I asked a colleague the other day what they knew about McCarthyism. Their response was: "Not much."
Indeed, I have asked a number of people the same question and found answers ranging from "nothing at all" to "something that happened in the United States."
The latter answer is sort of true. Strictly speaking, McCarthyism was originally coined as an expression to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of Republican U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy from Wisconsin and the actions of the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
Over time, though, McCarthyism has come to take on a broader meaning. It is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.
It is a term used to describe reckless and unsubstantiated accusations directed against individuals and organizations. The character or patriotism of political adversaries is attacked through unfair and often unsubstantiated allegations or through using unfair and illegal investigative techniques.
To be fair to Senator McCarthy, he didn't invent the practice. Indeed, the House Committee on Un-American Activities originated in 1938 and McCarthy's involvement wasn't until the late 1940s. However, it was during the period between 1951 and 1954 that the committee really began its witch hunt for communists and fellow travelers.
Everyone fell under their purview with thousands of government employees, educators, and union activists along with members of the entertainment industry being attacked. The list of accused is extensive and includes the likes of Charlie Chaplin, Dashiell Hammett, Lucille Ball and Albert Einstein. Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the modern atomic age, was stripped of his security clearance because of McCarthyism. Orson Welles could not find work in Hollywood.
As one proponent put it, an unfavourable review of someone's loyalty meant : "A man is ruined everywhere and forever. No responsible employer would be likely to take a chance in giving him a job."
Needless to say, the McCarthy era was a dark day for civil liberties and freedom of speech in the United States. So dark that in December, 1954, the U.S. Senate voted 65 to 22 to condemn Joseph McCarthy for "conduct that tends to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute."
However, the echoes of McCarthyism remain in American politics. Politicians do not need to provide evidence or proof. Simply stating that someone is a communist, socialist, or liberal seems to be enough to tar them before the American public's eyes. Due process and natural justice be damned.
In the court of public opinion, that might be a disreputable but accepted practice. It is when that approach creeps over into the judicial system we should really begin to worry, particularly when it creeps north of the 49th parallel.
The federal government is presently debating Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015 which suspends due process in some cases. Specifically: "...at any time during a proceeding, the judge must, on the request of the Minister, hear information or other evidence in the absence of the public and of the appellant and their counsel if, in the judge's opinion, its disclosure could be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person."
In other words, the fundamental right of the accused to hear all of the evidence against them and comment on such evidence can be suspended at the request of the minister and with the leave of a judge.
Further, the bill says: "...the judge may receive into evidence anything that, in the judge's opinion, is reliable and appropriate, even if it is inadmissible in a court of law, and may base a decision on that evidence."
Hearsay and innuendo may be the basis for a decision if, in the judge's opinion, it is reliable and appropriate.
These particular sections refer to the appeal process but the same flavour is carried throughout the act. Frequent reference is made to government departments being granted extraordinary powers - without going before judiciary - if they believe that security threats "may occur." There is no test in the bill for what constitutes "may occur."
The bill starts off with the assertion: "...whereas there is no more fundamental role for a government than protecting its country and its people;" but how do you protect the people from the government itself?
This bill echoes the excesses of McCarthyism and represents an equally dark day in our history.
The first time I was interviewed by Ben Meisner, my colleagues were afraid he would be aggressive and argumentative. In fact, we had quite an engaged exchange both on and off the air. And perhaps to both of our surprise, there were a number of areas about which we agreed. The gruff on-air personality was matched by an off-air thoughtful and conscientious individual. Through our many engagements over the years, he remained true to his character. We didn't always agree, but I respected Ben. Unfortunately, his is a voice that will now be missed.
