Canadian Diversity and Right Wing Hate of Justin Trudeau

Yes, Justin Trudeau is a mediocre Prime Minister, but that is not why the right hates him. Nor is it because of carbon taxes or provincial vaccine mandates or lockdowns. It is because of perhaps the one thing he has excelled at and that is promoting Canadian diversity.

There are those that claim that Canada has no culture and others that claim that Canadian culture is a white European culture and anyone who was here before or came after the colonizers needs to adapt to that culture. But the truth is Canadian culture is a culture of diversity starting before anyone lived on this land and enhanced by everyone who came after.

Canadian diversity starts with it’s geography. We are a geographically diverse country (from sea to sea to sea to American border) and that is reflected in the diversity of our first peoples, from the peoples of the north, to the coastal peoples, the peoples of the prairies and the boreal forest and so on. All of these peoples had their own social systems and systems of government, including legal systems based on healing and restorative justice that were, and still are, centuries ahead of the European colonizers.

Then came the colonizers and immigrants who added to the diversity of the country adding traditions, languages and religions from all over the world. But it is not only ethnic and religious diversity that make us the country we are. We also have a diversity of physical and mental abilities, including neurodivergent people, as well as peoples of different sexual orientations and gender identity, first recognized by Canada’s first people through the concept of two spirit people.

The Prime Minister has recognized that our diversity is our strength and that is one of the main reasons he has become the target of the hate of right wing extremists and white supremacists.

Postscript.

None of this is to deny Canada’s historical mistreatment of our indigenous peoples or it’s discriminatory treatment of newcomers or other vulnerable peoples. That is a whole treatise on it’s own. This is meant to be focused on Canadian ideals and how we move forward in the future.

How Should We Judge Historical Figures

Should historical figures be judged by the best things they have done or the worst. Should they be judged by the standards of today or of their time. Should some things like slavery or genocide be considered evil no matter when they may have occurred. These are legitimate questions to to ask and the answers likely differ according to the circumstances.

Let’s take two examples. One of someone who a few years before the American civil war publicly stated that:

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality ... I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. Source

And what of someone who freed the slaves, even if it just was to “save the union”.

And what if that was the same person. Should he be vilified or celebrated. History has already made a judgment on that question.

The second example is someone whose main claim to fame was to be the first leader of a new country, coincidentally during the same decade as the previous example, but whose administration was plagued by scandals and was responsible for implementing policies of genocide aimed at that country’s indigenous peoples. Celebration or shame ? History is just making that judgment now.

Why Does Canada Participate in the Olympics Anyway

I took this screenshot (CBC website) of the standings yesterday showing Germany in first place with 8 medals, Canada second with 10 medals and Norway in third place with 12 medals.

Yes, that's right, because only being the very best in the world (well best at that particular place at that particular time) counts, the rest are all losers, so it seems.

Why do we rate the Olympics that way. The way we rate Olympic success should relate to what we want to accomplish, and the way we rate Olympics can have far reaching effects on how we fund sports and recreation in this country. We have already seen, at least in the past, funding shifted from less popular sports to sports that we have a better chance of winning Olympic medals in.

But what if we measured Olympic success by a points system that included all top ten finishes (tenth best in the world is pretty damn good by most peoples standards) with 10 points for first and one point for tenth.

We would get a much better picture of the depth and breadth of our elite athletes than just counting those in the top three. It would even give us a better measure of how we are progressing towards more medals in the future. And we could start doing it now retroactively using the records of past Olympics.

But is that even the point. Is it really justified to spend all this money on a “pissing contest” to prove we (well actually our elite athletes) are better than the rest of the world. What public policy goal does that serve.

We can only justify spending all this money on the Olympics if it serves some public benefit beyond giving Canadian another excuse to spend more time watching TV (while waving the flag) for two weeks every two years.

We can only justify spending this money if it benefits Canadians beyond the elite athletes that participate. We have to be able to show that the funding benefits a broad range of Canadians by funding sports and recreation for more than just elite athletes and by actually encouraging more Canadians to get involved in sports and recreation. That way we will see results in fitter and healthier Canadians with more balanced lifestyles and even reduced health care costs.

We won't know that if we measure the wrong things. Ultimately what we want to be able to measure is whether Olympic programs increase the participation of Canadians in sport and recreation ultimately leading to more balanced lifestyles and improving their fitness and health.

Knowing that we had the greatest percentage of citizens participating in sports and recreational activities would make me a lot more prouder than knowing that a small group of elite Canadian athletes were the best in the world. Now that is a goal to strive for.

Ed Broadbent on Income Inequality

Economics 101: The Reality of Canadian Capitalism

In More Academic Terms

Realigning Canada's Political Spectrum

Canadians have traditionally held social democratic values while supporting centrist political parties. Canadians support universal single payer public health insurance, public pensions and a social safety net, all of which, at the federal level, have been proposed by leftist political parties but legislated by centrists political parties. These parties traditionally were the Liberal Party, slightly to the left of centre, and the Progressive Conservative Party, slightly to the right of centre.

The new extreme right wing federal Conservative Party of Stephen Harper (and Ontario PC Party of Harris and Hudak) are historical anomalies.

But the rise of the New Democratic Party in the recent election, and the rapid decline of the Liberal Party are signs that a change may be underway.

Some are suggesting a move to a two party left/right alignment with a merger of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties, but I do not see that happening.

What I see happening is a realignment closer to the traditional Canadian model.

I see the demise of the Liberal Party with it's right wing moving to the Conservatives and it's left wing moving to the New Democrats. I see the right wing Liberals joining with the former progressive wing of the Conservatives to move that party closer to it's former position slightly right of centre, while the New Democratic Party fills the position formerly held by the Liberals but somewhat further left of centre.

This would mean that the centre of Canadian politics would move to the left leading to more progressive future governments.

But I also see a further possibility of a New Democratic Party government bringing in proportional representation so that a true left wing party could emerge, with political representation equivalent to it's public support, along with a similar right wing party. The Greens would also get representation equivalent to their public support.

Their would be the potential for a more democratic system that made majority governments unlikely and co-operative (rather than confrontational) politics not only possible, but a necessity.

The NDP, The Quebec Question and 50% + 1

Much has been made of Jack Layton's "controversial" comments on a possible Quebec sovereignty referendum.

The fact is that it is a very rational and defensible position. Based on the closest precedent, the entry of Newfoundland into Confederation, Quebec has followed the same rules, keep on holding referendums hoping to get the result you want with 50% + 1 required for passage. After all, otherwise we have a minority deciding Quebec's constitutional status.

That position, however, has it's problems. Other constitutional precedents require greater than 50% + 1 to make constitutional changes. As well, if support is that close the results of a referendum can vary from day to day.

That is why I tend to support requiring something like 60% support for such changes in constitutional arrangements, to ensure that the new constitutional arrangement will have continuing support. However that position also has it's flaws because in the case of, for example, a clear and continuous 55% support for sovereignty, the minority that opposes the change in status would effectively decide the fate of Quebec.

That is why the real focus needs to be on maintaining strong support for federalism in Quebec, support that has just recently been very effectively expressed by the people of Quebec in choosing a federalist social democratic party over a sovereignist one. We need to work on building and strengthening a strong federalist consensus in Quebec.

This will not be done by "giving Quebec whatever it wants" but by giving Quebec respect and building a strong Canadian community. This starts with recognizing Quebec's nationhood and it's right to decide it's own fate. Can we have a country within a country. It seems to work well enough for England, Scotland and Wales, within a unitary state. When have you ever heard Scots refer to themselves as "United Kingdomers" but their loyalty to both their country of Scotland and their nation state of the United Kingdom does not seem to be in conflict.

We have the best opportunity ever to set aside separatism in Quebec and build a strong Canada that includes Quebec. Quebec has spoken in the election and chosen federalism. All we have to do is work with the Quebecois to build a strong united Canada with them.

To Americans, and Obama, Muslims Are "Them"

Let us be clear the President of the United States is not a stupid man who speaks without thinking and when he speaks of "we", unless he makes it clear he is talking about some specific group like the Democratic Party or his family, he is speaking of the American people. So when he says

"The idea that we would burn the sacred texts of someone else's religion is contrary to what this country stands for,...It's contrary to what this nation was founded on, and my hope is that this individual prays on it and refrains from doing it."

he is clearly stating that Islam is "someone else's religion", not the religion of Americans and thus that Muslims are not real Americans. Indeed he is accepting the religious right's assertion that, despite what the Constitution of the United States says and what the founding fathers intended, the United States is a Christian country and Americans are Christians.

This is the almost inescapable result of the American attempt to take a nation of immigrants from many different countries and create an artificial ethnic nation from it. For some people it may be easy, just change your last name, for others it is not so easy to change the colour of your skin or indeed the religion of your birth or choice if that is required to be considered real Americans.

I must say, I much prefer the inclusive Canadian multiculturalism where our nationality is not based on ethnicity, but on citizenship.

How Stupid Can Someone Be

Finally someone stupider than Sarah Palin

Numbers

Which ranking is more important to you, and which should the government spend more money on improving.

This Number
or
This Number.

Canada's Hockey Legacy

Can they do it. The Toronto Star reports:

The dream of another NHL team in Toronto was unveiled today, though even the pitchmen for the project admit it is a long way from coming true.

The proposal contains some unique features that may be the key to the teams success.

-- Twenty-five percent of the Legacy's annual profits would be divided between charitable foundations and non-profit organizations. Carnegie's Future Aces Foundation for at-risk youth would be the first recipients.
-- About 15,000 seats for every Legacy game would cost no more than $50 apiece.

So how would such a team be financially feasible. Perhaps by appealing to the players love of the game rather than their greed. There may just be enough players in the league, and some of them superstars, who see this as a chance to be part of something special – a team in the best hockey town in the NHL (and the best market) that allows ordinary working hockey fans to watch the games and devotes a substantial portion of profits, not to owners greed, but to charity. For this there may be enough Canadian players willing to play, not for outrageous salaries, but for decent salaries looking for a chance to put a superteam together and keep the Stanley Cup in Canada forever.

Indeed it is a dream. Will they make it come true.

Legalizing Spousal Rape In Afghanistan – Not So Foreign to Canadian Law

As the CBC reports, Afghanistan's proposed law to legalize spousal rape, or to put it in other terms “make it illegal for women to refuse their husbands sex”, has rightly been widely condemned.

However, we would be wrong to characterize this as some sort of Islamic barbarism foreign to western civilizations.

Indeed, as the Globe and Mail reports, the same provision existed in Canadian law up until 1983.

Indeed, the concept has had a long history in the jurisprudence of the United Kingdom, Commonwealth countries, Canada and the United States, as the following articles record:

Historical Development of the Offence of_Rape (Bruce A. MacFarlane, Q.C. Deputy Minister of Justice Deputy Attorney General for the Province of Manitoba)

Making Marital Rape A Crime: A Long Road Traveled, A Long Way to Go (Lynn Hecht Schafran, Director, National Judicial Education Program; Stefanie Lopez-Boy, Program Associate, National Judicial Education Program; Mary Rothwell Davis)

It took a long time to banish from the law books of the west, It should not be allowed to be put on the law books of Afghanistan at a time when Canadian soldiers are dying there, supposedly in the name of women's rights and human rights.

Some Things Are More Important Than Humour

Parliamentary Democracy Explained

Reid on Saul on Riel on Canada

Sometimes somebody else says it better than you ever could. This is one of those times.

From: “A perfectly incompatible country” by Jennifer Reid, Ottawa Citizen, November 22, 2008

John Ralston Saul suggests in his recent book, A Fair Country, that Canada is a Métis state. I like this argument, though it differs from mine. Where Mr. Saul and I diverge is in our view of what it means to be a country founded on cultural hybridity. He finds a distinct trajectory in Canadian history linking contemporary political values, such as cultural co-operation, with aboriginal precursors. I, on the other hand, find within our Riel myths an ongoing story about collective identity grounded in the destructive polarities that have too often made cultural co-operation impossible.

It may well be our self-consciousness about these incompatibilities that has kept us together. We know that national unity and cultural homogeneity (the supposed benchmarks of the modern nation-state) are impossible. It's that self-consciousness that makes us distinctive and, perhaps, gives us a reason to stay together.

There is something radical about Canada, about the way in which multiple ethnicities, regionalisms, and self-designated nations have been formally integrated into a single geopolitical structure that has managed to survive. It is a community that has been able, thus far, to withstand the basic dichotomies of ethnicity, religion, region, and language that are the foundation -- and the stumbling block -- of all modern western states.

Riel, both the man and the myth, speaks to this radical character. He shows us what makes us distinct in this culturally tangled world of the 21st century.

Should Canada Recognize Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence

The province of Kosovo has unilaterally declared independence from the nation state of Serbia and the countries of the world are lining up to denounce or support the declaration. History and international law have been cited as justification for both positions. What should Canada’s position be.

Canada is in a unique position in having it’s own domestic legislation to deal with such a situation. How does Kosovo’s unilateral declaration stack up to the Canadian Parliaments requirements for such a declaration.

The Clarity Act requires that a referendum must be held with a “clear” unambiguous question that receives the support of a “clear” majority of more than 50%.

If the government of Canada recognizes the Kosovo declaration of independence without these criteria being met it would be a “clear” case of one set of rules for Canada and another set of rules for everyone else.