Ratatouille #4

In my recent Ratatouille #3, I remarked that Canada is brimming over with screwups, offering as an example the "little booboo" that has invalidated the birth certificates of a quarter of the nation's population. As my narrative proceeded merrily -- and recklessly -- along, I threw in unflattering mentions of the Toronto Dominion Bank, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, the Office of Consumer Affairs at Industry Canada, the Toronto Police Fraud and Forgery Squad, a Toronto City Councillor, a Toronto lawyer, the Law Society of Upper Canada, and the Toronto YMCA.

The very next postal delivery to my Toronto address brought an item from the government.

It is now abundantly clear that these people have had their eyes on me for quite some time. And evidently one of them, on seeing my piece, decided it was time to teach me that not everything in Canada is screwed up. Some things in Canada work quite efficiently.

The item in my mail contains three photographs showing my car being driven at a Toronto intersection. A traffic light is also shown, indicating a (possibly doctored) red setting. The "Red Light Camera System Offence Notice" alleges a traffic infraction, and supplements the rebuke with a punitive charge of $190.

Isn't it apt? I am accused of "failing to stop," in defiance of the authories' commands.

Ratatouille #3 was propagated to the world wide web on Saturday. The red-light robot smackdown came Monday morning.

Coincidence? Don't make me laugh.

Of course, my traffic "offense" took place weeks ago, on March 6. The government's ability to react instantly suggests they have many thousands of photos of me on file, ready for mounting into lord knows what kind of denunciations whenever it suits them.

If Canada's response to Ratatouille #3 was swift, the New York Times's was even swifter. My piece had mentioned Ian McEwan, a novelist whom I first discovered a week ago when I happened upon his 2003 work, Atonement, at a local bookstore. The very next day's edition of the Times devoted page 1 of its book review section to McEwan, with a review of a new novel he has just published.

This is all rather mystifying, and I grant it's a bit weird, but ... would you care to guess what the new novel's name is?

That's right. Saturday -- the day Ratatouille #3 appeared.

And there are even more tangible connections between Ian McEwan and myself. Ratatouille #3 had mentioned my problem with ambiguous government rules, right? Well, McEwan also had a problem with ambiguous government rules:

McEwan, winner of the Booker Prize in Great Britain and the National Book Critics Circle Award in America, was prevented from boarding a plane for Seattle at the Vancouver International Airport on Monday by American immigration officials. The airport hassle over his visa took more than 24 hours to resolve and involved government officials on both coasts.

McEwan arrived in Seattle only an hour before his scheduled appearance before 2,400 people in Benaroya Hall for an event sponsored by Seattle Arts & Lectures, the city's most important literary organization.

McEwan's evening speech included a few joking asides about what had happened to him, but the author of the best-selling "Atonement" worried yesterday that he will encounter similar difficulties any time he comes to America because his passport now includes a stamp that says he was refused entrance to the United States. McEwan's immediate visa problem was resolved, but the stamp remains, along with the likelihood of future questioning any time he returns....

The refusal to admit the author to the United States was largely based on a low-ranking immigration official's decision that the thousands of dollars McEwan was earning for speeches in Seattle, Portland and Pasadena, Calif., exceeded what might considered an "honorarium," which is permitted to foreign artists traveling in America.

Margit Rankin, executive director of Seattle Arts & Lectures, said yesterday, "Our concern is that, if we have to go through some expensive legal process to get prominent writers into this country, then it might be prohibitive for small, non-profit arts organizations like ours.

"And another concern is that other international artists might not be willing to go through this kind of thing. This has never happened before in our 16 years of presenting authors, so it's unclear to us if this could have been avoided if McEwan had gone through a different port of entry or had a different official questioning him. We have sponsored such international writers in recent years as Zadie Smith, J.M. Coetzee and Seamus Heaney, so we need to get this clarified."

Bent Renison is the Portland immigration attorney who was most involved in resolving McEwan's predicament, at the behest of Seattle Arts & Lectures and Portland Arts & Lectures. Renison doubts that any such clarification will be forthcoming.

The problem, he said yesterday, is that the federal law allowing "honoraria" to visiting foreign artists for appearances before educational and non-profit groups was enacted in 1998. Yet there have never been any regulations issued by Washington, D.C., that set out how the federal law is to be administered by field officers of immigration or Homeland Security.

"Ian McEwan's problem is one that I see time and again," Renison said. "Washington, D.C., has simply not given sufficient guidance to those in the field, which leaves field officers uncomfortable, without guidance and with broad discretion. McEwan was eligible to receive honoraria, but I do not fault the people in the field who denied him entrance since this is a recurring problem."

The offices of Reps. Jim McDermott and Rep. Rick Larson, both D-Wash., were also involved in resolving McEwan's predicament. Similar border situations are handled daily by their offices, although seldom with such a famous name attached.

As McDermott said yesterday, "What happened to Ian McEwan illustrates the inconsistencies in the process to enter this country, and this happens more often than most people think.

"The only reason that we are even aware of this incident is because Mr. McEwan is famous."

[Author's problems at U.S. border may signal things to come, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, April 2, 2004.]

Not only are the great writer and I both victims of government ambiguity. In a further manifestation of our personal connection, McEwan, a resident of London, is coming to my town, Toronto, in 2 weeks!

There's still more.

My piece had mentioned I was then halfway through McEwan's Amsterdam. Well, I had no way to know it at that point, but one of the themes of the novel, and the reason for its title, are closely connected to what seemed at the time a wholly separate topic of Ratatouille #3 -- the Terri Schiavo case.

On that matter too, there have been developments in the short time since Ratatouille #3's Saturday appearance:

For days, President Bush kept his public distance from the Terri Schiavo case and let his spokesman deliver mild statements suggesting that the president did not want Ms. Schiavo, who has severe brain damage, to die. But on Saturday night, when Mr. Bush made the rare decision to interrupt his Texas vacation and rush back to Washington to be in place to sign a bill that could restore Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube, the White House said that the issue had become one of "defending life," and that time was of the essence.

White House officials acknowledged that the final bill could have been flown to Mr. Bush in Texas, a round trip of six or seven hours that probably would have made no difference in whether Ms. Schiavo lives. Doctors say she can survive for up to two weeks without the liquid meals that have sustained her for 15 years.

"That would have been acceptable," said Richard Cizik, the vice president for government affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, referring to Mr. Bush signing the bill at his ranch. "But this president seizes opportunities when they come his way. That's what makes him a good politician."

Mr. Bush lifted off in his Marine One helicopter from his 1,600-acre ranch in Crawford under warm, sunny skies shortly before noon on Sunday. Minutes later he landed in nearby Waco, where he boarded Air Force One wearing a suit and a tie. His manner was crisp and businesslike, and he did not smile as he usually does at onlookers and the small group of reporters who accompany him.

It was the first time this president had interrupted a vacation to return to Washington.

White House officials insisted that politics played no part in the president's decision, even though Republican senators were provided with talking points, apparently by Republican aides, that characterized the Schiavo case as "a great political issue" that resonates with Christian conservatives. Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said that Mr. Bush's only motivation was to act with speed and to give Ms. Schiavo's parents, who are battling Ms. Schiavo's husband to have the feeding tube restored, another chance to save their daughter. The bill would allow the parents to take the issue to federal court for a hearing.

"Time is important," Mr. McClellan told reporters on Air Force One. "The feeding tube was removed on Friday, and I think hours do matter at this point."

Mr. McClellan said the president made the decision about 6 p.m. on Saturday to return to Washington to sign the bill, after he talked with Joe Hagin, the deputy White House chief of staff, who is staying with him at the ranch.

[Edited excerpt from "Supporters Praise Bush's Swift Return to Washington," New York Times, March 21, 2005.]

In case some inept reader has missed the point that political considerations might possibly be playing a part in all of this, the article reinforces the message with reportage on what the White House press secretary didn't say:

Mr. McClellan gave no indication that Mr. Bush had talked to Karl Rove, his powerful political adviser, who is the chief White House link to conservative groups. Mr. Rove was in Austin over the weekend, Mr. McClellan said.

I don't think I have anything to add to the Times report. Having tangled with Canada's traffic law enforcement robot, I don't want to know what the Americans have got up their sleeves.

Related: Meeting Ian McEwan