Of What Meaning, Canadian?

There’s a new guide for new Canadians, Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship.  It’s a change from the document that used to be handed out.  It’s more demanding, and, arguably, more political.

The 62-page guidebook, years in the making, replaces the “anemic, slim, stripped-down” version crafted by the Liberals in 1997 with a “more substantial treatment of Canadian history and civics,” said Rudyard Griffiths, co-founder of the Dominion Institute and among those consulted in the creation of the document.

Having not read the document, I cannot comment on the contents.  However, I fully support the principle.  It is demeaning to assume that new citizens can’t be expected to digest a robust document.  It is unfair to fail to provide them with an exhaustive account of the history and nature of Canada.  A document that demonstrates a healthy respect for the individual and the nation is the best tool we can offer our new Canadians as they build their lives in Canada.

Nonetheless, there is great room for impropriety in this document.  As a supporter of relatively open immigration (and fully supporting being open to refugees), but an opponent of institutionalized multiculturalism and grotesque patriotism (that which borders on, or becomes, nationalism), I am, naturally, concerned that this sort of document will be used to enforce a particular vision of Canada.

Any document we give to immigrants must outline what it has meant to be Canadian, but it could be awfully difficult to outline what it means to be Canadian.  What we need to teach new Canadians is that in liberal society, the individual is paramount; the individual is more important than the nation, than parliament, than the collective, than any particular ethnic group – the individual is more important than any concept or group that looks to subvert one’s personal autonomy.

But still we are left with the question, of what significance is it to be Canadian?  What is the essence of ‘Canadianism’?  Do we look to our founding, to the British North America Act, the last spike, D’Arcy McGee and the like?  Does it take into account the fur trade, the National Policy or the Quiet Revolution?  Does it reflect our newest ‘traditional’ values and institutions: universal health care, ‘peacekeeping’, or a charter that is younger than I?

Geez, is it now based in pop culture?  Does being Canadian mean Tim Hortons, Alexander Keith’s and This Hour Has 22 Minutes?

I submit that we are a nation without a sufficient identity.  Perversely, I think it is our pre-occupation with having, or obtaining, an identity that fosters this deficiency.  The roots of Canada – the societies of Britain and France, the aboriginals – are worth cherishing.  The incarnation and growth of this nation in the context of our southern neighbour, rather than in contrast to her, warrants pride.  The accomplishments of this young nation, so many of which achieved free from anxiety about a ‘national identity’, should have been enough to sustain us.

Is it our collective neurosis that defines us?  Is that the insight that we owe new Canadians?

Poppies! Poppies! Poppies!

I see fewer people wearing poppies these days. Just an observation.

I still wear mine:

Are Liberals suffering from a millstone named Quebec?

It’s debatable I think. The main comparison I’d make is that Liberal fortune is so dependent upon the good graces of Quebec and the Conservatives are not. Liberals can’t obtain a majority government without Quebec and that’s mostly because they don’t have The West, whereas the Conservatives can technically obtain a majority without Quebec, even if that’s unlikely by virtue that they DO have The West by and large.

On Steve Janke’s blog post about Michael Ignatieff firing his Chief of Staff, Soccermom made a comment that got me to thinking about this:

Any Quebecker who becomes Liberal leader in the next couple of years will get laughed out of the West.

Now, while most Liberal leaders recognize the importance of wooing Western votes (even if unsuccessfully), doing so earns them the scorn of too many Quebeckers for them to put a serious effort into it lest they lose their support. This is mostly because many (not all) Quebeckers view themselves above and apart from Canada, especially those western places.

Now don’t get me wrong. I love Quebec, it’s culture and it’s people, I just wish that they’d come down from their cross sometime and accept that they are fully a part of Canada and not above or separate from it.

So Liberal leaders become hamstrung from “including the west” too vigorously and end up simply speaking hollow words to Westerners (which comes across as patronizing, and rightfully so because it is) which further wides the rift between the East and West. As a result, in order to achieve their majority governments, Liberals dig themselves deeper into the graces of Quebec by lavishing praise, concessions and money on them. Again, this practice is abhorrent to other Canadians, and especially to the Westerners who don’t hate Quebec but just want the special treatment to end and achieve equality.

Unfortunately, until Quebec officially signs onto the Constitution, this divide will continue to exist and fluctuate. And why should they? They get so much more with really no consequences. Again, this isn’t personal, it’s politics.

Now, the only way I see this changing is if the Conservatives are able to secure a Majority Government without having to be obliged to Quebec for it. Technically, it’s possible; it’s just REALLY unlikely.

If Quebec suddenly becomes not so important to the ever important majority it could spur one of two things, and this is the risk that politicians aren’t willing to take:

1) Quebec becomes aware that it needs Canada

If Conservatives were able to achieve that majority without needing Quebec, it may send the message that the time of blackmail is over for Quebec, at least for the next 4 years. It would no longer have the numerical leverage it has used to hold the rest of the country hostage. This might jolt them into conceding that unless they join the Confederation as an equal partner, they could be handed only what the rest of the country deigns to give them.

2) Quebec fears being ostracized and separates

This is the greatest fear of politicians. We know that practically, Quebec as a sovereign nation would ultimately fail without massive provisions and support by Canada or the United States. The problem is that Quebec would still have to give up part of their absolute sovereignty in order to do that. They want all the benefits without any of the consequences. Our currency, our Passports, our National Defense Organizations, our inter-provincial trade agreements etc. etc. But if they feel that becoming subject to Canada is a worse fate than trying to go it on their own, Separatism could well rise up in sufficient numbers to make it happen.

Legally.

And so, in order to avoid this disastrous event for Liberal fortunes, they continue to bribe Quebec into staying like some fair-weather spouse whom they can’t bear to leave, but can’t afford to keep indefinitely.

Is Obama About To Sell Out US Sovereignty?

A friend forwarded this video onto me today and it’s worth a viewing folks!

Some notes that I have…

1)Yes, the US Congress would have to ratify any treaty that US President Obama enters into; historians recall Woodrow Wilson’s messy attempt at starting the infamous League of Nations, in which the then-President came back to the States and find that Congress wouldn’t allow the US to join it!

2)No, the treaty isn’t much different from other institutions and treaties the US entered, be it the UN, NATO or NAFTA. The difference, if Lord Monckton is to be believed is that the treaty is specifically designed in order to lock the US into it, which could quite well be a reaction to former President Bush’s removal of the US from previous agreements Bill Clinton set up.

3)Finally, while the US is the focus of this video, shouldn’t we be having more discussion about this treaty and what it means for Canada? On this note, it looks like all of our politicians are failing us by not looking out for our great nation!

---

Matthew Campbell runs Election Target, a free, interactive election prediction website located at www.electiontarget.com.

What about Parliamentary Supremacy?

The only reason any Westminster system requires the services of a “supreme court” is to satisfy the condition of Locke’s separation of powers doctrine that there be a “Federative” branch of government to adjudicate disputes between different levels of government. With news today that HM The Queen has formally opened The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, devolution, at least, as taken a significant next step toward a respectable form of federalism.

Unfortunately, The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, like The Supreme Court of Canada, is now a court with the insidious pretence that its justices are not political actors, be they now the wiser appointed and benign overlords of all the realm. As the website of the court now, boldly, proclaims:

Courts are the final arbiter between the citizen and the state, and are therefore a fundamental pillar of the constitution.

The Supreme Court has been established to achieve a complete separation between the United Kingdom’s senior Judges and the Upper House of Parliament, emphasising the independence of the Law Lords and increasing the transparency between Parliament and the courts.

In August 2009 the Justices moved out of the House of Lords (where they sat as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords) into their own building on the opposite side of Parliament Square. They will sit for the first time as a Supreme Court in October 2009.

The impact of Supreme Court decisions will extend far beyond the parties involved in any given case, shaping our society, and directly affecting our everyday lives.

For instance, in their previous role as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the Justices gave landmark rulings on the legality of the Hunting Act 2004 under European law, and whether or not a schoolgirl could be prevented from wearing traditional cultural dress.

Since Magna Carta, the High Court of Parliament, as it were, has been—and let us hope it remains—the final arbiter between the “citizen” and the state. Consider that a “citizen” is a “citizen” explicitly because he is the “subject” of a State. And “subjects,” being subjects of limited means in comparison to the state, can readily be subjected to the injustices, intentional or not, of that state.

What The United Kingdom has lost is far greater than any advance for federalism would have warranted. It has lost the explicit recognition—at the very top, anyway—that adjudicating the law is always part and parcel of legislating the law.

It was for this reason that John Locke held the Legislative branch of government to be supreme over all others. What we call Parliament was a necessary public conversation between the Executive and those who write the law as well as interpret the law. Take one aspect out of the mix and you will get power run amuck; so much for the balancing act that a separation of powers doctrine is meant to provide.

But, anymore, few learned men consider reading Locke a worthy endeavour. For whatever reason—maybe the American revolution and the cultural dominance of The United States—Montesquieu’s formulation of Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government wins wider popular recognition; those who understand the consequences of putting his formulation into practice a much smaller constituency.

It was to temper “legislating from the bench” that, for centuries, by the Law Lords sitting in the Upper Chamber of Parliament, the justice system of The United Kingdom tipped its hat toward Parliament. Being part of Parliament, the fact that the decisions of the Law Lords carried political consequence, that the adjudication of justice can, indeed, be effected by the idiosyncratic disposition and perspective of the adjudicators was lost on no one. The final court of appeal avoided even the appearance of being oracular.

New Labour seems to prefer change for the sake of change, especially when trying to win respectability for its love of big government. This is certainly not the first time it has looked across the pond and adopted the worst, the intellectually laziest, that Canada has to offer; be it the incoherent cult of “multiculturalism,” or, now, the larger, the more significant evolutions of our own constitutional history.

World Class Athlete on Suicide Watch: A Nation’s Shame

This makes me want to cry.

Caster Semenya, the South African runner at the centre of a gender dispute, has been placed on suicide watch, according to a report in the Star newspaper in South Africa.

She doesn’t deserve what happened to her, especially in light of this:

[Athletics South Africa president Leonard] Chuene said that despite medical advice and a request from the IAAF, he refused to withdraw Semenya from the race because there were no results yet from the tests.

Ignore the pleas from Athletics South Africa.  It might be true that they did not know that Semenya was a hermaphrodite, but they knew something was up.  Unless they are monumentally stupid, they knew something was up.  The IAAF doesn’t ask you, for no good reason, to withdraw an athlete whose gender is in dispute.  Mr. Cheune (and anyone else in the ASA involved in this) just didn’t care.  They didn’t care about this woman, and they didn’t care what they might do to her.*  They wanted their gold.  What’s a woman’s life weighed against the national pride of winning gold.

Even now they suggest that Semenya may still get to keep her medal, because she wasn’t trying to fool anyone.  Even now, they’re worried about that blasted medal.

This woman’s life might be effectively over, but that’s okay; the national pride of a gold medal will live on forever.

*Knowing the nature of the internet, I know that there will be people who want to pounce and start objecting to the use of the word ‘woman’.  Ms. Semenya spent her life as a woman.  She competed as a woman.  Dare I say it, she was used as women have been for many many years: for the glory of men.  She deserves that designation.  She deserves that compassion.

Possible honour killings in Kingston

The media are finally beginning to acknowledge the presence of an extra large, grey, four-legged creature with massive ears, a short tail and a hose-like nose in the room.  We’re even beginning to hear/read its common English name, albeit in quotations and/or preceded with the “so-called” adjective lest anyone dare to do something so un-Canadian as to make a judgment based on objective facts.  Yes, dear Canadians, the Kingston massacre is a so-called “elephant.”

It’s about as good as one might expect in The Multicultural Utopia, as Mark Steyn puts it, where the most grievous evil is to rationalize a significant problem with a particular patch or thread in the great multicultural fabric known as Canada.  Suggesting that the values of another culture have no place in Canada is worse than calling the premeditated murder of four Muslim women by their very own family for their “disgusting lifestyles” in Canada an honour killing.

As to why this is the case, we have Kingston Police Chief Stephen Tanner:

“In our Canadian society, we value the cultural values of everyone who makes up this great country,” Tanner said. “These individuals (the dead women) had the freedom and rights of expression of all Canadians. Whether that was a part of a motive within the family based on one of the girls or more of the girls behaviour is open to speculation.” (Emphasis added.)

To which I offer, No, sir, Canadians do not and should not value the cultural values of everyone who makes up this great nation.

Canadians categorically reject the cultural values that underpin this massacre of innocent Muslim women.  Canadians reject the principles of shari’a law.  Canadians denounce Islamic rule.  Canadians abhor misogyny.  Canadians flatly and emphatically reject shari’a's provisions for justifiable killing.  Canadians reject the cultural value of honour killing, which is prevalent in Muslim cultures because it is arguably justifiable within Islam.

Does this mean we reject all Muslims?  Certainly not.  But Muslims who insist on exercising their rights under shari’a or living by that law??–Yes, we reject you because we reject that aspect of your culture.  Shari’a is illegitimate in this land.  It has no place here.  If you want to continue on that path then kindly get out and make your home in a place where shari’a is in full swing or be prepared to face our rule of law.

To be clear, Canadians value cultural values that do not usurp our rule of law.  The values of other cultures that reflect the spirit and principle of our values and laws, we accept and are glad to include.  Those that do not, we reject.  Immigrants who make their home here have a choice: leave their anti-Canadian cultural values behind and assume our values or face the Canadian rule of law, which is based on Canadian values.  To paraphrase Charles Napier, you build your funeral pyres and we’ll build a gallows.  In this case, you kill your daughters to preserve some sort of religious honour and we’ll lock you in prison for what bleeding-heart liberals consider a lifetime.  I prefer a gallows myself but that’s beside the point.

There is no such thing as an innocuous value.  Imported cultural values are either strengthening or weakening Canadian values.  We dare not include them all. It is ours to judge, and judge we must.  We are all-inclusive (read non-judgmental, tolerant, uncritical) to our own peril.  There can be no middle ground as it relates to shari’a and honour killings or the like.

It’s time Canadians and the media start saying so.  It’s time to clearly define what is and is not Canadian.  It is time for the demarcation of a Canadian identity.

Conservative Messaging II: Are we taking control?

Back in February I spoke about Conservatives taking control of their own message. Today, Joanne over at Blue Like You touched on a similar topic in method, which I have found further supported not to long ago at Sandy’s blog Crux of the Matter (and I personally love the list she has put together, please go look).

In regards to Joanne’s post, I have to agree that it is imperative that Conservatives focus less on the accusations and more on the touting. However I also believe that both have their place in today’s messaging. Specifically, I think there is a balance to be had in proclaiming our accomplishments while also indicating what would have been the result if the Opposition had their way.

The “crux of the matter” is that we have to take firm control of our message and get it out there by reminding voters of our accomplishments. Voters need to know what we as Conservatives have been able to accomplish against the staggering odds we’ve faced in the House of Commons. Between parties that will blindly vote against anything we bring forward (NDP), parties who refuse to consider anything that doesn’t somehow benefit Quebec more than anything else (BLOQ), and parties who don’t stand for anything but want to pretend to be the “big dog” (Liberals), it’s a wonder that anything was able to get done.

In fact, I think we owe the Liberals a thanks for not standing for anything these past few years. But I also think that Ignatieff’s position about not wanting to present any policies out of fear that the Conservatives might “use them” has earned them a severe spanking by the Canadian people. It’s their JOB to present reasonable alternative policies, and by not doing their job they are doing a massive disservice to this country.

All that aside, Conservatives should be using this summer to remind Canadians about just how much we’ve done for the country dispite the odds. Now is the opportunity for us to take advantage of “good news” stories and show how past actions have made us a safer and more prosperous nation.

Happy Dominion Day!

From our family to yours, we trust you and yours have a safe and enjoyable July 1.

For the men and women of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan and other corners of the planet, who wear the flag with pride, we trust you have an excellent day as well. May this day be one marked by peace even in the midst of conflict. God bless you and speed your return to your families today.

And may God bless this glorious nation, Canada! May she be forever strong and increasingly free.

Update 4:51 PM AST: A Vice-President of the Canadian Arab Federation, Omar Shaban, offers his view. (Hat tip to Kate, and an excellent catch by Tarek Fatah.)

F**k Canada Day

All I have to say is there are probably 100 flights per day leaving this country, Mr. Shaban.  Feel free to hop on any one of them at your earliest convenience and never return.  You might live here but you are not one of us.  The sooner you and others like you leave, the better.

Candy-Coating The Soviet Union’s Crimes Against Religious Freedom

If there existed a theory out there which stated that the re-construction of history begins roughly 20 years after a period ends, than it would not come to a surprise to this author. In true form, what we knew about the Soviet Union, a corrupt, ineffective and morally deficient empire from the 20th century is now being challenged by atheists who don’t like the clear association it draws to their movement as being the only successful political establishment in history to aggressively promote atheism as a founding tenet of it’s society.

Enter Greg Fish, an alleged immigrant from the former Soviet Union, atheist and blogger, who suggests that the communist state’s policy on religion was far more permissive than we’ve been led to believe over the past few generations. It was a state, so Fish argues, that allowed you to have your religion so long as you kept it to yourself and if you accept a state-imposed glass ceiling because of your faith. I’m certainly welcoming Mr. Fish’s entitlement to enter the debate as a first-hand witness however, like all first-hand witnesses arguing from the negative, I would certainly hope he realizes that his own experience as a comfortable conformer to the state religion of his former home is rather limited in scope and cannot be counted upon to give the full picture of what it was like to live as a Soviet Christian, Jew, or Muslim. We’ve got some very good documentation largely from other survivors, who refute Fish’s claim (see here, here and even here).

In his attempt to make the Soviet Union appear a lot kinder than it really was, Fish takes after his atheist colleagues in North America in betraying his real feelings on religion: while they might not necessarily condone violence against the faithful (although some do quite openly), they see nothing wrong with following the Soviet style oppression tactics of shutting believers out of opportunities and in attempting to brainwash any youth that come into their custody through government-controlled education. This, of course, is problematic on two counts. First, it is inconsistent with the historical heritage of both the US and Canada which recognize the freedom or religion not just as a private preference but even as an all-encompassing way of life. For an atheist to try to redefine freedom of religion into an artificial construct which only allows for private devotion shows the arrogant and tyrannical nature of today’s militant atheists who simply like to rewrite the rules when they don’t like them. Secondly, it is inconsistent with the nature of every other foundational right which we currently accept today (although, in fairness, many liberal atheists want to restrict these too); we allow freedom of expression in public and without limit, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and so on. Atheists have a great deal of explaining to do as to why religion needs to be artificially restrained using something more than personal angst and opinion.

History is an important tool for those who look to use it to guide our society into tomorrow, however it is also capable of being twisted into a tool of oppression if used with the wrong intentions. The end game of atheists looking to paint the Soviet Union’s treatment of political dissidents in a kinder light will only mean that they hope to one day emulate the practice here in North America one day. Now is the time for scrutiny if we wish to spare ourselves the doom of repeating the Soviet mistake.

« Previous Page — Next Page »