Oh! Zsuzsanna: Ignatieff's spouse tells their story

[Keepitsimple]

I've been patiently waiting to get an objective understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of Michael Ignatieff - but as I read this surprising story, I became less and less impressed with the character of the man.....and the story comes from none other than his wife. As summarized by a few excerpts below, Ignatieff is said to have forged his author career through describing the importance of marriage and family.....yet he has an affair and walks out on his wife for another woman. He came across as grumpy, his writing style - while having conent - was unappealing, and he had a sizable rift with his brother that Shi-shi was credited with fixing. It seems that Zsuzsanna has managed to put a veneer of sorts over Mr. Ignatieff. Perhaps this can all be dismissed as Cosmopolitan Liberal values but I didn't get a good feeling for the man as a potential Prime Minister.

Standing there was Michael Ignatieff, carrying a plastic bag. He'd just done an interview at the BBC and said only, "Can I stay?"

"And, he did," says Zsohar, now married to the new Liberal leader and living in Ottawa. "He'd made up his mind what he wanted to do. I didn't make up his mind. He did."

"I only had star clients," she says. "Michael was classed as a lesser talent. We just couldn't make any money (from him) ... But then, there was nobody else to do it."

Their first session was sticky. "It was in June, and Mr. Ignatieff arrived late and totally unsuitably dressed. I was completely taken aback. He was grumpy, he came on the Underground, he wore a heavy tweed jacket with patches. Ugh! I hated it. And he was not very nice."

As they worked together over two years, she realized he actually was "a nice man." There was chemistry, but "we broke up because he was married... You go back, you sort it out – I think he sees himself very much as a family man... So we were colleagues, we worked together but we weren't actually romantically linked. He went home, you know, he lived with his wife and children, and I lived in my own flat."

When the split came, it caused a frisson in gossipy London town. Ignatieff had mined his family to write about domestic bliss and the joys of fatherhood, and this was too rich to let slip.

"Welcome to the Late Show; I've left my wife," mocked a headline in the Evening Standard, over a story saying:

"The Age of the New Man, it is said, is drawing to a close. Right on cue, his patron saint – the don, philosopher and sensitive novelist, Michael Ignatieff – has fallen from his pedestal. After 18 years of happy marriage in Islington, Michael has up and walked out, setting up home with a lovely young BBC press officer, Susannah (sic) Zsohar."

She jokes, but this was no easy time. It was, she says, "a very, very bitter and difficult divorce – difficult because he really walked out – but not on his kids.

SHE WAS GOOD at her profession, and it must have been intoxicating in 1993 for Ignatieff to find himself in such capable hands, vaulted among the ranks of A-listers. Michael Levine, Ignatieff's Toronto über-agent and lawyer (famous for poking a finger in any pie worth tasting) is effusive.

"She took what was pretty dry stuff in principle (from Ignatieff) and made a major, major product... She's unbelievably supportive in the extent to which she has submerged her professional life into his. She has obvious charm, imagination and incredible adaptability, a gift not many have."

They married on Sept. 19, 1999, at Hackney Town Hall, celebrity friends from two lives mingling – among them Palin, Berlin Philharmonic conductor (and best man) Sir Simon Rattle, writers Ian McEwan, Lisa Appignanesi and Martin Amis, theatre and opera director Jonathan Miller, Levine and Polanyi – as well as close family, Ignatieff's brother, Andrew (who credits Zsohar with healing their rift), and her brother and (now-deceased) sister-in-law. Family and friends meet summers at the beloved old villa in France that Ignatieff's parents left their sons.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/594750

[Progressive Tory]

I've been patiently waiting to get an objective understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of Michael Ignatieff - but as I read this surprising story, I became less and less impressed with the character of the man.....

That's not the first time I've heard any of that. He discussed it at length in an interview when he was running for the leadership of the Party.

I think he's trying to get all of this out now, so that the opposition can't use it during the election campaign. Politician's personal lives are none of our business.

He's known for his charm, good looks and big ideas. But he also admits to ruthlessness. He has hurt those who loved him most.

None of this affects his ability to govern. He's has led an interesting life and to accomplish everything he has, there would have to be heartbreak along the way.

Stephen Harper keeps his past private. I read the Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper and the author discussed the fact that Harper refused to be interviewed, saying that he was writing his own memoirs and didn't want to 'be scooped'. His ambition also hurt many along the way.

[capricorn]

I've been patiently waiting to get an objective understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of Michael Ignatieff - but as I read this surprising story, I became less and less impressed with the character of the man.....and the story comes from none other than his wife.

It's the other wife, Susan, that I'd like to hear from. The following tidbits just whetted my appetite even more.

Son Theo was born in 1984, and his sister, Sophie, in 1987. Soon after her birth, it became apparent that Michael's relationship with Susan was running into trouble.

About that time, he wrote that "I'm yet another of these ghastly London males of around 40 who walk around believing they invented fatherhood, children, happy marriages, domesticity."

But acquaintances of the couple noticed that Susan was increasingly despondent and they were getting hints from Mr. Ignatieff that he did not know how to handle it.

It is interesting — given Mr. Ignatieff's social-class meditations on the miners' strike — that when discussing Susan, who refused to be interviewed for this story, the first observation Britons usually make is that she is working-class. Canadians who know her never mention it.

She came from a blue-collar background. Her mother walked out on the family when Susan was 13. As the oldest of five children, she was expected to care for the younger ones. There were dark and troubled moments in her childhood. She was the only member of her school graduating class to go on to university.

She acquired elegance, an education, culture, membership in the chattering classes — and she acquired Michael, whom she adored.

When she became pregnant with Theo in 1983, she quit her job with the British Film Institute to be a stay-at-home mum, and thereafter tried hard — desperately hard, said several friends — to keep pace with her husband as his life dramatically changed.

As a close acquaintance of the two says: "One moment there was complete passionate involvement in each other's lives. Then suddenly it wasn't there any more."

One friend had the impression Susan was jealous because Michael had made a film with someone else rather than her. Others picked up on occasional comments from Michael that Susan increasingly resented the time he spent on work.

A woman friend was astonished to see Susan at a cocktail party two weeks after Sophie's birth. Asked why, she replied that she was determined to stay active in Michael's life. Another friend says Susan was angry with a lyrical newspaper article Mr. Ignatieff had written about watching her sleep — because the article was really about Michael, and she appeared only as an object.

Still another friend, commenting on the growing distance between the couple, observes with a breath of class commentary: "He wanted bare floors. She wanted broadloom."

And a former close acquaintance recalls having lunch in a pub with the Ignatieffs while Theo was still in diapers, and being surprised when Michael said, "Susan, he needs his nappy changed." Says the friend: "That was the British norm. Michael was Canadian."

In the late 1980s, on a summer's visit the Ignatieffs made to Canada, one chum from Michael's university days found Susan antisocial, and another thought they were both depressed and were dragging each other down.

http://www.bcwf.bc.ca/documents/s=474/bcw1230506593404/

I bolded the part I found most interesting. Michael writing about his wife and the wife commenting that he was really writing about Michael. I don't find that at all surprising.

[KingIggy]

That's not the first time I've heard any of that. He discussed it at length in an interview when he was running for the leadership of the Party.

I think he's trying to get all of this out now, so that the opposition can't use it during the election campaign. Politician's personal lives are none of our business.

But if you abide by Republican party dogma, and ultra-rightwing moralism, it is highly important.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Unless you've tinkled glasses with the GG at some elegant dinner party you probably have little in common with this fellow, I think it's interesting to note, most of our ancestors arrived here to enjoy democracy and escape some form of oppression, Iggy's family came here as escaped oppressors leaving behind some form of crude democracy.

I've always been uncomfortable with those who felt they were "men of destiny".

[msj]

Maybe we can gather around like a gaggle of gossipy grannies and gossip more goodies!

[msj]

Oh, I didn't realize that maybe some of you are men.

My apologies if I offended anyone with accusations of being gossiping grannies!

Maybe it's time for you guys to lay off the beer?

Edited March 4, 2009 by msj

[Moonbox]

That's not the first time I've heard any of that. He discussed it at length in an interview when he was running for the leadership of the Party.

I think he's trying to get all of this out now, so that the opposition can't use it during the election campaign. Politician's personal lives are none of our business.

That's just a convenient thing to say. Their personal lives are reflective of their character. You've nattered on and on about how great a guy he is and how morally upstanding he is, but when things like his position of torture (supporting it and then back pedalling under public spotlight) and abandoning his wife after pretending to be a pillar of family values come up, apparently they don't matter.

None of this affects his ability to govern. He's has led an interesting life and to accomplish everything he has, there would have to be heartbreak along the way.

Drivel. While it's true they may not affect his ABILITY to govern, it does reflect his decision making process. As far as there 'having to be heartbreak', don't be stupid. Nothing in his achievements have anything to do with heartbreak. There's plenty of men who have achieved FAR FAR FAR more than Ignatieff who are still happily married. More apologist crap from an Ignatieff cheerleader.

Stephen Harper keeps his past private. I read the Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper and the author discussed the fact that Harper refused to be interviewed, saying that he was writing his own memoirs and didn't want to 'be scooped'. His ambition also hurt many along the way.

Keeping your past private is probably the smartest thing you can do. As far as his ambition hurting people, there are big differences between the hurt losing a professional or political contest causes and the hurt felt from leaving the mother of your children.

I'll finalize my comments by saying, once again, that as of yet I don't hate Ignatieff. I think he's political scum but I also think Harper is. I simply have HUGE issues when posters like you who barf out biased nonsense 24/7. I can't help but comment.

[waldo]

I can't help but comment.

and so you should - but accurately. Many quotes have been tabled here unequivocally demonstrating Ignatieff's position on torture - that he does not support it and never has. If you boldly state otherwise you should be prepared to offer qualification... waiting.

msj has rightly cast this thread with the gossipy attachment it deserves. Your posturing around a "family values" theme - presuming to denigrate a politician... any politician... for failed marriage/relationships, will leave us a significantly reduced candidate pool. Apparently, admitted and accepted failure/mistakes has been known to actually build character - go figure!

[madmax]

I can't help but comment.

I think this is a lame thread worthy of a gossip columnist. It's not my cup of tea. However, When I got down to the bottom on why you posted. I could only agree with you observations.

The 24/7 I love Iggy coming from Progressive Tory is almost as annoying as when Mr. Canada would endlessly rave and drool and fawn over Stephen Harper.

It's gone to the nth degree of obsession. I feel like I am reading an Elementary school diary about someone with crush on a leader.

Between the constant drooling of Ignatief and this Gossip columnist take, I look for a ladder to get this discussion out of the gutter or kill this hatchet job.

[madmax]

and so you should - but accurately. Many quotes have been tabled here unequivocally demonstrating Ignatieff's position on torture - that he does not support it and never has.

You are going down the wrong path again. Ignatieffs position on torture has shifted. He has had to address his position upon returning to Canada and seeking the leadership. It has taken years for Mr. Ignatieff to change the nuance of his position from lessor evil to no evil. But, I don't think anyone can trust him to defend those subject to torture or to fight for the rights of those being tortured. Especially if they are the "bad guy".

The fact that there is Grey Area in Ignatieff, from someone supposed to defend human rights, shows a weakness in his character when support for torture increases he broaches the subject to make it more palatable for those who are against torture.

John McCains position on torture is clear. He is against it. It is a position he has never shifted ground on, even in the face of his own party and popular support for "torture light Interogation methods" to make the Terrorists speak.

This wouldn't be an issue if Ignatieff wasn't the one to broach the subject.

[waldo]

The 24/7 I love Iggy coming from Progressive Tory is almost as annoying as...

interesting - my take on PT is one of a passionate opinionated individual who typically provides linked references to substantiate the annoyance she brings to some who, frankly, don't take to having Harper or the Conservatives challenged... on anything. It would appear she has struck up a following from those who have difficulty with her message... a following from those who would rather (attempt) to deflect by trying to concentrate on (she) the messenger rather than the inadequacies/failings of other leaders/parties.

[madmax]

interesting - my take on PT is one of a passionate opinionated individual who typically provides linked references to substantiate the annoyance she brings to some who,

Links are welcome. Arguments are welcome. Passion of politics is welcome. Challenging Government is welcome.

But, as long as one posts like they are having a love affair with the leader.... well, it becomes a bit monotonous after the first 10 posts of endless praise and fawning.

[waldo]

You are going down the wrong path again.

we have done this dance - I believe several times now. You have not been able to make your case - yet... your position, your "light" characterization, is your personal assessment that hasn't been and can't be substantiated in light of Ignatieff's past statements... no matter how much you'd like to "nuance" them.

[Moonbox]

we have done this dance - I believe several times now. You have not been able to make your case - yet... your position, your "light" characterization, is your personal assessment that hasn't been and can't be substantiated in light of Ignatieff's past statements... no matter how much you'd like to "nuance" them.

It's Ignatieff that's done the dancing. These concerns don't come out of nowhere. The fact that he's made it clear that NOW he is 100% against torture once he started running for politics is rather convenient timing. From what I've read he indicated that he DID at least support psychological torture and sleep deprivation.

It's rather scary that the clarification is even needed. You don't need to be a genius to understand how torture fundamentally undermines the rule of law.

[Moonbox]

and so you should - but accurately. Many quotes have been tabled here unequivocally demonstrating Ignatieff's position on torture - that he does not support it and never has. If you boldly state otherwise you should be prepared to offer qualification... waiting.

Here:

"We need a presidential order or Congressional legislation that defines exactly what constitutes acceptable degrees of coercive interrogation. Here we are deep into lesser-evil territory. Permissible duress might include forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in lasting harm to mental or physical health, together with disinformation and disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods) that would produce stress. What crosses the line into the impermissible would be any physical coercion or abuse, any involuntary use of drugs or serums, any withholding of necessary medicines or basic food, water and essential rest."

Ignatieff - Lesser of Evils

So here he's basically saying, "Okay well psychological torture = cool but physical torture = bad."

The qualification is RIGHT there and that's what we're talking about. As long as someone's not permanently or visibly harmed then GO AHEAD right???? There's a lot of 'mights' etc in there where he gives himself room to wiggle out, but the fact that he's saying what permissable duress could include makes his position rather clear. Under his broad qualifications, there are a lot of disgusting things that could be done to prisoners. As an intellectual and a statesman, he knows to watch his words and he knows how to be clear. He made himself clear here.

msj has rightly cast this thread with the gossipy attachment it deserves. Your posturing around a "family values" theme - presuming to denigrate a politician... any politician... for failed marriage/relationships, will leave us a significantly reduced candidate pool. Apparently, admitted and accepted failure/mistakes has been known to actually build character - go figure!

No argument. What I find funny is how Ignatieff presented himself in the UK as a champion of family values and then bails out on his wife. It's similar to running a human rights department but not being able to take a strong position against torture. Ignatieff is a man positively DROOLING irony.

[madmax]

we have done this dance - I believe several times now. You have not been able to make your case - yet... your position, your "light" characterization, is your personal assessment that hasn't been and can't be substantiated in light of Ignatieff's past statements... no matter how much you'd like to "nuance" them.

What you choose to ignore, I can do nothing about.

Q: Does Canadian law allow for coercive interrogation?

A: I don’t believe we should engage in those forms of coercive interrogations. Rigorous interrogation can take place without actions that would disgrace us morally or legally.

Q: What’s the difference between coercive and rigorous interrogation?

A: Rigorous interrogation is consistent with Canadian law and international standards.

Q: So it’s not coercive.

A: Not coercive.

Q: So you no longer believe that coercive interrogation is advisable.

A): When I talked about coercive interrogation, people then made the allusion right away to torture

I simply don't buy into Ignatieffs double speak. The sidestepping above.. vs the position in the sig below.

Of course he is back peddling.

The media don't ask these questions of other Canadian Leaders? Why is that? Not Stephen Harper, Not Jack Layton, Not Gilles Duceppe, Not Elizabeth May. They didn't bring this up with Dion, Paul Martin, or Jean Chretian.

They bring it up because Ignatieff wavered in favour of coercive interrogations, whereas today he states that coercive interogrations are not consistent with Canadian Law and International standards.

This is a person that knows the law and morally should have known better.

The Bush Administration enjoyed his support on their war on terror/terrorists and the use of torture.

[waldo]

and so you should - but accurately. Many quotes have been tabled here unequivocally demonstrating Ignatieff's position on torture - that he does not support it and never has. If you boldly state otherwise you should be prepared to offer qualification... waiting.

Here:

"We need a presidential order or Congressional legislation that defines exactly what constitutes acceptable degrees of coercive interrogation. Here we are deep into lesser-evil territory. Permissible duress might include forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in lasting harm to mental or physical health, together with disinformation and disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods) that would produce stress. What crosses the line into the impermissible would be any physical coercion or abuse, any involuntary use of drugs or serums, any withholding of necessary medicines or basic food, water and essential rest."

Ignatieff - Lesser of Evils

So here he's basically saying, "Okay well psychological torture = cool but physical torture = bad."

The qualification is RIGHT there and that's what we're talking about. As long as someone's not permanently or visibly harmed then GO AHEAD right???? There's a lot of 'mights' etc in there where he gives himself room to wiggle out, but the fact that he's saying what permissable duress could include makes his position rather clear. Under his broad qualifications, there are a lot of disgusting things that could be done to prisoners. As an intellectual and a statesman, he knows to watch his words and he knows how to be clear. He made himself clear here.

and you do… what has already been done… many times over. That is to perpetuate a fallacy with an out of context quotation:

the complete Ignatieff quote:

"An outright ban on torture, rather than an attempt to regulate it, seems the only way a democracy can keep true to its ideal of respecting the dignity even of its enemies. For that is what the rule of law commits us to: to show respect even to those who show no respect for us.

"To keep faith with this commitment, we need a presidential order or Congressional legislation that defines exactly what constitutes acceptable degrees of coercive interrogation. Here we are deep into lesser-evil territory. Permissible duress might include forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in lasting harm to mental or physical health, together with disinformation and disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods) that would produce stress. What crosses the line into the impermissible would be any physical coercion or abuse, any involuntary use of drugs or serums, any withholding of necessary medicines or basic food, water and essential rest.

"Fine idea, you say, but who is to enforce these safeguards?"

with context and in it’s entirety, there is no qualification offered… there is no qualification needed. Ignatieff clearly does not support torture… as stated here and as he consistently states elsewhere… Ignatieff does not support/advocate torture.

and yet, you weakly latch on to the same tired old hack-job in an attempt to falsely label Ignatieff. Your motivation/agenda is clear.

[waldo]

What you choose to ignore, I can do nothing about.

what you choose to skew, what you choose to falsify, I can... and will... do something about (it).

so - again - you offer more out of context incomplete quotations, this time from the recent Macleans article Q&A:

let's try a more complete accurate extract from that Macleans Q&A (bold highlighting included for my emphasis):

Q: On the use of torture, an issue you’ve written about, you said that to defeat evil sometimes we have to traffic in evil, and you did advocate indefinite detention of subjects and coercive interrogation. Do you still feel the same way about those matters?

A: I think if you read the entirety of The Lesser Evil—and I think I can ask that it be read and judged in its entirety—I have a very personal horror of torture.

Q: That’s clear in the piece.

A: I believe that we are faced with people who are a danger to Canadian national security and a danger to our way of life, and we’re part of a global effort, not a war on terror but a global effort, to defeat extremism, and the message in The Lesser Evil, the metaphor that was key to me in The Lesser Evil, was democratic states have to fight this battle with one hand tied behind their back, and it’s because they tie one hand behind their back that they win. So getting to the issue of interrogation, interrogation has to be consistent with Canadian law, consistent with international conventions—like the Convention on Torture—consistent with our international obligations. It has to be rigorous and thorough, because we’re up against some threats to our security, but it must be within the traditions of the Canadian Charter and the applicable laws, and it must be subject to democratic scrutiny.

Q: Does Canadian law allow for coercive interrogation?

A: I don’t believe we should engage in those forms of coercive interrogations. Rigorous interrogation can take place without actions that would disgrace us morally or legally.

Q: What’s the difference between coercive and rigorous interrogation?

A: Rigorous interrogation is consistent with Canadian law and international standards.

Q: So it’s not coercive.

A: Not coercive.

Q: So you no longer believe that coercive interrogation is advisable.

A: When I talked about coercive interrogation, people then made the allusion right away to torture. That was never, ever, ever intended/desired/stated. There is a clear line between tough interrogations that stay on the right side of the law and stuff that gets into the area of moral disgrace, and I’ve always been clear what that line is.

[madmax]

and you do… what has already been done… many times over. That is to perpetuate a fallacy with an out of context quotation:

the complete Ignatieff quote:

"An outright ban on torture, rather than an attempt to regulate it, seems the only way a democracy can keep true to its ideal of respecting the dignity even of its enemies. For that is what the rule of law commits us to: to show respect even to those who show no respect for us.

a complete ban on torture, which according to his 2004 Op-ed in the New York Times, did not include certain "forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in lasting harm to mental or physical health, together with disinformation and disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods).

[Oleg Bach]

a complete ban on torture, which according to his 2004 Op-ed in the New York Times, did not include certain "forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in lasting harm to mental or physical health, together with disinformation and disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods).

Come on - we are supposed to be the good guys - only bad people and nations use torture..backward and cruel dictatorships. The reason that Americans resorted to torture is that they knew that they had harmed and offended millions of disadvantaged people though out the world and this is what brought about terrorism - they created it with their own hands...so in effect when they took the stance that torture would gleen information that would "save innocent american lives" _ it was a ruse and a fraud - they did not care about the lives of those they exploited and abused abroad - so why would they care about the lives of ordinary Americans? They used torture to save their own guilty asses..

[Oleg Bach]

Come on - we are supposed to be the good guys - only bad people and nations use torture..backward and cruel dictatorships. The reason that Americans resorted to torture is that they knew that they had harmed and offended millions of disadvantaged people though out the world and this is what brought about terrorism - they created it with their own hands...so in effect when they took the stance that torture would gleen information that would "save innocent american lives" _ it was a ruse and a fraud - they did not care about the lives of those they exploited and abused abroad - so why would they care about the lives of ordinary Americans? They used torture to save their own guilty asses..

By your barbaric tone - much like you may be considering..

[madmax]

Oleg, if there are no good countries, or the good countries are behaving questionably, then it is the realm of human rights activists to fight for individuals over the power of the state.

Ignatieff was to be one of those people.

If the topic of torture continues to be brought forth, I will open a special thread on Ignatieff and torture. Obviously I am more interested in the comments and defence of torture then I am in the gossipy crap presented earlier in this thread. However, some topics tend to hijack threads. It wasn't myself that brought Ignatieffs record on torture into this thread. But when someone does, I am not going to let it go lightly.

Ignatieff has ducked his own peers and resigned from Editorial Boards rather then present the argument that he so belatedly put forth to Canadians in 2009.

Liberal SPinners will be working hard to insulate Ignatieff.

Run Ignatief Run

Ignatieff ducks debate with critics in torture row

9 September 2005

Phil Baty

One of the world's most renowned human rights academics, Michael Ignatieff, stands accused by colleagues of refusing to debate a claim that he has become an apologist for human rights abuses because he is worried that a public row could damage his plans for a political career.

Professor Ignatieff, director of the Carr Centre for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University, was attacked this year in the celebrated free-speech journal Index on Censorship , with which he has been long associated.

But rather than taking up the editor's offer of printing a ten-page reply, the one-time darling of the liberal elite resigned from the journal's editorial and advisory board.

His reaction has led to an allegation that he is refusing an intellectual debate because he is seeking high political office in his native Canada.

Professor Ignatieff will join the University of Toronto in January as a visiting professor in human rights policy.

"Could political ambition, the desire to have a clean public image, be an adequate explanation for Professor Ignatieff's overdramatic reaction to (the) carefully reasoned, if provocative, article?" asks sociology professor and Times Higher columnist Laurie Taylor in the current edition of New Humanist magazine.

Amazing that people were questioning Ignatiefs actions and political ambitions back then, in foreign countries. These aren't Harper Hacks. These are his Peers.

[madmax]

what you choose to skew, what you choose to falsify, I can... and will... do something about (it).

What you are presenting is the about face of Ignatieff. You are presenting the same argument as me in that regards. This is the debate that his peers have waited 4 to 5 years for a response. And he brings it and it is weak and pathetic. Some people, like yourself are willing to give him a pass on Torture and accept his newly found piety.

Just after Genocide Dec 2005

Michael Ignatieff

Status: Human rights campaigner, Harvard professor and Canadian political wannabe.

Reputation: Tough-minded liberal. Intellectual defender of the national security state. Apologist for empire.

Michael Ignatieff, who calls himself a liberal and a human rights campaigner, is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

This past January, in an article for Britain’s Observer, he deplored Western indifference to the Iraqi election. Ignatieff, who supported the invasion of Iraq, lamented: ‘The Bush Administration has managed the nearly impossible: to turn democracy into a disreputable slogan.’

Ignatieff, meanwhile, has helped turn human rights into a ‘disreputable slogan’, posing as their standard-bearer while condoning imperialism and equivocating on torture. His politics amount to a slippery slope, with nuanced arguments at the top and the horror chambers of Abu Ghraib below. Ignatieff, born and raised in Canada, has an impressive CV. The Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University, he has also been a professor at Oxford, a prize-winning author of fiction and non-fiction, a prolific print journalist and a BBC broadcaster – a well-established pop intellectual.

Like many of his kind, he was transformed by 9/11. He started advocating a more muscular protection of human rights and ended in the embrace of US imperialism. While criticizing various outcomes of Bush’s policies, he endorses their essential parts – scraping off the icing before eating the cake.

His clever wordplay doesn’t disguise a poor grasp of the facts. Reading Ignatieff’s feature articles in the New York Times Magazine over the past four years, one discovers that the pompous professor is a bad student who doesn’t actually learn from his own mistakes.

Sources: ‘No more Mr Nice Guy’, Laurie Taylor, Toronto Star, 28 Aug 2005; Wikipedia.org; ‘Mirage in the Desert’, New York Times Magazine, 27 June 2004; ‘The Burden’, NYT Magazine, 5 Jan 2003; ‘Lesser Evils’, NYT Magazine, 2 May 2004; ‘Iraqis fight a lonely battle for democracy’, Observer, 30 Jan 2005; ‘Michael Ignatieff: Apostle of He-manitarianism’, Michael Neumann, Counterpunch, 8 Dec 2003.

When a genuine defender of human rights, Conor Gearty, wrote in Index on Censorship this year that Ignatieff’s arguments provide Donald Rumsfeld with ‘the intellectual tools with which to justify his Government’s expansionism’, Ignatieff went ballistic.

Resigning from Index’s editorial board, he claimed to have always opposed torture and that his reputation had been maligned. Ignatieff is stunned to discover that his liberal, human-rights colleagues are abandoning him. The only glue that holds his disconnected arguments together these days seems to be an admiration of fearless power.

His growing isolation couldn’t come at a worse time. In January 2006, he is coming home to Canada to take up a position at the University of Toronto. According to rumour, he’s plotting a run for the leadership of Canada’s ruling Liberal party, hoping to become Prime Minister.

[madmax]

with context and in it’s entirety, there is no qualification offered… there is no qualification needed. Ignatieff clearly does not support torture… as stated here and as he consistently states elsewhere… Ignatieff does not support/advocate torture.

My agenda is to let people know that Mr. Ignatieffs views on torture are more in line with the United States, then they are CANADA or the UNITED NATIONS.

Ignatieff Supports Methods Defined as Torture by the UN

Ron Saba - Montreal Planet Magazine

September 20, 2006

Related - Ignatieff says Canada belongs in Afghanistan because of 'moral promise'

Since deciding to enter politics, Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff has attempted to present an image of himself which is at odds with his previously published statements and positions.

With good reason, since the leading contender for leader of the Liberal Party and possible future Prime Minister of Canada is on record as supporting methods defined as torture by the United Nations.

In 1986, the Special Rapporteur appointed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights published a report on the subject of torture.

On page 28 of the Report, Section C titled "Types and methods of torture" clearly states that:

"118. There are two main types of torture, physical and psychological or mental."

Generally accepted categories of sensory deprivation include, among other methods, prolonged standing, hooding, subjection to noise, deprivation of sleep, deprivation of food and drink.

The pictures of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo Bay present textbook examples of various methods of psychological torture through sensory deprivation and stress positions, including hooding and prolonged standing.

In his article "Lesser Evils" which appeared in the May 2, 2004 New York Times Magazine, Michael Ignatieff indicates that he condones methods of "Permissible duress" which he defines to include:

"disinformation and disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods) that would produce stress."

Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that Ignatieff supports methods defined as torture by the UN. In fact some of these methods are at the center of the angry battle between Bush and members of the US Congress concerning Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.