Article content continued

Vicious? Hardly. There were no personal innuendoes, no references to the justice minister’s private life or domestic matters. There was no gutter language in the motion, emphatically no negative or demeaning references to her heritage — in fact no references to it at all. It was to her capacity as justice minister and attorney-general — her parliamentary identity, not her ethnic or aboriginal one — that the motion was directed, and questions raised.

The first and only reference to her personal identity came from Monsef herself, and then only to imply — slyly in my judgment — that the entirely reasonable questions were somehow an attack, and a “vicious,” one on the justice minister because she is an indigenous woman. I have read the entire exchange in Hansard, and in the opposition speeches there is not even an approach to race of background, except to deplore its being invoked by this minister.

Equally, there was nothing “sexist” in the motion. The motion wasn’t questioning that “a woman” went to the fundraiser. Even an “accomplished woman.” It was asking whether a justice minister, who was also an attorney-general should hold a partisan fundraiser with a particular law firm. Sherlock Holmes would struggle to find “sexism” in that.

The “tone” of Parliamentary debate Minister Monsef referenced so frequently in her speech is not improved by transparent attempts to distract from a legitimate inquiry

What is severely out of tune here, and deplorable, is the quick and thoughtless recourse to the implicit slurs of “bias” and “bigotry.” One would expect from the front bench of the new Trudeau government, which has woven its appeal so closely to the ideals of tolerance and openness and ending divisions, something more honourable and honest than dragging race and ethnicity into debates where they are clearly and emphatically not present. We all agree that racism is a toxic and malignant force, and that racists are among the lowest of the low. Knowing that, we — and members of the House of Commons in particular — should be very cautious, judicious even, before hauling out the implication that a debate is racist and misogynist, or that those leading that debate proceed from a racist and misogynist bias.