From here:
Yet what was truly singular about him was how consumed by politics he was and how publicly, yet comfortably, he lived.
How fitting that his death should have been turned into such a thoroughly public spectacle, where from early morn Monday, television anchors donned their most funereal faces, producers dug out the heavy organ music, reporters who would never dream of addressing any other politician by first name only were proudly calling him “Jack” and even serious journalists like Evan Solomon of the CBC repeatedly spoke of the difficulty “as we all try to cope” with the news of Mr. Layton’s death.
The Anglican Socialist Church of Canada intoned its approval of Layton in death much as it had done in life:
The Honourable Jack Layton, leader of the Opposition, had a “ great compassion” for people in need. He was a doer who was deeply engaged in society and had a great vision of what Canada could be.
These are some of the things that Bishop Dennis Drainville, Anglican diocese of Quebec, will remember most about him.
But perhaps the most fitting memorial was scrawled on his gravestone:
I couldn’t agree more. Jack Layton was the reason I started voting, too – for Stephen Harper.
Blatchford was out of line. I think the reaction would have been exactly the same had another political party leader died in office. She could at least have waited till the man was buried before she started to snipe in public.
From a lifetime of watching the phenomenon, I conclude that most people confuse social popularity with moral goodness. They are often drawn to those individuals with a particular brand of social skills — usually because it is entertaining or makes them feel good about themselves — and they look the other way when confronted with evidence of moral discrepancies on the part of such persons, or even just the pointing out of the fact that such a person is not really accomplishing anything particularly moral by virtue of having a “sunny’ disposition. On the other hand, someone who may be serious, not particularly happy-clappy or a social flutterbug, but truly kind and self-sacrificing for the benefit of others to an extensive degree, is often ignored, put down, or mocked — their moral goodness aside. Human beings who live on the surface of life have this great tendency to live like magpies, in that they are attracted to the bright and shiny, rather then the genuine but non-entertaining.
Mr. Layton was one of those “sunny” charmers — Mr. Popularity. He certainly used this personality trait to his advantage. But please do not confuse a sunny personality with high morality. It is possible for these traits to co-exist, but in my long history of watching my fellow human beings, I rarely see that pattern appear; it is simply too easy to get on in life by smiling and glad-handing and watching the starry-eyed flock to you…..why put the effort and cost into living a moral life besides? This should have been brought home years ago with the story played out by Princess Diana and the masses. I see that many people never learn, however.
I stand firmly with Christie Blatchford. Takes a brave person to write the truth, contrary to what the unthinking sorts want to hear. Isn’t that what much of this very website is about? Why do you read and post here so much, Kate, if you don’t back unpopular truth?
What is high morality; and what is used to measure it? I’ll go with Alexander Solzhenitsyn when he said, “If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” I guess I’m too much of a Calvinist to put much credence in public perceptions of morality.
I did not know Jack Layton well but what I knew of him I liked.
My experience of Jack was from over a decade of NDP functions. In that time I was unswervingly impressed with his humility when cameras were not rolling. He was prepared to make time for everyone.
I may have been at the opposite end of the spectrum in the party, but I never once heard Jack run people down for disagreeing with him.
He was charming and dedicated to his beliefs -not a bad epitaph.
He seemed like a descent guy, though I don’t think much of hus cryto-communist politics. He still supported abortion on demand – just like the rest of his party.
And so do the Liberals, and so do the Conservatives. The abortion law was struck down in 1988 and Mulrony wasn’t defeated until 1993. He had five years to do something about it and he did nothing. Harper has been very clear that he is not going to do anyting about passing a new abortion law. It is silly to base your vote on what the parties say about abortion, because none of them are prepared to do anything about it.
There is a difference though: the conservatives don’t want to touch the abortion issue because they believe it won’t get anywhere – and that it will harm them. The NDP advocates for abortion.
The conservative’s position is pusillanimous, the NDP’s evil.
Kate,
I see your point in part, but I don’t think it is silly. I think with the right leadership the CPC could do something about it. The problem I have with the NDP, is that abortion rights are written right into official party policy. And no candidate is allowed to run for the party unless they expressly state that why will uphold such rights whenever votes related to such are raised in the House.
It is not a silly notion at all. Life is sacred, period.
I’m sorry that you feel my reasoning is inconsistent Kate, but I will not vote for a party or candidate who is not pro-life.
Then you can’t vote for anyone. In practice, since 1988, the Conservatives have been pro abortion through inaction. I don’t see that changing any time soon. I agree life is sacred. I think it is useless to work for a political solution to the problem, because it isn’t going to happen.
David, I think the Conservative’s position on abortion is just as evil as the NDP’s. At least the NDP is honest about where they stand. The Conservatives pretend to be pro life and then do nothing.
The irony of the whole situation is that even though the NDP is the party most aggressive on the issue of abortion-rights, they also have the most aggressive in finding solutions for those who are marginalized because of income, race or gender. If there program were fully enacted they might actually reduce the number of terminations done out of supposed economic necessity. They might be more aggressive in the promotion og birth-control and parental leave. I don’t think it comes as much of a surprise that The Netherlands and Scandanavia have some of the lowest rates of abortion in countries where it is legal.
They just might. Personally, I spoiled my ballot for years over the abortion issue. Now – well, it doesn’t guide my vote, because I really don’t see the political will to make it illegal anywhere. I think crisis pregnancy centres are the only real hope for reducing abortions. That, and churches who will extend grace to women who have had abortions and help with the healing process is also desperately needed.
Not really. Look at Norway, Sweden and Iceland – they are above Canada.
What does per 1000 “people” mean? The rate shown in this document for Canada is much higher (13.7 per 1000 women ages 15-44 for 2005), whereas the figure for the Netherlands for 2005 is 8.6 (same source).
I thought that Christie Blatchford was brave and intelligent in trying to cut through the rather juvenile and posturing displays that have gone on over Jack Layton’s death…..and his role as some kind of prince of the poor, for that matter. Here, here for Christie!! I respect the bigger-than-any-of-us nature of death, and I respect Mr. Layton’s struggles with cancer; I would not wish either on anyone. However, I have never shared the Jack-worship mentality in this country; I saw him as a silver spoon socialist who was lucky enough to find a niche in life that transported him to power and prestige and an upper class lifestyle. Doesn’t anyone see the discrepancy here? Did he and Olivia Chow “redistribute” their own considerable wealth? I bet I give more to charities than they did. I think the NDP leadership was a vehicle for Jack Layton to arrive at his personal dreams of living high off the hog, with abundant attention; he was not the “great leader of the down-trodden” that he is painted as. I think that Jack was first and foremost out for Jack. His role was doubly beneficial as it made him seem noble while at the same time getting what he wanted. Can’t do better than that! He was one of those “charmers” who needed acclamation from others, and he found a way to make this look saintly. This week, many Canadians are being duped into putting on another Princess Diana charade. Now, Winston Churchill I would really have mourned over, if I had been an adult in 1965. Even then, I would have done it with low-key respect. But a state funeral and over-the-top mourning dramas for a leader of the opposition, and a very recent one at that? Spare me. Sorry about his untimely death, but Jack wasn’t anywhere near sainthood.
Better yet, why doesn’t Jack Layton’s family opt for a small, private funeral, and ask that the not inconsiderable sum being spent on a lavish state funeral be instead donated to worthy charities? Given his NDP credentials, would that not be a more fitting legacy? Do you see what I mean about Mr. Layton’s life being along the lines of “do as I say, not as I do”?
Because it would not be legal for the Federal government to do that with the money.
As far as the rest of your screed is concerned – speculation only. You never met the man, I’ll bet. Jim did. I’ll take his word over yours.
How kind of you, Kate, to show respect and tolerance for my opinion, like a true card-carrying lefty. You fool yourself that you are some kind of noble do-gooder; anyone who gets in your way gets trampled, obviously. Has free speech been outlawed in Canada? And are we allowed to have opinions only about persons we have met? I have heard a great deal of “screed” in this country against the Queen…..does it come only from people who have personally met her? What a ridiculous standard by which to judge opinion — “line up here to meet so-and-so, and then you are free to have an opinion about them”. Put on your thinking cap, Kate dear.
And by the way, it is indeed both legal and possible for the federal government to do that with the money; they can donate to any registered Canadian charity they wish; where did you get such a silly idea that this is illegal? And isn’t that what the NDP itself has screamed about over the years….redistribution of wealth? Another case of not putting their money where their mouths are. I have heard many cries from them about the money going into “pomp and circumstance” instead of to the needy, and now that they themselves wish to take advantage of that pomp & circumstance, the needy be damned. Right? Oh and by the way, why was it that Mr. Layton and his wife never redistributed their own wealth, and lived with just the bare basics? Their own well-to-do lifestyle, given their preachings, made me snort. Kind of like the party higher-ups in the former Soviet Union preaching Communist ideals, but keeping their own luxuries. How convenient. A Mother Theresa Mr. Layton was not.
From my husband who is a career civil servant and a high level auditor with HRSDC. As for the rest of your post – if you are as angry in real life as you are online, I think perhaps an anger management class is in order.
They could donate money to charity in Jack’s name, yes. They could not take money out of the pocket that is paying for his funeral and give it to charity. Government accounting is labrinthine and complicated.
Well, I am sorry, but your husband is incorrect. All auditors do not necessarily know Charity Law. CRA is in charge of it. And yes, I did check into this myself. My background may well trump that of your husband here, Kate.
What, exactly, would stop them (you can ask your husband for his “expertise”) from contributing to a registered charity? Or better yet, let Mr. Layton’s family go ahead with the standard private family funeral, and simply allow those funds stay in the public coffers where they are now. You are acting if these finds somehow must be spent on the Layton funeral, and there is no choice. Nonsense.
By the way, petty comments such as “an anger management class is in order” simply tells me that you take the juvenile approach when you realize that your self-righteousness is not getting you where you want to go. Kate, just shut off the computer if reading opinions other than your own bothers you so much.
David,
Thanks for the point of information. What I find remarkable (even a bit encouraging) that despite having no abortion law, Canada ranks below Sweden, Norway, the US, France, Israel and Italy.
BTW… can you give me your link to those stats please?
Yes, they came from here.
Russia is aborting itself into oblivion.
The graph is limiting however as there is no mention of:
China – master aborto numero uno
Britain
South Africa
Netherlands
Turkey
Thank you for your opinion, Jane. Pity nobody taught you that you catch more flys with honey than with vinegar. Good day to you.
Where is your offering of honey, then, Kate?
flys should be flies, sorry. You need an “edit comment” button, David. Peter Ould has a gizmo on his blog that lets you change your comment, but it has a timer on it, so that you can’t go back and edit hours later.
Yes, I’ve thought that, too…. I will look into it.
I’ve put in a plugin that allows you to edit your comments for 10 minutes – let me know how it goes.
Let’s see… Well, it worked, I just edited this post. Very useful for folks to correct typos and such, I think you should add it to the Essentials blog.
Will do.