The Perfect Political Apology

As major political apologies for historic wrongs go, Prime Minister Harper's formal apology to Canada's aboriginal communities for the government's role in the systematic abuse of so many students of the country's residential school system is pretty close to perfect -- pretty high praise from our PA team whose members have been consistently relentless in our search for flaws.

The decision to apologize was endorsed by other major political parties and guided by the strong sponsorship of the leader of the New Democratic Party, Jack Layton -- a particularly noteworthy achievement in a minority government. Harper's apology was also followed by equally passionate mea-culpas from the Liberal and New Democratic Parties. Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecoise exploited the opportunity to take a shot at the Conservatives -- probably of the most pathetic politically motivated non-apologies ever delivered.

As expected dozens of communication experts have voiced their opinions about the quality of the apology, some of which we agree with and others we reject.

For example, Michael Dorland, obviously searching for at least something negative to say, criticized Harper's delivery for a "rhythmic thing, a kind of repetition." Now, if this was a talent show for public speaking Dorland's point might be relevant. But in the context of apologizing to thousands of Canadian citizens for the government's role destroying their culture, lives and families repeating the apology is something that should be applauded not critiqued.

The last minute move to give leaders of Canada's aboriginal communities an opportunity to voice their opinions in the House of Commons was the right decision.

We give this one a 10/10.

Government Apologizes for Historical Wrongs

A Step In The Right Direction?
Concerned about the potential liability issues that might follow more formal political apologies, Canada's Conservative Harper government recently announced the allocation of several major grants to support various programs, initiatives and events related to historical injustices committed by the Canadian government.

Examples include the catastrophic decision in 1939 to refuse entry of 900 passengers on the steamship St. Louis in 1939, leading to the deaths of a third of those on board. Similar grants are being offered to commemorate the internment of Ukrainians during the First World War, and the Chinese head tax in World War Two.

Critics will no doubt slam the government for political expediency and claim this is nothing more than a transparent effort to deal with several major mistakes through a few widely publicized announcements.

Although critics may be right, it would probably be wise (and fair) for skeptics to ask members of the affected communities whether the government's gestures should be ignored.

As perfect apologies go, this approach may not satisfy all the ingredients but they certainly accomplish a great deal more than previous governments and the status quo.

It may not be enough, but it's considerably closer to the mark.

The Very Public Apology

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's recent apology concerning his affinity for high-priced call girls brought his political career to an end and also garnered wide media attention.

Perhaps this particular apology was so widely scrutinized because we all love a good sex scandal or maybe it was because the apology he delivered was so inadequate that we were both outraged by the lame mea culpa and embarrassed for his wife who had to endure listening to it while she stood beside him.

Spitzer's apology was so poorly received that he even got media coverage from his neighbors to the North when the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ran an interesting segment on this very public apology.

Our team thinks it's a pretty good piece (although not very detailed) but well worth a view...so check it out!

Danish Cartoons and Demands for Apologies

Officials from several Mideast states are demanding apologies from the government of Denmark for a decision by 17 Danish newspapers to re-publish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad -- cartoons first published in 2005 that sparked widespread protest throughout the Muslim world.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/13/denmark.cartoon/?iref=mpstoryview

The decision to re-publish the cartoons followed the arrest by Danish police in Copenhagen of several people suspected of plotting to kill cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. It appears as though the freedoms of speech and expression are competing with the freedom of religion and related protections against persecution for those religious beliefs. Islamic groups are claiming that the cartoons will provoke violence against those who subscribe to Islam. On the other hand, those who defend the publication are quick to point out that much (if not all) of the civil-liberty damaging violence perpetrated so far has been directed against the people/media outlets who published the cartoons, not against individuals concerned about being persecuted for their religious beliefs. The question is which of these fundamental freedoms is really in jeopardy today and, by extension, which should take precedence in this case?

McCain's Immediate Apology Helps Campaign

Bill Cunningham, a conservative radio talk show host, was responsible for introducing Arizona Senator John McCain at a rally in Cincinnati on Tuesday. In his introductory comments, Cunningham made a point on three separate occasions of referring specifically to Barack Obama's middle name, Hussein, and went on to call him a "Chicago-style Daley politician who's picturing himself as change. When he gets done with you, all you're going to have in your pocket is change." McCain was very quick to distance himself from the comments as soon as he approached the press at the event. And despite not having made the comments himself he stated:

"Whatever suggestion was made that was in any way disparaging to the integrity, character, honesty of either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton was wrong and I condemn it. I will take responsibility and I apologize for it. I did not know about these remarks but I take responsibility for them. I repudiate them. My entire campaign I have treated Senator Obama and Senator Clinton with respect. I will continue to do that throughout this campaign. I want to dissociate myself with any disparaging remarks that may have been said about them."

McCain went on to describe both Obama and Clinton as "honorable Americans." And in response to a question about whether it was ever appropriate to exploit the fact that Obama's middle name is "Hussein" McCain answered -- "No, it is not. Any comment that is disparaging of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is totally inappropriate."

As political apologies go this one was very good -- it was not only immediate but very specific with respect to his decision to accept full responsibility for Cunningham's comment. Peppering his apology by complimenting his opponents as "honorable Americans" will not only resolve what could have been a potentially harmful public relations crisis, but will paint McCain in a very positive light and turn a potential PR disaster into a push to his campaign.

Demanding Apologies

(Part II of 2 -- from our previous post of February 24th)

Recently, Iran demanded an apology from the US and other western powers in light of a recently released report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that confirmed Iran's compliance with the non-proliferation treaty. The government of Oran not only demanded an apology but compensation for the years of economic sanctions imposed on the country because of the strong suspicion that they were processing weapons grade uranium. What is particularly surprising is that a few officials in Tehran are actually expecting a response. Ironically, the initial reports that began to raise serious questions about Iran's nuclear program (and the government's failure to comply with the NPT inspections regime) were produced by the IAEA -- the UN's proliferation and disarmament watchdog. Ironically, the first intelligence report indicating that Iran's program was not as advanced or threatening as initially believed (and may even have been halted) was American produced by the US National Intelligence Estimate office -- the IAEA's latest report was based on the NIE's findings. If anything, Iran should be thanking Washington and the CIA for producing a report that will lower the chances of the international community imposing sanctions. As far as Iran's apology demands go they will probably be waiting for quite a long time. After all, they are responsible for failing to comply with IAEA mandated inspections and created the crisis in the first place. Ironically, critics of American intelligence estimates prior to the Iraq invasion are now more than willing to accept as absolutely accurate the latest US intelligence estimates that paint Iran as less of a threat. Why the sudden respect for and confidence in US intelligence?

And actor Will Smith demanded and received an apology from the World Entertainment News Ltd (WENN) for a December article claiming that Smith said Hitler "was a good person". The problem was that Smith never uttered those words, so WENN was forced not only to issue an apology but to formally deliver it to London's high court. The company also agreed to pay "unspecified damages", which Smith has promised to donate to charity.

Politicians, Apologies, and PA Scores

With all the spin-doctors and PR professionals our politicians have at their disposal, we are continually surprised by the poor quality of their apologies. A quick look at what some of them have said, what they did wrong, how they apologized (in their words), followed by our ranking.

1. John McCain (Republican Presidential Candidate) -- "Never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today." McCain was referring to how easy it was to walk freely around Baghdad on a visit to the war torn city, until pictures of him in full combat gear and completely surrounded by dozens of special and regular units of the US armed forces appeared in the media.

McCain's Apology -- "Of course I am going to misspeak and I've done it on numerous occasions and I probably will do it in the future."

PA's Apology Score -- 0/10

2. George Allen (US Senator who was running for Re-Election) -- "This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent. He's following us everywhere... Let's give a welcome to macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."

Allen's Apology -- "I would never want to demean him as an individual. I do apologize if he's offended by that. That was no way the point."

PA's Apology Score -- 0/10

3. Senator Joseph Biden (Senator and 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidate) -- "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Biden's Apology -- "I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent and I expressed that to Senator Obama."

PA's Apology Score -- 4/10

4. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- apologizing for mistakes related to the apprehension and transfer of Canadian engineer, Maher Arar, to Syria to face imprisonment and torture for suspected ties to terrorism.

Rice’s Apology -- "We do absolutely not wish to transfer anyone to any place in which they might be tortured. We do not think that this case was handled as it should have been.…I think we and the Canadians do not have exactly the same understanding of what is possible in the future for Arar in terms of travel and the like. But we have told the Canadian government that we do not think that this was handled particularly well in terms of our own relationship and that we will try to do better in the future."

PA’s Apology Score -- 1/10


Former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney -- "I took compensation from Mr. Schreiber for serious work done on his behalf around the world. I was paid ($275,000 in cash) to execute this mandate." The money was subsequently deposited in two safety deposit boxes in Montreal and New York, presumably to avoid paying taxes.

Mulroney's Apology -- "The truth is that I should have declined the offer. I should have insisted the payment in a more transparent or accountable manner. By not doing so I inadvertently created an impression of impropriety that I hope will not reflect adversely on the high office I was privileged to hold. When I look back on it today I realize I made a serious error of judgment in receiving a payment in cash for this assignment even though it was decidedly not illegal to do so. That mistake in judgment was mine alone. I apologize and I accept full responsibility for it."

PA's Apology Score -- 6/10

Australia's Apology to the "Stolen Generations"

When Australia's new legislature convenes on Wednesday, February 13, the first item on government's agenda will be for the Indigenous Affairs Minister, Jenny Macklin, to issue a formal public apology aimed at the "Stolen Generations" -- aboriginal children who, from 1915 and 1969, were forcibly taken from their parents to be placed in institutions or raised by white families. The concept of restorative justice embedded in the recommendation that the Australian government apologize to its indigenous population deserves serious consideration -- for the same reason similar recommendations make sense in the US for apologies to American Indians and African Americans. The most significant barrier to issuing these apologies is the mistaken assumption that once issued tens of thousand of legal cases will be launched by lawyers searching for compensation for their clients. This fear is unwarranted, for many of the reasons outlined in www.perfectapology.com. Governments should seriously consider taking the lead from medical apologies and the full disclosure movement sweeping medical and malpractice litigation. The political benefits will far outweigh any costs (real or imagined).