Answering Paul Wells
Paul Wells is undoubtedly one of Canada’s best journalists. I mean, what’s not to like? He pokes fun at liberals and conservatives alike; he watches Battlestar Galactica; he writes extensively about jazz (his favourite music department in the country is at my alma mater).
I’ve always enjoyed the dose of personality that he infuses into his writing. In fact, I constantly referred to his fantastic book, Right Side Up, when I took ‘The Conservative Movement in Canada’ at McGill.
All of which makes it harder to believe Wells’ reaction to my two pieces (here and here) on Rights and Democracy last week. Here are three examples:
After I followed him on twitter, he wrote:
and
(To be honest, I’m surprised he found me worthy of the tenth rung of hackery!)
The name-calling, the mockery, and the juvenile pettiness all surprised me, coming from a writer with extensive experience and credit to his name from the Montreal Gazette, the National Post, and now Maclean’s. This is not to mention that I have never responded in kind or mentioned him by name.
In my first piece, I raised questions about whether Rights and Democracy might have funded the infamous Durban II. Wells’ first response was sarcasm; his next response was to call my writing a “hack job” and demand I apologize.
Specifically, Wells pointed out that Rights and Democracy had fully earmarked their funds to the United Nations’ High Commission on Human Rights, as seen in this letter. This, he says, leaves no room for money to have gone to Durban II.
I stand behind my story. I was aware that Rights and Democracy’s contribution was earmarked. My point was that there is a possibility that the money was sent to the earmarked departments and then funnelled indirectly to Durban II by, for example, paying for NGOs to visit the conference. My story reads:
When reached for comment, the UN High Commission for Human Rights’ Donor and External Relations department said that they could not confirm or deny whether Rights and Democracy funded aspects of Durban II.
...A spokesman for the department allowed that it was possible that “their contributions funded activities related to the Anti-Discrimination Unit”, rather than the unit itself. He continued by laying out the possible route of financing, suggesting that perhaps Rights and Democracy “were able to help finance some NGOs, to help bring them to the [Durban II] conference.”
The point was never that Rights and Democracy gave money directly to the Anti-Discrimination Unit – it was that they might have given money to, for example, the Civil Society Unit, who then in turn used it to support Durban II indirectly.
Neither Rights and Democracy nor the UN High Commission on Human Rights have been able to tell me that this didn’t happen – so I pose it as a possibility, and ask questions.
On my second piece investigating the lack of transparency in Rights and Democracy’s Geneva office, Wells is largely silent, save for a sarcastic blog post.
Four days ago, Wells promised to “file a series of corrections” to my Geneva piece. I look forward to seeing what he has to say, and whether he’s willing to defend the extravagant waste of taxpayer funds in Geneva.
In the meantime, perhaps Wells could tell us whether he agrees that it's time for a full audit of Rights and Democracy finances. Isn't it appropriate to find out whether and how much money was wasted, and to whom contributions were made?
Hopefully, in time, an investigation will clear all the matters at hand. I don’t hold that my suspicions are necessarily true – just that Rights and Democracy needs to answer some hard questions and give a full accounting of its activities. Can't we agree that an answer is due?
tmak@frumforum.com
Follow me on Twitter at: @timkmak
