Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - October 6, 2020, Winnipeg, Manitoba C M Y K PAGE A7 THINK TANK PERSPECTIVES EDITOR: BRAD OSWALD 204-697-7269 ● BRAD.OSWALD@FREEPRESS.MB.CA ● WINNIPEGFREEPRESS.COM A7 TUESDAY OCTOBER 6, 2020 Ideas, Issues, Insights JOHN LOCHER, FILE / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS FILE A member of the Proud Boys confronts a protester in Portland, Ore. U.S. President Donald Trump was criticized for failing to condemn the violent right-wing group during last week’s presidential debate. American partisanship has a long history I T goes without saying that U.S. President Donald Trump, the self-proclaimed champion of Republican Party “red” states, has taken partisanship to a whole new unhinged level. For Trump, the U.S. is divided between his loyal and fanatical supporters — among them, gun-toting members of right-wing extremist groups such as the “Proud Boys,” whom he was reluctant to condemn during the recent presidential debate — and everyone else, especially citizens of Demo- cratic Party “blue” states. While the divisions between today’s Republi- cans and the Democrats are indeed extreme — the fierce battle to confirm a replacement on the Supreme Court for the late Ruth Bader Ginsberg before the Nov. 3 election day is the latest erup- tion — the bitterness, backbiting, false accusa- tions, malicious innuendo and distorted facts have a long history in U.S. political history — all the way back to era of the first president, George Washington. Though Washington detested the influence of political factions or parties and remained above the fray during his eight years as president (1789- 97), the two most notable members of his first cabinet, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jef- ferson, were responsible for their birth and more than a decade of vitriolic sniping and debate. Hamilton, the sharp, outspoken, diligent and touchy secretary of the treasury who skillfully established the American financial system, favoured a strong central government, a power- ful presidency, tariffs, commerce and trade, and friendly ties with Britain. In a seemingly happy marriage with lots of children, his one misstep occurred in the early 1790s when he had an affair with a younger married woman, Maria Reynolds, and then succumbed to her husband’s black- mail to keep it quiet (Maria was likely in on the scheme from the start). News of his indiscretion got out anyway. He and his supporters formed the Federalist Party (which lasted until the 1820s). Jefferson, the author of the American Declara- tion of Independence, who later became the third U.S. president, was the first secretary of state. He was brilliant and conniving and the owner of a Virginia plantation with 600 slaves. One of them, as we now know, was Sally Hemings, 29 years younger than Jefferson and the mother of several of his children (Hamilton also had a small number of slaves for a time). Jefferson idealized the agrarian life, was fear- ful of executive power, despised (to the point of paranoia) Britain and monarchical government and embraced the tenets of the French Revolution — conveniently ignoring the mob rule and mass guillotining of the Terror. His many followers — including James Madi- son, an erstwhile ally of Hamilton, who succeeded Jefferson as president in 1809 — became the Democratic-Republicans. And though they were known colloquially as the “Republicans,” the cur- rent Democratic Party can trace its roots back to Jefferson’s faction and later to president Andrew Jackson. The present-day Republican Party dates to 1854 and Abraham Lincoln’s presidency in 1860. At first, Jefferson and Hamilton respected each other. But starting in the 1790s, much to Washing- ton’s irritation, Jefferson (working closely with Madison) and Hamilton began a feud, “rife with intrigue and lacerating polemics, (which) was to take on almost pathological intensity,” as Hamil- ton’s biographer Ron Chernow writes. (This is also the reason why in the popu- lar Broadway musical Hamilton, inspired by Chernow’s book, Jefferson is cast as one of the villains.) These disagreements eventually led to Jefferson’s resignation from Washington’s cabinet in late 1793. Of the two, Jefferson was the more passive- aggressive, remaining more or less respectful in public, but employing others to do his dirty work and attack Hamilton in newspaper articles and pamphlets. Hamilton, a prodigious writer, coun- tered with dozens of critical articles attacking Jefferson. He used pseudonyms, yet most readers guessed at his authorship. The Federalists and the Republicans fought over just about everything — including, curi- ously enough, treatment for a pandemic. In 1793, Philadelphia, which was then serving as the U.S. capital, was taken over by yellow fever. The disease and the mosquitoes which spread it was likely brought to the city by French colonial refugees and slaves from the West Indies (Haiti). The generally unsanitary conditions exacerbated the health problems and led to the deaths of more than 5,000 people. The usual treatment favoured by Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the American Declaration of Independence and Jefferson and Republican sup- porter, was medieval: bowel purging and blood- letting. Yet when Hamilton and his wife Eliza became sick, they were ultimately saved by their friend Dr. Edward Croix, who had experience treating yellow fever from his practice in the island of St. Croix (U.S. Virgin Islands). He used a remedy of brandy, burned cinnamon, opium, and a concoction of camomile flowers, oil of pepper- mint and lavender spirits. Rush tried Stevens’s treatment but with less positive results. Republicans then questioned whether Hamilton was ever sick and politicized the medical treatment — no different than the current debate between Democrats and (some) Republicans about COVID treatments, testing, social distancing and wearing masks in public. Hamilton’s Federalists vanished and Jefferson’s Republicans were transformed, but partisan politics has remained a prominent feature of American politics, rising and falling and rising again over the centuries. Modern-day Democrats and Republicans have argued and fought over a multitude of issues. Still, respect for one’s opponents generally has been a constant — until the 2014 midterm elec- tions, when the Republicans gained control of the Senate, and made worse two years later by the election of Donald Trump as president — an elec- tion result that Hamilton and Jefferson, for all of their differences, could never have conceived. This column marks Now & Then’s 10-year anniversary. Historian Allan Levine’s most recent book is Details are Unprintable: Wayne Lonergan and the Sensational Café Society Murder. Seeking the truth has never been more important JOURNALISTS know one thing for certain — readers can handle the truth. The first principle of journalism is to seek truth and report it — to put the facts into the hands of people, so they know what is really going on. That is why News Media Canada, which repre- sents daily and community newspapers across the country, has adopted a new slogan: Champion the Truth. It’s a reminder to everyone of the core goal of journalism. Seeking the truth has never been more impor- tant, as Canadians cope with an enduring pandem- ic that is affecting every aspect of our lives. To get the information they need, Canadians have turned to sources they trust. More than half say they have relied on local, national and internation- al news outlets as a main source of information about COVID-19. Each year, newspapers across Canada mark National Newspaper Week by highlighting the critical role newspapers play in our active and healthy democracy. This year we recognize the efforts of newspapers to keep Canadians abreast of the latest developments on COVID-19. Digitally and in printed editions, dedicated newspaper journalists have chronicled the pan- demic day by day, hour by hour and minute by minute. They have done this for audiences with an insatiable appetite for facts, who have pushed overall readership to levels not seen in modern memory. And they have done it while facing their own worries — about their personal health, their families and even about whether they would have a job, as newspapers struggle to stay alive after unprecedented drops in advertising revenues. Journalists took pay cuts, they worked at home, they asked questions of politicians sitting in empty rooms, they took pictures from sidewalks of people standing at their front windows. Some newspapers suspended publication. Some closed for good. Through it all, newspaper journalists have been committed to serving their readers, to publishing the truth, and to performing what is recognized as an essential public service. A lot of terms are thrown around these days that leave a good swath of the general public mistrust- ful of news media — misinformation, disinforma- tion, fake news. This mistrust is fanned by leaders who want to sell their version of events. Those of us on the front lines have these terms directed at us all the time, sometimes in jest, sometimes innocently, but often seriously by people who want to undermine what we do. You might just as well tell physicians they deliberately mistreat patients. Journalists take their jobs seriously. They are dedicated to digging around, unearthing facts to tell the stories that reveal what is actually happen- ing. They make people in power uncomfortable. Mature politicians understand this. They may dislike what journalists report, but still defend the news media’s right to operate freely. They understand how important seeking the truth is in a democracy. And truth is never more important than during a public-health crisis, when people’s lives depend on accurate information about the threats posed by a disease and the measures needed to combat it. It has also never been more difficult. There is a flood of misinformation about COVID-19. Science- based recommendations from medical experts are often muffled by a barrage of half-baked advice, sketchy remedies and misguided theories. The secretary general of the United Nations has called it a “pandemic of misinformation.” The antidote to this is what Canadian newspa- pers do every day — to seek truth and report it. You can depend on us to fulfill this important role today, tomorrow and always. So, let’s celebrate newspapers and the people behind them this National Newspaper Week from Oct. 4 to 10. Bob Cox is publisher of the Winnipeg Free Press and chair of News Media Canada. In Pakistan, a tweet can bring a death sentence IN August, I sent a tweet — intended as a commentary on Pakistan’s problem of political abductions — that sparked a vio- lent backlash of gender-based slurs, slut- shaming and death threats. By the next day, #ArrestMarviSirmed_295C became the top trending Twitter hashtag in my country, with countless people suggesting my extrajudicial murder. They took their inspiration from Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws. (Section 295-C makes it a criminal offense to use derogatory remarks about the Holy Prophet.) The hatred and calls for violence sent me into hiding, fear- ing that vigilantes might take matters into their own hands. The mere accusation of blasphemy has become a license to kill in most of the Mus- lim world, particularly in Pakistan. As an activist and journalist, I often speak about issues that my country’s powerful mili- tary establishment does not want aired. This time, I tweeted satirically about the rising en- forced disappearances in Pakistan, specifically referencing the Baloch people, an ethnic minor- ity that has been facing state persecution for decades: “An Islamic clergyman was describ- ing to his followers that Hazrat Eesa (Jesus Christ, as used by Muslims) did not die, he was actually picked by the Almighty. One simpleton follower asked, was he, too, a Baloch?” Over the past 18 years, Pakistan’s military has consolidated its control over almost every aspect of Balochistan’s society, politics and gov- ernance. People there face intense oppression on suspicion of dissent. Anyone like me, who publicly criticizes the military or government, may find themselves targeted by blasphemy charges — which could mean assassination. India’s colonial-era blasphemy law was origi- nally designed to protect the minority com- munity following demands from the Muslim minority community for legal protection in the wake of offensive literature published in the 1920s. After Pakistan gained independence in 1947, however, the authorities increasingly used the law to target minorities and critics of government policy. At least 18 people convicted of blasphemy currently sit on death row in Pakistan, while another 19 are serving life sentences. More than 70 people have been killed before they could appear for trial. During one 30-day stretch in July and August, 42 cases of blasphe- my were registered across the country. During the most recent spike in blasphemy accusations, a powerful coalition of clerics filed dozens of blasphemy complaints against several individuals from the minority Shiite Muslim community. This is unprecedented. While the numbers of those charged with blasphemy continue to increase, blasphemy vigilantism is not only encouraged but celebrat- ed. Mumtaz Qadri, who killed Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer in 2011, became a kind of national hero. Leaders of the mob that lynched blasphemy-accused student Mashal Khan in 2017 were celebrated by politicians from op- position parties and defended by the provincial ruling party. Faisal Khan, the teenager who murdered U.S. citizen Tahir Naseem in the courtroom while he was standing trial for blasphemy in July, became a hero overnight and received public accolades. Judges, lawyers, politicians, law enforcement officials, professors and human rights defenders all operate in an environment of fear, knowing they could be targeted next. While the prospects of any Pakistani politi- cian amending or repealing the blasphemy law seem slim, the Pakistani state needs to be pressured through the power of the purse. The United States remains Pakistan’s top donor, be- lieving the country to be a partner in combat- ing violent extremism and furthering democ- racy throughout the region — yet it continues to tolerate blasphemy vigilantism that has fueled terrorist attacks all over the world. Aid should be suspended until the Pakistani government, which is in dire financial straits, fulfills its commitment to clamp down on radicalism. The thought of losing financial as- sistance from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, among others, has previously forced the Pakistani government to make posi- tive changes. Social media platforms must also ensure that the protection of online expression conforms to international human-rights standards. In the past, the Pakistani government has attempted to unilaterally change licensing rules for social media sites to operate in the country, but there must be a global commitment to reject such blackmail. Finally, liberal democratic countries should employ the United Nations’ strategic framework to counter violent extremism and counterterrorism. This must include actions to curb anti-blasphemy vigilantism. The lives of civil-rights activists and human-rights defend- ers like me depend upon this protection. As I’ve learned, along with many others in my country, a simple tweet can mean a death sentence. Marvi Sirmed is a Pakistani freelance journalist and human rights defender who previously served as a Special Correspondent for the Daily Times, an English-language newspaper in Pakistan. — The Washington Post ALLAN LEVINE BOB COX MARVI SIRMED A_07_Oct-06-20_FP_01.indd A7 2020-10-05 5:49 PM ;