[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

But you haven't addressed the real argument.

[Oexmelin]

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.

Oh, the article is utter crap, I agree. But it echoes a complaint that one can read in the press about Canadian identity (and that I have certainly read over and over again in the never dying, albeit niche debate, about Canadian history taught in high school and college).

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.

I think Rule of Law, when it comes to First Nations, remains quite a tricky concept to wield.

[Oexmelin]

But you haven't addressed the real argument.

What's the real argument? The one from the article? It's mostly crap. My point, derived from it, is that locating Canadian identity mostly in law (which you and Malthus seem to reinforce) will tend to produce crisis such as this one. Locating Canadian identity in other places would produce different types of crisis.

[crazy canuck]

I think Rule of Law, when it comes to First Nations, remains quite a tricky concept to wield.

I agree. But I think that is because the concept has begun to lose its meaning.  I don't know of any First Nations - and btw I deal with a number of them, who would reject the Rule of Law.  They have after all won significant rights operating within the Rule of Law in this country.  Without the Charter they would be in a very different position than they are today.

[crazy canuck]

But you haven't addressed the real argument.

What's the real argument? The one from the article? It's mostly crap. My point, derived from it, is that locating Canadian identity mostly in law (which you and Malthus seem to reinforce) will tend to produce crisis such as this one. Locating Canadian identity in other places would produce different types of crisis.

How did locating identity in the Rule of Law produce this crisis.  I would argue the exact opposite.  Having politicians ignore the Rule of Law has produced this crisis.  And by the way, most of the Haisla and Wetsuwetan would agree.

[PRC]

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.

Promise made, promise broken.  UCP has been a disaster.

[Camerus]

The UCP seem determined to crib the playbook of '90's Republicans, with the enthusiastic support of a large base within the province. More proof that Alberta is truly sui generis within confederation.

[crazy canuck]

Yep, they have learned nothing from the last 20 years.  Austerity in a time of economic downturn - what could possibly go wrong.

[Malthus]

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. 

As if "ROC has always been fake" doesn't "drip with contempt". But you had nothing to say against that. 

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.

No it isn't. I never said any of that. 

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.

Aaand, predictably, I totally disagree on everything here.

First, take the notion that this ethic is somehow an over-intellectualized, airy-fairy thing with no actual relevance to anyone (a funny sort of argument for academics and lawyers to engage in, but so be it  ). This is, of course, not true.

Naturally, most Canadians don't go around quoting the BNA Act, any more than most Americans go around quoting the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. They may have only the vaguest notion about these matters. That doesn't matter, because the basic values that are imbedded in these historical documents permeate society in ways that people can, and do, understand and recognize.

Someone once said something like "the Cowboy and the Samurai: analyze their virtues and flaws in popular culture, and you have analyzed two nations". What they meant was not that everyone in the US is a cowboy and everyone in Japan is a Samurai, but that what people in these countries thought about these iconic figures indicated a lot about what they thought about the values underlying their respective cultures.

A similar exercise could be done for Canada. What figure would Canadians and non-Canadians alike consider iconically Canadian? I would say the Mountie.  This is not a coincidence - it is not like Canadians worship policemen, it is more that they empathize with the notion of a guy dedicated to the rule of law, to peace and order (and good government). Importantly, he's a guy who is seen devoted to a set of ideals, who struggles against harsh nature and bad people to bring order. The "ideal" Mountie is supposed to be colourblind to racial and national differences, to treat native and settler alike under the rule of law (never mind what real Mounties historically did).

Contrast with the frontier figure of the Cowboy. The Cowboy may be a lawman, or he may be a bad guy (or he may drift from one to the other, like Doc Holliday). What's important is that he stands, above all, for freedom and self-reliance: important American cultural virtues.  Needless to say, these are cultural ideals and not an analysis of the real acts of either Mounties or Cowboys - the latter, for example, is more likely to have been a lowly employee (and more likely to have been Black) than his cultural ideal. 

I would further point out that, far from being "hogwash", it is this devotion to ideals that has allowed first nations to claim all sorts of rights they would otherwise not have. First Nations have used the Canadian courts to great effect.

The hard left in this country often seems to me to epitomize the saying "the perfect is the enemy of the good", by its refusal to cede that Canada has any virtues to balance out its vices. Or to put it another way, to take what could be termed the "Saudi Arabian" view of Canada. You may recall that last year, Canada got into a scrape with Saudi Arabia over the latter's human rights record. The Saudis retorted that Canada's position was hogwash - what right does a self-admitted "genocidal" nation like Canada have, to criticize Saudi Arabia? 

[Grey Fox]

A similar exercise could be done for Canada. What figure would Canadians and non-Canadians alike consider iconically Canadian? I would say the Mountie.  This is not a coincidence - it is not like Canadians worship policemen, it is more that they empathize with the notion of a guy dedicated to the rule of law, to peace and order (and good government). Importantly, he's a guy who is seen devoted to a set of ideals, who struggles against harsh nature and bad people to bring order. The "ideal" Mountie is supposed to be colourblind to racial and national differences, to treat native and settler alike under the rule of law (never mind what real Mounties historically did).

That's an issue! A giant one! You acknowledge that their are racial & national issue but want to ignore past realities.

What's iconically German? The SS!

[Valmy]

I don't think Malthus is saying past realities should be ignored

What's iconically German? The SS!

Wow. Way to make Malthus' point for him. I would say Germany has had much more of a contribution to history than just the SS, talk about making the perfect the enemy of the good.

[Malthus]

That's an issue! A giant one! You acknowledge that their are racial & national issue but want to ignore past realities.

What's iconically German? The SS!

My point is not to ignore past vices. Not at all. Only that we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater by claiming everything in the past was nothing but vices. Comparing Canada to the SS may strike many as "crazy", but to me it makes perfect sense - as an example of what I've been saying, that the hard left has lost all perspective.

It is, in fact, only through devotion to ideals developed through our past history (such as that justice ought to be impartial and not favour a person by race or nationality) that we can even understand past vices as "vices". We get upset when the real-life Mounties fail to live up to the ideal Mountie that is a cultural creation - which goes to show the value of that cultural creation, in creating ideals that we then use to measure actions.

[Grey Fox]

I don't think Malthus is saying past realities should be ignored

What's iconically German? The SS!

Wow. Way to make Malthus' point for him. I would say Germany has had much more of a contribution to history than just the SS, talk about making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Yes. That's my point.

[Oexmelin]

As if "ROC has always been fake" doesn't "drip with contempt". But you had nothing to say against that. 

Take it with Zoupa. I had many things to say against that. This is why I spent some time exploring beyond the provocative language.

No it isn't. I never said any of that.

Then your rebuttal of "weak" makes little sense, as you seemed intent to frame it into a competing assessment of strength.

First, take the notion that this ethic is somehow an over-intellectualized, airy-fairy thing with no actual relevance to anyone (a funny sort of argument for academics and lawyers to engage in, but so be it  ). This is, of course, not true.

You are the one who transforms "intellectualized" into "over-intellectualized", and "over-intellectualized" into "no actual relevance to anyone". I have never claimed any of this. I simply claimed that an intellectualized notion of identity is much harder to spontaneously mobilize. I don't recognize myself in the other by virtue of believing in "peace order and good government". Outside of academic circles (see Ian McKay's work), these notions have come up in casual conversations about 0 times. I recognize other people from Quebec from a shared culture - that we know the same TV shows, have read the same books in school, know the same authors, and singers, recognize each other's more subtle social clues, share the same set of references, etc. It takes a different sort of conversation to enter the fraught realm of values, and it's an entirely different set of conversations to index those values to "Quebec". 

Take another example: in Quebec, between 1988 and 1995, you could find a lot of people ready to talk about the "5 Historic Demands of Quebec", and the Constitution of 1982. It was a major point of politicization. Since 1995, talk about the Constitution, and the Meech Agreement have considerably receded, and the necessary legal and institutional pedagogy that was necessary to maintain Constitutional grievances at the heart of Quebec's political identity have considerably receded.

Does it mean the Constitution to have no importance? No. It just means it required a lot of effort to make it, and maintain it, as a part of one's identity.

That doesn't matter, because the basic values that are imbedded in these historical documents permeate society in ways that people can, and do, understand and recognize.

Again, these are incredibly vague. They require a lot of pedagogy to index something as uninspiring and dry as the BNA Act into "basic values that people can, and do understand and recognize". Contrast with the Declaration of the Rights of Men, or with the Bill of Rights. The Charter does a much better job at that, hence its centrality. But all this needs to be buttressed and sustained in other ways.

I think your Mountie may be a good example of such a way for English Canadians - but it has considerably less echo in Quebec (and perhaps in the Maritimes?). I certainly would not identify any of the characteristics you mention as so intimately tied to the Mountie, who is mostly a policeman in a silly hat. (It was, in fact, a conversation I had with my BC colleague). It has never been an iconic character in any Quebec shows, and the RCMP never really features (whereas Quebec's SQ does). Dudley-do-Right has no existence, and the kinds of self-image that Francophones send back to Quebeckers rarely involve Mounties - contrary to Americans, who project the image of the Mounties back to English Canadians. (European francophones  are much more likely to talk about fur traders - one of the rare, possible, unity figures in Canada).

It also has to contend with its own colonial past. Your image of the Mountie is incredibly recent, and the process of quite a deliberate institutional process of rehabilitating it through a mix of old-time pageantry, British inheritance, and contemporary shows located "North of the 60o".

I would further point out that, far from being "hogwash", it is this devotion to ideals that has allowed first nations to claim all sorts of rights they would otherwise not have. First Nations have used the Canadian courts to great effect.

Sure - I wouldn't myself say it is hogwash. But it is delicate. Because it never truly solves the issue of whether First Nations are Canadians or not, whether Rule of Law represents a colonial inheritance (which it does) slowly being corrected (which it surely is), etc.

[Grey Fox]

That's an issue! A giant one! You acknowledge that their are racial & national issue but want to ignore past realities.

What's iconically German? The SS!

My point is not to ignore past vices. Not at all. Only that we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater by claiming everything in the past was nothing but vices. Comparing Canada to the SS may strike many as "crazy", but to me it makes perfect sense - as an example of what I've been saying, that the hard left has lost all perspective.

It is, in fact, only through devotion to ideals developed through our past history (such as that justice ought to be impartial and not favour a person by race or nationality) that we can even understand past vices as "vices". We get upset when the real-life Mounties fail to live up to the ideal Mountie that is a cultural creation - which goes to show the value of that cultural creation, in creating ideals that we then use to measure actions.

The RCMP is nothing but vices.