[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

Bah.  Digging deep into the 2020-2021 budget, the ACPS budget line is to be reduced from $105 million to $102.

Since our expenses are about 95% salary, that means not filling positions I fear.  Not sure how they square that with their election promise to hire 20 more prosecutors, the first of which are supposed to be allocated this year.

[Oexmelin]

Zoupa's point is that English Canada has a weak sense of itself as a national entity. It can still be a state with the attributes of sovereignty.
Conservatives seem to agree, fearing that if you start criticizing what little content the ROC identity has, it will all fall apart. Their problem is identifying what it has, precisely, that is not tied to the quite recent, and quite Liberal, 1982 Charter. Hence, the easy fall back to the traditional trappings of national identity: political founders, daring explorers, courageous soldiers, etc.

[Malthus]

The notion that English Canada is "weak" makes perfect sense to those with a quite different, ethno-linguistic notion of nationalism. Of course from that point of view it is "weak".

[crazy canuck]

Zoupa's point is that English Canada has a weak sense of itself as a national entity. It can still be a state with the attributes of sovereignty.
Conservatives seem to agree, fearing that if you start criticizing what little content the ROC identity has, it will all fall apart. Their problem is identifying what it has, precisely, that is not tied to the quite recent, and quite Liberal, 1982 Charter. Hence, the easy fall back to the traditional trappings of national identity: political founders, daring explorers, courageous soldiers, etc.

I don't see much merit in agreeing with a proposition based on the fact that Conservatives seem to agree.

[Malthus]

Zoupa's point is that English Canada has a weak sense of itself as a national entity. It can still be a state with the attributes of sovereignty.
Conservatives seem to agree, fearing that if you start criticizing what little content the ROC identity has, it will all fall apart. Their problem is identifying what it has, precisely, that is not tied to the quite recent, and quite Liberal, 1982 Charter. Hence, the easy fall back to the traditional trappings of national identity: political founders, daring explorers, courageous soldiers, etc.

I don't see much merit in agreeing with a proposition based on the fact that Conservatives seem to agree.

Yup. Some conservatives wish we lived in an ethno-nationalist state, and are unhappy that we do not.

For myself, I am glad we don't, and find that fact more inspiring than disheartening. 

[Oexmelin]

The notion that English Canada is "weak" makes perfect sense to those with a quite different, ethno-linguistic notion of nationalism. Of course from that point of view it is "weak".

No, it doesn't, really. France or the US, for instance, do not have what you seem to imply is an "ethno-linguistic notion of nationalism" either, but they have quite robust discourses about themselves. They have strong historical narrative (even if some of them are a lot more mythical); foundational events; a sense of their past; strong cultural industries that shape their sense of self, very little of which is based on ethnicity (language is another thing). 

There may, of course, be a lot of political or ethical value in English Canada not having such robust sense of self-identity. But I don't think it precludes it from being a correct assessment, or at least being entertained. I'll let Zoupa defend his own point, but I think there is something to it, and that this is something which the Liberals have turned to their advantage (claiming a recent development - the Charter - as a self-evidently virtuous core of Canadian identity) and which has plagued the Conservatives for a while. The Charter is plastic enough to accommodate ethics and morals, but is it enough to sustain a sense of national identity? What you, yourself, seem to be complaining about also appears as one of the downside of English Canada's relatively weak sense of self, so that self-critique based off of the Charter does not seem to have good counter against it.

I say that freely admitting I may wildly misunderstanding English Canadian identity. It is a source of endlessly entertaining conversations and good-nature arguments with one of my colleagues and good friend, who is from BC, and with whom I bonded precisely on a shared political culture (and a sense of being together in a foreign country), but culturally very little else. I know it tends to crystallize around certain figures and motifs (from which I feel culturally distant) - like Tragically Hip, Margaret Atwood, hockey (but is this not receding among certain communities, in favor of basketball?) etc.  I know it is in a sort of tension with USA, against which certain benign stereotype are being projected (politeness, apologizing) which means it's actually way more in conversation with it than with Quebec. 

It's certainly provocative but then again, I have been told over the years by many that there was nothing really distinct to Quebec culture, so why couldn't the shoe be on the other foot for a moment...   

[Oexmelin]

I don't see much merit in agreeing with a proposition based on the fact that Conservatives seem to agree.

You don't have to agree, of course. But I think the Conservative critique still offers a challenge to non-Conservatives: if Canadian identity is strong, why is the argument of "a certain left"  emphasizing too much the horrible things of the past in Canada, so problematic? How should a presumably "centrist" Canadian counter that argument? On what basis should Canada be celebrated, if it indeed should? 

[Grey Fox]

I believe Ontarians usually think there is a stronger RoC Culture than their westerner counterparts. Lots of political survey point that way.

[Oexmelin]

I believe Ontarians usually think there is a stronger RoC Culture than their westerner counterparts. Lots of political survey point that way.

That may be true. I think I just found the right topic to spice up our next Canadian Thanksgiving expat party... 

[Malthus]

The notion that English Canada is "weak" makes perfect sense to those with a quite different, ethno-linguistic notion of nationalism. Of course from that point of view it is "weak".

No, it doesn't, really. France or the US, for instance, do not have what you seem to imply is an "ethno-linguistic notion of nationalism" either, but they have quite robust discourses about themselves. They have strong historical narrative (even if some of them are a lot more mythical); foundational events; a sense of their past; strong cultural industries that shape their sense of self, very little of which is based on ethnicity (language is another thing). 

There may, of course, be a lot of political or ethical value in English Canada not having such robust sense of self-identity. But I don't think it precludes it from being a correct assessment, or at least being entertained. I'll let Zoupa defend his own point, but I think there is something to it, and that this is something which the Liberals have turned to their advantage (claiming a recent development - the Charter - as a self-evidently virtuous core of Canadian identity) and which has plagued the Conservatives for a while. The Charter is plastic enough to accommodate ethics and morals, but is it enough to sustain a sense of national identity? What you, yourself, seem to be complaining about also appears as one of the downside of English Canada's relatively weak sense of self, so that self-critique based off of the Charter does not seem to have good counter against it.

I say that freely admitting I may wildly misunderstanding English Canadian identity. It is a source of endlessly entertaining conversations and good-nature arguments with one of my colleagues and good friend, who is from BC, and with whom I bonded precisely on a shared political culture (and a sense of being together in a foreign country), but culturally very little else. I know it tends to crystallize around certain figures and motifs (from which I feel culturally distant) - like Tragically Hip, Margaret Atwood, hockey (but is this not receding among certain communities, in favor of basketball?) etc.  I know it is in a sort of tension with USA, against which certain benign stereotype are being projected (politeness, apologizing) which means it's actually way more in conversation with it than with Quebec. 

It's certainly provocative but then again, I have been told over the years by many that there was nothing really distinct to Quebec culture, so why couldn't the shoe be on the other foot for a moment...

I'm not really "complaining" about anything.

I do understand quite completely the need of those brought to believe in ethno-nationalism to see others as "weak" - it's about self-validation. If 'they' are weak, it is in the way 'we' are strong.  It's all about creating an 'us' versus 'them', one in which the 'us' is superior. As in, for example:

... but then again, I have been told over the years by many that there was nothing really distinct to Quebec culture, so why couldn't the shoe be on the other foot for a moment...

So, leaving aside a minority of conservatives, what is Canadian nationality about?

Well, there is a shared history of course, but it has always been more than that. It's about a certain set of values, which existed long before the Charter, and which are somewhat different from those of the United States, and much more involved than a mere set of national icons. It's a way of approaching society, in which individualism is balanced against a concern for others, which is welcoming of former outsiders who buy into a those values.  A society in which former ethnic enemies can exist side by side without violent conflict, because the world is a harsh and unforgiving place and we need to act together in it. It's a set of values often symbolized by the old phrase "peace, order and good government" (as contrasted with the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" that similarly symbolizes the "robust" values of the US, of "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" in the case of the "robust" values of France).

I can see why this appears "weak" to some. After all, "peace and order" doesn't sound like a rallying cry to kill or die for (much less "good government"), while the lure of the tribe always appears as "strong". However, as the world turns to shit around us, I am more and more struck with just how valuable things like peace, order, and good government - such as the rule of law rather than the cult of personality, ethnic tribe, or political faction - really are. How "strong" they are will be demonstrated by whether they survive the ever-present crises.

[Oexmelin]

I do understand quite completely the need of those brought to believe in ethno-nationalism to see others as "weak" - it's about self-validation. If 'they' are weak, it is in the way 'we' are strong.  It's all about creating an 'us' versus 'them', one in which the 'us' is superior.

Projecting much? 

[Malthus]

I don't see much merit in agreeing with a proposition based on the fact that Conservatives seem to agree.

You don't have to agree, of course. But I think the Conservative critique still offers a challenge to non-Conservatives: if Canadian identity is strong, why is the argument of "a certain left"  emphasizing too much the horrible things of the past in Canada, so problematic? How should a presumably "centrist" Canadian counter that argument? On what basis should Canada be celebrated, if it indeed should?

Not a difficult challenge.

The left's over-emphasis on past and present Canadian horrors undermines the values on which Canada is built; if Canada is truly a horrible place, then its values are not valid, and others ought to be embraced (never mind that it is those Canadian values in the first place that offered the critique that ended the most egregious horrors and forms the framework for challenging current and future ones).

A "centrist" Canadian would counter that argument as I have done - by pointing out that adherence to the rule of law and other traditional Canadian virtues is the way forward, a way of both attacking existing vices and dealing with past ones; that seeing things as they were in a balanced manner - past virtues as well as vices - is preferable to only dwelling on past vices.

A "centrist" Canadian would point out that the ability to do this - deal with past injustice, prevent future injustice - is something highly worth celebrating; that a society capable of self-improvement is one worth fostering. Evidently others agree, as people tend to immigrate to Canada exactly for that reason, including many of my immediate ancestors. 

[Malthus]

I do understand quite completely the need of those brought to believe in ethno-nationalism to see others as "weak" - it's about self-validation. If 'they' are weak, it is in the way 'we' are strong.  It's all about creating an 'us' versus 'them', one in which the 'us' is superior.

Projecting much? 

Uh, no. That lacks sting, as I'm not saying others are "weak". That would be "projecting".

[crazy canuck]

I don't see much merit in agreeing with a proposition based on the fact that Conservatives seem to agree.

You don't have to agree, of course. But I think the Conservative critique still offers a challenge to non-Conservatives: if Canadian identity is strong, why is the argument of "a certain left"  emphasizing too much the horrible things of the past in Canada, so problematic? How should a presumably "centrist" Canadian counter that argument? On what basis should Canada be celebrated, if it indeed should?

I don't think one needs to assert anglo Canadian identity is strong to suggest the article Viper posted has little merit.  It completely misunderstands the position of most first nations and how those groups contribute to and does not detract from Canadian identity.   I reject the notion of viewing Canada through the anglophone vs francophone lens.

edit:  And I agree completely with Malthus.  If one accepts that Canada is bound by the Rule of Law and considers all the work that has been done by adhering to the Rule of Law to deal with First Nations issues - treaty making, claims negotiations, a complex system of consultation that has now been developed, etc etc etc. then it is easy to identify the real problem.  It is not a lack of Canadian identity -as opposed to a particular linguistic group.  It is that we have a PM who does not understand the Rule of Law.

[Oexmelin]

Uh, no. That lacks sting, as I'm not saying others are "weak". That would be "projecting".

No, it's just dripping with contempt - but I am sure there is no sense of superiority built in. 

Note: I have not said *anyone* was weak, or that Canadians were weak, or meek, or should be mocked or despised. This is your spin on it. I don't value strength as assertion of superiority, and so used "robust" as the opposite. Use "loose" if you prefer. I did not even suggest that one was preferable to another. What I suggested is that all the nice things you mention about Canadian identity, and with which I agree, may be plastic enough to accommodate, and thus include, many people. It's an ethic, and a political stance I share. But I doubt it is the sort of thing you spontaneously get from talking to Canadians, and that they will spontaneously mention the preamble of the 1867 BNA Act. This is already quite an intellectualized rapport with the country.  Do I feel a strong bond with people from BC because of the BNA Act? Do you? When you meet Canadians abroad, do you talk about peace, order and good government? Maybe you bond over healthcare? Maybe you don't bond at all. Again, it's totally fine if you see these kinds of mutually constructed and maintained bonds as irrelevant to an ideal democratic polity, but I think the consequence is a strengthening of the sort of State institutions that can sustain this intellectualized, institutionalized relationship. I am similarly not sure it's the kind of thing that constitute a good retort to the accusations, from critics, that considering the history of colonialism in the country, it's also quite a bit of hogwash when it comes to First Nations.