The Malice of the Righteous

He was directed by the United Nation's Human Rights Council to widen his mandate a little, focus elsewhere than on the dire humanitarian straits of countries whose populations are facing starvation.  Fan out a little, visit a few Western countries with advanced societies and sound economies, and see how they fare.  The UN's right-to-food envoy Olivier De Schutter mentioned that in a radio interview, but studiously avoided any other impetus for his survey of Canada's right-to-food situation.

But then, of course, he did in a more indirect manner indicate an underlying cause for his esteemed visit.  Canada was too arrogant by far, unwilling to accede to United Nations' derived mandates, disrespectful of the institution and its creatures.  And ripe for a comeuppance.  And there will be one, since his report to his masters underlining Canada's "appallingly poor" record of taking recommendations from the UN human-rights bodies will now extend to the insults offered their right-to-food rapporteur.

It is unthinkable that his appearance in the country did not result in Cabinet ministers meeting with him, greeting and kow-towing to him, as is normally done when he visits countries like Bangladesh, China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia and Pakistan, along with Sub-Saharan Africa.  Just exactly what does Canada think it is doing, addressing the issue of his appearance by permitting him to meet exclusively with government bureaucrats?

Insulting the man and his mission, that's what.  And that, needless to say, is intolerable.  The poverty and hunger that Olivier De Schutter sought, investigated, isolated and weighed is "shocking" for a wealthy nation.  And Canada's "self-righteous" attitude mocks his own, and that too is not to be tolerated.  His eleven-day mission taking him to poor inner-city neighbourhoods in Ontario and Quebec allowed him to interview families on social assistance.

And from them he heard anecdotal dissatisfaction with the pittances meted out to them - allowing them to house and feed their families in a country where education and health care is free - in a manner that warmed the cockles of his heart.  Well housed and abundant food choices available at a cost that cannot be compared to most other countries of the world, there are stories that abound of entitlements not met, and he welcomed every one.

Scribbling in his notebook accounts that he will make excellent use of, to prove his points, every single one.  People who claim they cannot afford to feed their children healthy, whole foods, but can afford more expensive and less nutritious convenience foods, the universal bane of modern, well-off societies everywhere.  Remote aboriginal communities in Manitoba and Alberta complain of lack of access to fresh fruits and vegetables.

This is surprising, this is unexpected?  It is concerning, but it is far more a matter of geography, isolation and the cost of transportation than neglect and lack of caring.  It is a life choice, and with those choices come undesirable consequences.  But these are inconvenient details of a nature Mr. De Schutter has no interest in, since they merely confuse the issue, making it more complex than it need be for his purposes. 

And his purposes are abundantly clear.  A wealthy country like Canada that provides food aid to under-developed countries of the world many of whom make the choice to pour available financial resources into the purchase of war machines rather than agricultural machines, the plight of their own people suffering from food shortages patched up nicely enough by wealthy, compassionate countries.

But Mr. De Schutter has been to Sudan, been to Somalia, been to Pakistan, and it's so boring and predictable.  Far more entertaining to visit Canada, the first Western country to be so honoured, and in the process raise his profile and condemn Canada for its disinterest in ensuring "food security" for its population.

He's on a roll.