold fast to moralising narratives about the rise of liberal democracy and Hindu Rashtra. The Nazis got many of their ideas about ethnic and racial supremacism from that great exemplar of liberal democracy: the U.S.. J.S. Mill assumed that Indians were a barbarian people, unfit for self-rule.

One reason why fascist mysticism remains potent is that it appears to address some stubborn pathologies of modern life alienation, isolation, anomie, powerlessness. Progress has become an Indian ideology in recent decades. But it is far from resolving (and might have aggravated) fundamental problems in the relationship of the self to the world, and the experiences of love, fear, hatred, and grief that are so often traumatic.

People will continue to seek palliatives for their pain and bewilderment in a variety of sources from Mein Kampf and QAnon to Aurobindos supra-mental consciousness.

I think the left in America is a very marginal force, shut out of both mainstream politics and journalism, despite, or perhaps because of, its formidable intellectual firepower. As such, it has the unique freedom to mount strong critiques of the establishment.

The new Barack Obama memoir is very revealing in this regard. He is obviously smarting over this tiny but intellectually vigorous lefts critique of his own establishment instincts. But the lefts critique is persuasive because Obama did little with the great energy for change that had exalted him to power; he missed the chance to boldly reform a corrupt and dysfunctional system, deferred too much to Wall Street and the old political and business elites, and ended up paving the way for Trump.

After that trauma, the left is naturally more suspicious of the deeply networked Democratic Party apparatchiks who are now in power and promise to restore normalcy. And lets not forget that nearly 75 million Americans voted for Trump, and Biden and Harriss victory is far from emphatic.

I feel that I have reached the end of the kind of writing that I began in the late 90s, with the nuclear tests and Kashmir, and then extended to the origins of 9/11, the war on terror, China and the fate of liberalism. In retrospect, those writings and the subsequent histories I published were my own attempt to understand a world that seemed to be dramatically changing and indeed unravelling, but which the triumphant assumptions of the intellectual and journalistic mainstream had made more or less incomprehensible.

Now, of course, the steady intellectual and political deterioration I wrote about, whether in India or in the U.S. and Britain, is no longer something that I have to repeatedly demonstrate to a sceptical readership. It is too painfully obvious. So, yes, it is time for me to explore other, more imaginative and personally fulfilling modes of writing.

The interviewer is an intellectual historian at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, New Delhi.

View post:
Nehru did not repeatedly claim to be a liberal: Pankaj Mishra - The Hindu

Breadcrumb Trail Links

'It can be especially difficult to tell whether a desire to die is a symptom of the illness, or a rational response to it'

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

OTTAWA Canadas medically-assisted death regime potentially took another giant leap forward this week after Justice Minister David Lametti announced the government will support a Senate amendment to eventually allow people suffering solely from mental illnesses to qualify for it.

The amendment to Bill C-7 still needs to pass a final vote to become law, but the Liberals only need one party to support it, and it appears likely theyll get it from the Bloc Qubcois.

The governments move followed an intense, extensive and sometimes emotional debate in the Senate over whether excluding mental illnesses from medical assistance in dying (MAID) would be found unconstitutional.

Those in favour of the amendment argue a Charter ruling against the exclusion is inevitable, and the government is saving litigants the time and expense of getting it overturned in court. They also argue that waiting longer on this will only extend the suffering of those who want expanded access to MAID for themselves.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

But those opposed contend that its wrong to assume how the Supreme Court of Canada would rule, and that the government has pre-empted its own parliamentary review on the matter. They say the government is now preparing to make a huge change to assisted dying law without putting it through the full legislative process in the House of Commons.

There was no full discussion at the House level about mental illness because it was not in the bill, said Trudo Lemmens, the University of Torontos Scholl Chair in Health Law and Policy, in an interview. Here we have an unelected Senate introducing this huge bomb.

Lemmens was one of the expert witnesses who criticized Bill C-7s expanded access to MAID in testimony at the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee. But other experts who argued in favour of the bill are happy to see the Senate get its way.

Thats how the process works when you have the House and the Senate, said Jocelyn Downie, Dalhousie Universitys James S. Palmer Chair in Public Policy and Law. She said the Senate is fulfilling its role to scrutinize the constitutionality of legislation. The Senate is saying its not going to force people who are suffering to go to court yet againwe have a constitutional obligation not to approve things that we believe violate the Charter.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The Senates amendment would have seen MAID expanded to mental illnesses in 18 months, but Lamettis proposal extends that to two years to give the government time to convene an expert advisory panel and develop protocols and safeguards. The move may not need any new legislation to proceed, though that remains to be seen.

To understand why the amendment provokes such strong debate among experts, it first requires understanding how we got to this point.

The main impetus for Canadas MAID law is the 2015 Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Carter, which ruled that an absolute prohibition on assisted dying violated the Charter (specifically the section 7 rights to life, liberty and security of the person) and couldnt be saved as a reasonable limit. The ruling overturned a previous Supreme Court ruling in 1993.

After winning the October 2015 election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeaus Liberal government introduced Bill C-14, which responded to the Carter ruling and allowed MAID for cases where natural death was reasonably foreseeable. At the time, the justice minister responsible for the legislation was Jody Wilson-Raybould.

Out of 176 Liberal MPs who cast votes on Bill C-14, only four voted no. One of them was Lametti, who said he believed the bill should go further in who could access MAID. As a professor of law in Canada for 20 years and a member of two Canadian Bars, I also worry about passing legislation that is at serious risk of being found to be unconstitutional, Lametti wrote in a Facebook post at the time.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

When it enacted Bill C-14, the Liberal government also committed to two studies. One was to have the Council of Canadian Academies review the scientific evidence in three contentious areas of MAID: requests by mature minors, advance requests, and requests where a mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition. The reviews were released in December 2018.

The other study was a parliamentary review of the legislation to begin five years after it was adopted. This review has not yet started, but Lametti has proposed it begin within 30 days of the new bill being adopted.

In September 2019, Quebec Superior Court Justice Christine Baudouin ruled that Bill C-14s reasonably foreseeable death restriction was unconstitutional, in a case known as Truchon. In other words, the judge ruled that people who were intolerably suffering but not considered to be near death still had a constitutional right to be eligible for MAID.

Instead of appealing the Truchon decision, Lametti who was named justice minister in January 2019 said the government would accept it and draft legislation in response. Lametti has since told Parliament that he believes the government would have lost the appeal.

Critics of expanding MAID access believe this was a fundamental misstep, because it means we have to guess at how the Supreme Court would have ruled on whether its unconstitutional to restrict MAID to people close to death. The Carter decision did not explicitly address this; it addressed the absolute prohibition on assisted dying.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

A fundamental problem here is that we are reacting to one judgment by a lower court judge who has given a certain interpretation of the unconstitutionality of the existing law which was enacted with a lot of debate only five years ago, Lemmens said. There are certainly strong legal reasons to have clarification from the higher courts about this.

The new legislation, Bill C-7, removes the reasonably foreseeable death restriction, but in doing so it opens up a can of worms around the issue of mental illnesses. Before, you were potentially eligible for MAID if your natural death was reasonably foreseeable, whatever the underlying condition. In removing that restriction the government had to clarify its stance on mental illnesses, and so it put a specific provision into C-7 that excluded cases where mental illness is the sole underlying condition.

There are certainly strong legal reasons to have clarification from the higher courts about this

Experts disagree on whether medical assistance in dying can ever be safely made available in such cases, Lametti told the Commons justice committee last November in explaining the provision. While those with mental illness can suffer unbearably, unpredictable illness trajectories mean there is always the possibility of improvement and recovery, and it can be especially difficult to tell whether a desire to die is a symptom of the illness, or a rational response to it.

Downie and other experts have argued strenuously that this provision would inevitably be found unconstitutional.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

In its brief to the Senate, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association which was the driving force in getting the MAID prohibition overturned in Carter argued that there is plenty of legal precedent to indicate the government would lose such a case on Charter grounds.

As one example, it pointed to a 2016 Alberta Court of Appeal decision (Canada v. E. F.) where the three-judge panel ruled the Carter decision did indeed grant MAID eligibility to people suffering from mental illnesses. But the decision came before Bill C-14 was enacted, and it was not appealed to the Supreme Court.

Carter set the floor and not the ceiling of what is constitutionally required to respect the rights of all Canadians. This means that while Parliament may extend the rights to physician assisted dying beyond what the Court required (for example, by permitting nurse practitioners to provide MAID), it cannot restrict those rights, said the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association brief.

Even so, one of the people still arguing that excluding mental illnesses is constitutional is none other than Lametti who, of course, cant really say otherwise given that he put C-7 before Parliament in the first place. It is my opinionthat the mental illness exclusion is constitutional because it serves a protective purpose and is narrowly crafted, Lametti told the House of Commons on Tuesday, even as he accepted the Senates amendment to drop it (albeit with a two-year delay.)

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Lametti has also spent the past few months repeatedly explaining to MPs and senators why the government believed it had to exclude mental illnesses in Bill C-7 until the issue is studied further.

Conservative MPs pointed out this contradiction in their response to Lamettis announcement.

What the government is now proposing by adopting the amendment proposed by the Senateis that the peoples House, the House of Commons, should adopt in a single day something that the government had up until now said was not its policy, something that is clearly very complex and requires further study, said Conservative MP Garnett Genuis on Tuesday.

Lemmens said he believes the Council of Canadian Academies review of the scientific evidence a review that he participated in gave the government good reason to hold off on expanding MAID access to people with mental illnesses. (The review did not advocate any specific policy, instead just summarizing the state of knowledge.)

These are extremely detailed reports, and the evidence around this is very complex, Lemmens said. It remains hugely controversial in the very few countries that allow this.

He said he is unconvinced the Supreme Court would find this exclusion unconstitutional, and that Parliament particularly its elected chamber should do a full study of the issue and leave itself the option of deciding not to move forward.

Downie, who also participated in the Council of Canadian Academies report, argued that Parliament does still have this option, but the burden on changing the law is now shifted. Instead of it being on individuals who have to take the government to court, the government now has two years to decide if it doesnt want the exclusion.

Parliaments not great at, on its own initiative, making reform in this kind of an area, Downie said, citing abortion laws as another contentious area that Parliament doesnt go near unless the courts force it to. They tend to have to get nudged. So you dont want to leave it at the discretion of Parliament to take it out after two years. You want to make it be that if they want it, they have to put it back in.

Email: bplatt@postmedia.com | Twitter: btaplatt

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Posted Newsletter will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Original post:
Why Liberals' move to expand assisted dying laws to cases of mental illness prompts intense debate - National Post

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is the largest gathering of conservative leaders and activists in the United States. Hosted by the American Conservative Union (ACU), the event is held each year. As of 2021, CAPC has been organised between February 25 and February 28 at Hyatt Regency Orlando in Florida. Ahead of former US President Donald Trumps address at CPAC on Sunday, a new controversy has gripped the annual event.

Democratic Party leaders and supporters alleged that the stage design of the CPAC bore an uncanny resemblance with a Nazi symbol. The liberal lobby suggested that the US conservatives were indulging in antisemitism by openly displaying symbols that have been historically used for the persecution of the Jewish community.

Former Democratic Senator, Daylin Leach, tweeted, Here is a well known Nazi symbol and the stage design at the 2021 #CPAC Convention. What a wacky coincidence!

Author Fred Guttenberg wrote, .Hyatt, the CPAC stage is designed to be a rune used by the Nazis. Curious if you are okay with Nazi symbols being used on your properties like this?

Others claimed that Hyatt is perfectly happy allowing such a conference within its premises. Filmmaker Morgan J Freeman said, The CPAC stage is designed to be a rune used by the Nazis. Curious if Hyatt is okay with Nazi symbols being used on their properties like this?

International fact-checking website Snopes noted, The shape of the Nazi symbol is eerily similar to the shape of the stage at CPAC. However, we are presently unable to confirm whether this was a deliberate choice made by the event organizers. At the moment, we rate this claim as Unproven.

The Nazi symbol in question is the Odal rune (also called Othala rune) which had been in use prior to Hitlers regime in Germany. It has been in existence since the 3rd century. While it is true that the symbol has been appropriated by neo-Nazis, it is bizarre to suggest the CAPC would invite Jewish speakers, support Israel and embrace Judeo-Christian values. Even the CAPC programme of 2021 hosted 2 Jewish prayer services, purim luncheon, and a Shabbat dinner.

PJ Media further pointed out, Even the connection to this symbol is extremely tenuous. The CPAC stage looks slightly like theinverseof the symbol, but it seems organizers set up a stage for multiple speakers and panels, as CPAC has hosted this week. In previous years, CPAC stages have often had two wings on the right and left, with two pathways by which speakers enter the stage. The wings allow for multiple panellists on either side of the stage.

Moreover, the document that most Democrats had been citing to suggest the resemblance of the Odal rune with the stage design at CAPC also features symbol such as the Celtic cross and Schutzstaffel (SS) bolts. These symbols were primarily associated with Christianity and Ireland, before being appropriated by the Nazis.

The Chairman of the American Conservative Union, Matt Schlapp, dismissed the allegations levelled at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He tweeted, Stage design conspiracies are outrageous and slanderous. We have a long-standing commitment to the Jewish community. Cancel culture extremists must address antisemitism within their own ranks. CPAC proudly stands with our Jewish allies, including those speaking from this stage.

His tweet received support from a Jewish conservative Josh Mandel. He wrote, As the grandson of Holocaust survivors, & as a proud American, Marine & Jew, I find these attacks on CPAC to be outrageous & grotesque. Taking a dig at the liberal bandwagon, he added, Thank you Matt Schlapp, Mercedes Schlapp, Daniel Schneider for being proud Christian Zionists & such great friends of the Jewish people.

Earlier, the liberal bandwagon tried to cancel Hyatt Regency Orlando for hosting a Conservative Political Action Conference by trending #boycottHyatton Twitter. However, the luxurious hotel chain stood its ground against the ecosystems cancel culture. In a statement, Hyatt spokesperson emphasised, We take pride in operating a highly inclusive environment and we believe that the facilitation of gatherings is a central element of what we do as a hospitality company.

We believe in the right of individuals and organizations to peacefully express their views, independent of the degree to which the perspectives of those hosting meetings and events at our hotels align with ours. Our own values support a culture that is characterized by empathy, respect and diversity of opinions and backgrounds, and we strive to bring this to light through what we do and how we engage with those in our care, Hyatt added.

Here is the original post:
US: Liberals outrage over supposed Nazi symbol at CPAC ahead of Donald Trumps address, Jewish conservatives rubbish allegations - OpIndia

All federal party leaders maintain they dont want an election in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic but the Conservatives appear to be pursuing a strategy that could give the Liberals justification for calling one.

Liberals are accusing the Conservatives of systematically blocking the governments legislative agenda, including bills authorizing billions in pandemic-related aid and special measures for safely conducting a national election.

The Conservatives counter that the Liberals have not used the control they have over the House of Commons agenda to prioritize the right bills; other parties say both the government and the Official Opposition share the blame.

Theyre playing politics all the time in the House. Its delay, delay, delay and eventually that delay becomes obstruction, the Liberals House leader Pablo Rodriguez said in an interview.

Story continues below advertisement

Its absurd. I think its insulting to Canadians and I think people should be worried because those important programs may not come into force because of the games played by the Conservatives.

He pointed to the three hours last week the Commons spent discussing a months-old, three-sentence committee report affirming the competence of the new Canadian Tourism Commission president.

That was forced by a Conservative procedural manoeuvre, upending the governments plan to finally start debate on the pandemic election bill, which contains measures the chief electoral officer has said are urgent given that the minority Liberal government could fall at any time if the opposition parties unite against it.

A week earlier, MPs spent three hours discussing a committee report recommending a national awareness day for human trafficking something Rodriguez said had unanimous support and could have been dealt with in a second.

That debate, also prompted by the Conservatives, prevented any progress on Bill C-14, legislation flowing from last falls economic statement with billions in expanded emergency aid programs and new targeted aid for hard-hit industries.

Story continues below advertisement

That bill was introduced in December but stalled at second reading, with Conservative MPs talking out the clock each time it did come up for debate. After eight days of sporadic debate more than is normally accorded for a full-fledged budget, Rodriguez noted Conservatives finally agreed Friday to let the bill proceed to committee for scrutiny.

Conservative Leader Erin OToole has argued that modest debate is warranted on C-14, which he maintains is aimed a fixing errors in previous rushed emergency aid legislation.

Last December, the Conservatives dragged out debate on Bill C-7, a measure to expand medical assistance in dying in compliance with a 2019 court ruling.

For three straight days last week, they refused consent to extend sitting hours to debate a motion laying out the governments response to Senate amendments to C-7, despite a looming court deadline that was extended Thursday to March 26.

Conservatives note they offered the previous week to extend the hours to allow a thorough debate but the government waited five days before tabling its response to the amendments.

For Rodriguez it all adds up to a pattern of obstruction aimed at blocking the governments legislative agenda.

Procedural machinations are commonly used by opposition parties to tie up legislation. But Rodriguez argued its inappropriate in a pandemic when people are dying by the dozens every day.

Story continues below advertisement

If the government held a majority of seats in the Commons, it could impose closure on debates. But in the current minority situation, it would need the support of one of the main opposition parties to cut short debate something its not likely to get.

In a minority Parliament, Rodriguez argued, all parties share responsibility for ensuring that legislation can at least get to a vote.

But Conservative House leader Gerard Deltell lays the blame for the legislative impasse squarely on Rodriguez.

The government House leader has failed to set clear priorities, and has therefore failed to manage the legislative agenda, he said in a statement to The Canadian Press, adding that my door is always open for frank and constructive discussions.

Bloc Quebecois House leader Alain Therrien agrees the Liberals have mismanaged the legislative calendar and must take their responsibilities. But he doesnt exempt the Conservatives.

He said their obstruction of the assisted-dying bill and another that would ban forcible conversion therapy aimed at altering a persons sexual orientation or gender identity is deplorable.

These are files that require compassion and rigour. It is inexcusable to hold the House hostage on such matters, Therrien said in an email, suggesting that OToole is having trouble controlling the religious right in his caucus.

Story continues below advertisement

As far as NDP House leader Peter Julian is concerned, both the Liberals and Conservatives are trying to trigger an election.

We believe that is absolutely inappropriate, completely inappropriate given the pandemic, given the fact that so many Canadians are suffering, he said in an interview.

Julian accused the Liberals of bringing forward unnecessary legislation, like the election bill, while vitally important bills, like one implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and another on net-zero carbon emissions, languish.

The Liberals intention, he said, is to eventually say there must be an election because of all these important things we couldnt get done. And the Conservatives seem to want to play into this narrative by blocking the bills the government does put forward.

Veteran Green MP Elizabeth May, however, agrees with Rodriguez, who she says must be at his wits end.

Story continues below advertisement

What I see is obstructionism, pure and simple, she said in an interview.

She blames the Conservatives primarily for the procedural tomfoolery but accuses both the Bloc and NDP of being in cahoots, putting up speakers to help drag out time-wasting debates on old committee reports.

Its mostly the Conservatives but theyre in league, May said.

They are all trying to keep anything orderly from happening that might possibly let the Liberals say weve accomplished a legislative agenda. Whether the bills are good, bad or indifferent is irrelevant in this strategy.

2021 The Canadian Press

See more here:
Could gummed up bills in the House of Commons trigger a federal election? - Global News

Editors note: This letter is in response to the letter, Elfers views dont reflecrt Enumclaw, published Feb. 4.

Mr. Arnold believes there are more conservatives than liberals in Enumclaw, and he is most likely right. Since he believes that to be true, he feels that the Courier-Herald should quit featuring Rich Elfers column in the paper.

This is what I have witnessed all of my life regarding conservative values: Conservatives think homosexuality is wrong so they would ban it; they think there is no such thing as gender identity issues so that issue should just go away; they think abortion is wrong so it should be banned also if youre noticing a trend here, youre right.

If conservatives dont approve of something, they want to outlaw it, ban it, kill it or get rid of it in some way. Liberals, on the other hand, believe conservatives should be allowed their opinions, even though they may strongly disagree with them. They dont believe that family, marriage and community are necessarily conservative values. They dont promote homosexuality, they allow homosexuals to live their lives. They dont promote open marriage, they simply think that your marriage is, none of their business. They dont promote abortion on demand, they believe that a woman should have the right to make decisions about her own body and her own life.

Conservatives seem to want to control a lot of things about our private lives, all the while saying that big government is bad and should stay out of our lives. They dont want government to tell them how to run their businesses, they just want to control everything about our private lives that they find offensive.

Liberals want our government to control the overreach of businesses and use the powers of government to help all of our citizens, not just the very rich and the very white. Liberals subscribe to the part of the preamble to the Constitution that states, promote the general welfare. When our government does that, we are all better off, liberals and conservatives alike.

Larry Benson

Enumclaw

Talk to us

Please share your story tips by emailing editor@courierherald.com.

To share your opinion for publication, submit a letter through our website https://www.courierherald.com/submit-letter/. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. (Well only publish your name and hometown.) Please keep letters to 500 words or less.

Read the original post:
The difference between conservatives and liberals - Enumclaw Courier-Herald