Article content continued

A recent EKOS poll revealed that in the last decade, anti-immigration sentiments have almost doubled in Canada, “scaling heights not seen in 20 years.” The possibility that Chan once publicly acknowledged China as his “motherland” and expressed affection for it, a possibility contested by him, shouldn’t be so controversial that it requires contestation at all.

Anyone in possession of a frequent flyer card should note that they may be suspect too. Chan, for instance, has somehow raised suspicion by regularly visiting the country in which he was born. The ugly implication is that if you really love Canada, you won’t leave it. Ever.

White travellers aren’t immune from populist paranoia either, as another Michael — last name Ignatieff, middle names Just Visiting — may remember/take great pains to forget. But Caucasian passport-holders rarely have to confront a sense that their loyalty is divided between irreconcilably competitive ethnic allegiances. “If it came down to it, who would you choose?” is often the unspoken follow-up to, “But where are you from, really?” The same EKOS poll that found Canadians are becoming more suspicious of immigrants also found that we’re becoming especially suspicious of visible minorities.

Another cause of suspicion is associating with foreigners: with a foreign diplomat, in Chan’s case, and — it’s been implied — pro-China groups. Politicians certainly have a duty to avoid perceptions of conflicts of interest. But we ought to keep in mind that if a country’s institutions are strong enough — if they embody the values of secularism, inclusivity and free speech — they’ll be able to withstand intellectual challenges from groups that may not share a country’s values but have to obey its laws.