This seems to me to be an odd choice for a way to honour the life of Jack Layton through charity. The most obvious choice would have been cancer research or some cancer patient support group. If they didn’t want to make it about the thing that killed him, there are plenty of other choices. Jack Layton was suppose to care about the downtrodden, so why not ask the public to give to a women’s shelter or an organization trying to help at risk teens?
Instead we are asked to give to what is essentially a partisan organization. To be fair the only people likely to give to it are actually NDP partisans, but that just makes it feel like a cynical ploy on the part of NDP fundraisers to capitalize on the death of their leader. Yes they are not asking money for the NDP directly, but it will be the NDP that will benefit from the activities of the Broadbent Institute.
This isn’t the only oddly partisan way that Jack Layton is being recalled or honoured. The City of Toronto plans on turning the CN Tower orange on Saturday. Orange in Canadian politics has been branded to identify the NDP. So to honour Jack Layton we are going to turn an iconic symbol of Toronto into a giant advert for the NDP? As a non-supporter of the NDP this leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth. (Especially when you consider that it isn’t like the City of Toronto isn’t doing anything else in memory of Jack Layton).
Now we can turn to the awkward conversation about Jack Layton’s “final note to Canadians.” Christie Blatchford has been dumped on a lot this week for having the guts to be critical of not just the letter but the reaction to his death in general. At the risk of exposing myself to similar ire, the letter reeks of partisanship.
Ms. Blatchford already pointed out the odd snipe at Harper in the words “We can restore our good name in the world.” As if we were one step away from Syria. But this is hardly the only bit of partisan hackery in the letter. Hell the letter starts off by trying to direct the conditions of the leadership race to replace him. The fact that Mr. Layton preferred in early leadership race to a later one is not really a message that all Canadians needed to hear.
The next section he encourages cancer patients to not give up hope, which is nice but then he moves on to talking directly to the intra-Parliamentary and extra-Parliamentary sections of the NDP. I suppose that is fine in principle, since it is with their support that he was able to accomplish his goals, but he managed to slip in there a resume of things that he claims as initiatives of the NDP. It just seems…well smooth.
If you think I’ve been harsh up until now, take a good look at the next two sections. He addresses messages to Quebec and youth.
Why Quebec and youth?
Seriously, why did he (and his wife and Chief of Staff) decide that those two groups deserved a specific message? Why not Toronto where he lived most his life? Why not to his own age group? Why not the West or the East or any other part of the country?
It is because Quebec and youth are recognized as being fundamental to the NDP if they want to form government. Read the letter and it not just clear but blatantly obvious that this is electioneering.
(emphasis mine)
To my fellow Quebecers: On May 2nd, you made an historic decision. You decided that the way to replace Canada’s Conservative federal government with something better was by working together in partnership with progressive-minded Canadians across the country. You made the right decision then; it is still the right decision today; and it will be the right decision right through to the next election, when we will succeed, together. You have elected a superb team of New Democrats to Parliament. They are going to be doing remarkable things in the years to come to make this country better for us all.
If you read that on a fundraising letter or heard it on a stump speech you wouldn’t bat an eye. But again, this is supposed to be a final message to all Canadians.
By the time I got to the end of the letter, the first time I read it, I felt so ripped off and cynical that I dismissed his rather nice sentiment about the importance of optimism as I would if I heard it come out of any politician’s mouth: shallow sentimentality.
I think what bothers me the most about all this is the picture that all this cynical partisanship is painting of Jack Layton. I now have in my head the picture of a man who was so thoroughly a partisan hack that he tried to use his own death as a way to advance his party’s electoral success. This picture is unfair because I’m not sure how much he actually had to do with the letter and he has had nothing to do with what has happened after he died. But I never knew Jack Layton and I never knew anyone well that knew him well, and so really I have nothing to judge him by except the public image. That public image has been very partisan, especially in the days after his death.
I suspect that he was more than that. I suspect that he was much more than Partisan Jack. He was a father, a husband, and a friend to some. He was more than a vehicle for political gains and it sickens me that he is being treated that way.