In defending himself against charges that he wrote derogatory comments about Ukrainians, Michael Ignatieff says the phrases used were "cited in isolation and out of context." He went on to invite people to read the entire chapter of his 1993 book Blood and Belonging. Anyone who does so "will quickly recognize that my sole purpose was to rebut, not assert, the odious stereotype of Ukrainians that has been wrongly and unfairly attributed to me."

Well, we did read the whole thing. Yes, it can be said that some of the comments cited were offered as some rhetorical exercise in which Ignatieff talks about the various prejudices he has regarding Ukrainians, from his background as the grandson and great grandson of rich Russian landowners in Ukraine who served the government of Tsarist Russia. But he never gets around to rebutting them. Instead they're allowed to stand unchallenged. He never really gets to understand the concept of Ukrainian nationhood, let alone Ukrainian nationalism, the subject of his exploration. His conclusion:

"Everyone alive has known only the Soviet way of life. Behind them lies only the nostalgic paradise of pre-revolutionary Ukraine� There is a devastating innocence in nationalists' faith in independence. Freedom itself is never the end of the road -- only the beginning."

Throughout the chapter Ignatieff displays an aristocrat's arrogance and pompousness. Particularly illuminating is a passage in which he returns to his grandfather's ancestral estate and wallows in the admiration of the peasants-turned collective farmers.

But really, the question of what Ignatieff wrote in 1993 is overshadowed by the way in which he was anointed in 2005. If the Liberal hierarchy in Ontario really wanted to appoint Ignatieff as their candidate, then they should have had the moral decency to use the prime minister's prerogative to appoint a "star" candidate, instead of going through the farcical process of pretending there was a democratic nomination process. Even if they had gone through the prime ministerial appointment process, it still would be grossly unfair. Why should some "star" Harvard professor, who has lived outside the country for the last 30 years, be anointed over some grassroots party activists who have done the work in the trenches?

Apologists may argue that those are the party rules, that's the way you have to get some quality candidates in and that's one way to ensure representation for minorities (in other cases). And at any rate, you can always vote against him in the election, if you don't like him.

That's not much of an answer. A Liberal nomination in Toronto is as sure a step to victory as is a Conservative nomination in Calgary. It is precisely for this reason, that the nomination process should be fair and open to all. Apologists for our antiquated and grossly unrepresentative first-past-the-post system argue that, unlike proportional representation where parties determine the candidate list, this allows local people to pick who represents them. And that's supposed to justify a syetem in which a separatist party running candidates in only one province can get 17.5 per cent of the seats with only 12.4 per cent of the vote, while a social democratic party which gets 15.7 per cent of the vote only gets 6.2 per cent of the seats, and an environmental party which has 4.3 per cent of the vote is locked out altogether.

Nevertheless, the only option now left for those people who feel disgusted with the whole process involved in the coronation of Grand Duke Mikhail, is to defeat him at the polls. The candidate in the best position to beat Ignatieff is Conservative John Copobianco who got 30.57 per cent of the vote to Jean Augustine's 50.29 and the NDP candidate's 14.48. Copobianco also has good ties with the Ukrainian community. However, we're sure Ignatieff's views on Iraq and torture will drive a lot of left leaning Liberals to the open arms of the NDP. So vote Copobianco if you really want to give Ignatieff and the Liberal hierarchy that anointed him a lesson in democracy. If you can't bring yourself to vote Conservative, then, by all means vote NDP. But make sure that both Ignatieff and the Ontario Liberal hierarchy get the lesson they deserve.