David asper came out with a column last week, defending the prime minister’s choice of Michaëlle Jean as Canada’s next governor general.
asper’s argument was a criticism of those who are still questioning Jean and her husband’s backgrounds to determine if she is suitable for the post because of past ties that she and her husband had or are alleged to have had, not only with the sovereigntist movement in Quebec but with FLQ terrorists. The essential argument that the critics are making is that the facts concerning the governor general designate’s antecedents are not as clear as many Canadians would like them to be. asper wrote in part, "But the evidence that her commitment to Canada is shaky is based on a set of ambiguous facts more than a decade old."
after criticism of Michaëlle Jean peaked, the governor general designate did issue a statement albeit a brief one. She said that she was committed to Canada and that she was never a "member" or a separatist party or organization. In her statement Jean left many questions unanswered such as was she toasting separatism in the video that we have seen and what is or was her exact relationship to people such as Jacques Rose and Pierre Vallieres? These are questions that some Canadians think are legitimate and want answers to.
David asper is of course entitled to his opinion, one that is shared by many others including the governing Liberals; that any further inquiries into the background of Michaëlle Jean and her husband are unnecessary and unwarranted. asper has a right to express that opinion even in the overly dramatic and silly fashion that he did when he likened the criticism of Jean to the Salem Witch Hunt. But David asper isn’t just anyone — he’s the Chairman of the Board of the National Post, a nearly national (they’re scrapping Newfoundland) newspaper.
asper was right when he classified the facts against Jean as "shaky" and "ambiguous". What is shocking that as the head of a major Canadian newspaper, he is perfectly content to leave the facts surrounding Ms. Jean "shaky" and "ambiguous". By writing his column, he has sent a clear signal to National Post reporters not to dig up any further information that would clear up what he acknowledges to be, ambiguous facts about the background of our next head of state. So much for reporters seeking "the truth". While asper’s opinion has merit, expressing it as the head honcho of a major newspaper marks a sad day for the Canadian media.
David asper tried to contrast the treatment of Michaëlle Jean with that of Conservative Party Leader, Stephen Harper. asper wrote, "Did anyone cross-examine Stephen Harper on whether he had ever considered Western separatism?" actually that has been done but even if asper is right where is the National Post and why isn’t his newspaper questioning Western separatism?
Undoubtedly the reporters and other staff at the Post have gotten the message about the boss’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy when it comes to Michaëlle Jean. The mind boggles at what other topics would be career-ending if reporters dared to look into them.