News spread quickly around conservative circles yesterday that Gerry Nicholls had been fired by the National Citizens' Coalition after 22 years of service:
Gerry's decided that he wants to move on to do different things," said Peter Coleman, the organization's president, who will take over many of Mr. Nicholls's communications tasks. But Mr. Nicholls, who was at the NCC for 22 years, takes a different view. "They fired me. I didn't decide to leave and go on to something else. If I did, I would have a job right now," he said.
He would not divulge the reasons given for his termination, saying he was concerned about jeopardizing future legal claims he may have against his former employer.
Curious gap in the two sides' stories here, isn't there? I have known Gerry since I was a student at Queen's and can say without a doubt that he would never leave the NCC on his volition and even if he did, he would not lie about it. I communicated with him yesterday and he was devastated.
So the question is: why was he fired? Was it because he criticized Harper? I don't know, and Gerry won't talk about it.
What I do know is that if it indeed was due to Gerry's recent comments, it would be a sad day for conservatism in Canada. It is imperative that the conservative movement and the Conservative party be two distinct entities. The movement's job is to hold the party to account and to pressure it to act conservatively. That's what Gerry did and should do.
As news of this story broke I was reminded of an article written by Tom Flanagan a couple of years ago about the need for Canadian conservative thinkers and the party to develop a more "mature relationship." I somehow don't think this is what he meant by that.
