Archive for the 'Canadian Politics' Category

12
Jan

Affirmative action needed in Canada’s Parliament?

According to a Globe and Mail editorial yesterday, affirmative action is needed to make the Canadian Parliament reflect “inclusivity and diversity.” Why? Because there are fewer women than men. See also Janet McFarlane’s column today: “Where are the female politicians?”

I can’t help wonder: Did it never occur to the Globe’s editorial board that perhaps the majority of women really don’t want to enter public life, that maybe men and women really are “different” in terms of life “choices?” And, isn’t that what feminism is supposed to be about? Choice!

As the National Post editorial says today, notions of affirmative action are far more undemocratic than prorogation:

“The Globe cares deeply about the state of Canada’s democracy. We know this because it recently ran a front-page editorial denouncing Stephen Harper for performing an ‘underhanded manoeuvre to avoid being accountable to Parliament.’ But when it comes to the MPs who actually populate that Parliament, Globe editorialists have no problem gerrymandering the place to suit their feminist veiwpoint. To hell with the people Canadian voters actually want to elect.”

Look, I consider myself a feminist in the sense that I believe both men and women should have equal opportunities and choices in life no matter what their gender, their sexual preference, their colour, race, religion or culture. But, at the end of the day, running for political office is a personal choice — a choice that is either accepted or rejected by the voters.

No appointments. No slam dunks. No gerrymandering. Being elected by the people should be the only type of affirmative action we need.

C/P at Jack’s Newswatch & Just Politics.

Sphere: Related Content

28
Dec

Dreaming of the Queen – Republic vs Commonwealth

In the summer of 2010 Queen Elizabeth II is scheduled to come to Canada .  Her visit follows that earlier this year of her son Charles and his wife Camilla.  I suspect that the Queen’s visit will garner some coverage in the press but not much attention among the general public.  Unlike her glamorous late daughter-in-law Diana, Elizabeth II doesn’t pique the curiosity of the average person.  Canadians appear to like but not revere the Queen, as exemplified in the attitude of an old Portuguese doctor who in the Toronto weekly Voice wrote that he considered Elizabeth II a genuinely good person yet laughed at the fact she wore hats similar to those his grandmother used to wear.

Though most Canadians don’t seem to have anything particularly against the Queen as an individual, she has increasingly found herself at the centre of a controversy over the institution she represents: the British monarchy.  Some people believe Canada should throw off the final yoke of British colonialism, scrap the monarchy, and become a republic.  Others by contrast feel equally strongly that Canada should remain part of the British Commonwealth – so strongly that they have formed groups such as the Monarchist League of Canada to ensure our country remains under the royal wing.

I myself am fairly agnostic on the issue..  My sense is that if we embraced republicanism tomorrow, life wouldn’t change much, either for better or for worse, in this country.  However, while I’m hardly demanding that Canada go (small “r”) republican, nor would I necessarily fight to keep Queen Elizabeth on as our head of state if there were any serious movement to literally dethrone her.  So I’d like to present the “pro” and “con” arguments, with their relevant counterpoints, for making Canada a completely independent nation or not.

Pro-Republican Arguments

#1 It is wrong that a person holds the position of head of a state simply for having been born into a particular family

From a purely rationalistic standpoint, it does seem both absurd and unjust that due to an accident of birth an individual can have their image placed on a nation’s currency, their initial in court cases (the “R” in “R. v. [name of defendant]” stands for “Regina,” meaning “Queen” in Latin) and their photograph in government buildings.  This absurdity/injustice strikes us as even more untenable if we think that the royals are only human.   A reader of a Montreal-based Italian-language publication put it even more succinctly: the royals obviously have no morality (this was just after the Camillagate tapes and pictures of the Duchess of York topless at the side of a pool came out), so why should they be more exalted than any of us common mortals?

Counterargument: This argument would be more convincing if the royals had any real power.  But several generations now the British monarchs have been mere figureheads.  If the Queen decided she was a pro-lifer, for instance, she would essentially be forced to go about trying to ban abortion the same way the head of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children would: by first swaying the opinion of the general public and from there that of the elected officials.  So the ability of the Queen or whoever succeeds her to influence our everyday lives is fairly limited.

#2 The British monarchy has no place in a multicultural society like Canada today

This argument was made by the above-mentioned Portuguese doctor in Voice. While he personally likes the Queen, he claims that having a member of a British family as Canada ’s head of state makes no sense in a nation where the Governor-General is a Black woman of Haitian descent and where some of our most prominent citizens boast names like Medeiros, Silva, Patel and Suzuki. Canada is a different country from that forty years ago when the majority of Canadians still hailed from White Anglo-Saxon Protestant stock.  So it is time our form of government reflected that change.

Counterargument: Canada ’s demography has indeed changed in the past half-century.  However, other than the special case of Quebec Canada is basically an Anglo-Saxon country culturally speaking.  In the words of Lawrence E. Harrison in his book The Pan-American dream, “anglophone Canada is not really multicultural.  Its bedrock is the same Anglo-Protestant system of values and attitudes that is the cultural foundation of the United States , and it is to this system that successful immigrants to Canada … acculturate.”  This does not mean Canada should remain under the Queen –after all, the United States ditched the British monarchy over two centuries ago without losing its Anglo-Saxon character.  But becoming a republic would not automatically make non-WASPs feel any more at home here.
Continue reading ‘Dreaming of the Queen – Republic vs Commonwealth’

Sphere: Related Content

28
Feb

The Staniszewski Affair: The Freedom to Discriminate?

My hometown of Windsor , Ontario is not a particularly happening place. Overshadowed by the American metropolis of Detroit across the river, Windsor has little crime but not much excitement either. In the past few days, though, the city has found itself in a firestorm of controversy after a retired judge there by the name of Paul Staniszewski ordered that several scholarships he established at the University of Windsor and York University (his alma mater) not be given to Muslim students. This stipulation is, in his own words, a “tit for tat” for the beheading of a Polish engineer in Pakistan by the Taliban. Staniszewski’s statements have raised a wave of public commentary, with some supporting the judge, others condemning him, and still more expressing decidedly mixed feelings. The two universities themselves have refused to comply with his request, calling it discriminatory and even illegal.

The judge’s logic does seem somewhat warped. The average Muslim student on a Canadian college campus is probably far removed from the people who killed the engineer in Pakistan . A fair number of these students might actually be embarrassed by the Taliban’s actions. If I were a Muslim myself, I would almost certainly be offended by Staniszewski’s decision. By the same token, I would be upset if my daughter, as a Christian, were denied a bursary on account of people like Fred Phelps, the American Baptist minister who pickets funerals of gay men with signs reading “God Hate Fags.” (By the way, I find Phelps disgusting and harmful to the reputation of Christianity as a whole). One wonders who would qualify, or disqualify, as a Muslim in Staniszewski’s eyes. Could a student who was raised in the Islamic faith but later fell away from it or, better yet, embraced another religion – in particular Staniszewski’s religion, which I presume is Roman Catholicism – access his scholarships? Would a former Muslim who had since become an atheist or agnostic be required to openly denounce his or her faith of upbringing in order to apply for one or more of these bursaries?

The point has been made that many existing scholarships by their very nature discriminate against certain classes of individuals. For example, scholarships set up specifically for girls or Native Canadians automatically exclude male and/or Black/White/Asian students. On the other hand, there is the issue of motivation. Most people who earmark bursaries for female or Native students do so out of concern that women and Aboriginals are being short-changed by the Canadian educational system, not out of hostility to men or non-Natives. Judge Staniszewski’s acts appear to be spurred solely by anger towards Muslims. (It must be said that as a member of a profession that prides itself on its impartiality and rationalism, Staniszewski’s emotionalism does not strike me as especially judge-like.) It is the explicitness rather than implicitness of Staniszewski’s exclusion to which many, including the above-mentioned universities, object.

In the end, I would agree with a number of observers that Judge Staniszewski has the right to do what he wants with his own money, regardless of his reasoning. I would add that the universities also have every right not to go along with his request. At this point the best course of action would be for Staniszewski to withdraw his scholarships from the institutions in question and, if he wishes, set up a similar bursary on his own. While this solution might not make everybody happy, it would be the most effective way to preserve both Staniszewski’s individual freedom to act according to his own conscience and the universities’ obligation not to engage in discrimination against any particular category of students.

Sphere: Related Content

30
Jul

Henry Morgentaler: Devil or Angel?

In an essay I wrote a few months ago I said that abortion was no longer a “hot topic” in Canada. I’ve recently been forced to retract this statement, however. The reason: Dr. Henry Morgentaler, a family physician, abortion provider, and leading pro-choice advocate in this country, has received the Order of Canada for his contributions to Canadian society.

The decision – by Governor General Michaelle Jean – to bestow this honour upon Dr. Morgentaler created a firestorm of controversy unseen since the 1980s. That was the decade in which articles on abortion appeared in major Canadian newspapers on literally a weekly if not daily basis. At the time, under Canadian law women who wished to end their pregnancies had to obtain permission from a hospital-based committee consisting of three doctors who determined whether the woman in question possessed adequate grounds to do so. These grounds included medical as well as social reasons. Dr. Morgentaler on the other hand ran freestanding clinics where a woman could undergo the procedure for no other reason than she wanted it. For setting up these clinics he was imprisoned, put on trial, and acquitted on at least three occasions. Finally things came to a head in 1988 when the Supreme Court of Canada, in a case entitled R. vs. Morgentaler, effectively legalized so-called abortion on demand by removing any reference to the procedure from the Criminal Code. Morgentaler, and any other abortionists for that matter, were free to set up shop without restriction.

As expected, different groups have reacted differently to Morgentaler’s reception of the award. Feminist Judy Rebick, for example, described it as a “victory for Canadian women” in the generally conservative National Post. For Rebick and other pro-choice activists, Morgentaler’s work has made it possible for women to control their own bodies without fear of having to resort to a dangerous illegal abortion. At the other end of the spectrum, pro-life individuals and organizations, such as the Roman Catholic Church, were up in arms at Dr. Morgentaler’s nomination to the Order of Canada. They hold him responsible for the death of thousands of unborn babies. The minister at a church near my home invited his parishioners to sign an on-line petition opposing the nomination. Some past recipients of the Order, including Lucien Larre, a British Columbia priest who founded a home for drug-addicted youths, have returned their award in protest. Even people not necessarily affiliated with the anti-abortion movement have expressed reservations about the decision to grant Henry Morgentaler the Order of Canada. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who despite the presence of pro-lifers in his party has denied any intention to change Canada’s current abortion law, claims he would have preferred to see the award go to someone who united rather than divided the nation. Some White Supremacists have denounced Morgentaler as the Jew who kills White babies (I must admit to being a bit perplexed not only by the White Supremacists’ view that Jews are not White but by their portrayal of abortion as an anti-White genocidal plot, as White women actually terminate their pregnancies at a lower per capita rate than minority women do).

I myself lack strong feelings either way on Morgentaler’s reception of the Order. First, awards like the Order of Canada don’t really mean much to me. In addition, I’m fairly apolitical about abortion in general. A candidate’s position on the matter, for instance, won’t make or break my vote. I suppose I’m part of the so-called “mushy middle,” i.e. support legal abortion in the first few months of pregnancy, later for medical reasons, all the while conceding that the procedure is not the moral equivalent of having a tooth pulled. I’d even concur with the pro-lifers that abortions done for social reasons shouldn’t be paid for with public money. In these respects I think I’m like the majority of Canadians, who veer from either extreme on the issue.

Ironically, perhaps both the pro-life and pro-choice sides are guilty of according Henry Morgentaler more importance than he is actually due. To paraphrase Voltaire, if Morgentaler did not exist, we would have had to invent him. Abortion on demand, de facto or de jure, would in all likelihood have become a reality in Canada with or without him, just as it did in most other industrialized nations at a time when legislation on issues like abortion, divorce and homosexuality were being liberalized. Even before the 1988 Supreme Court decision, the much-maligned abortion committees probably didn’t stop too many women from ending their pregnancies. Many of them simply obtained permission to do so by claiming bearing a child would threaten their “health,” as in psychological health. Though anti-abortionists lay the death of thousands of what they consider unborn children at Morgentaler’s feet, in his absence someone else would have almost certainly stepped up to the plate, so to speak, and offered the same service. Just as animals will continue to be butchered as long as people eat meat, abortion will always occur if there is a demand for it.

The key to reducing the demand for abortion and resolving the debate lies in providing accessible and effective birth control so that women can avoid pregnancies they do not want. Unfortunately many members of the pro-life movement oppose not only abortion but contraception as well. Indeed one abortion provider in the Netherlands, a country with a low abortion rate despite very liberal laws, told an interviewer that by providing birth control information to his patients he has probably “prevented more abortions than the Pope.” My own hope is to see abortion one day become, in the words of former US President Bill Clinton, safe, legal and rare.

Sphere: Related Content

02
Jul

Dual Citizenship: A Two-Sided Issue

The question of dual citizenship in Canada is somewhat of a controversial one. While at the moment it is not the hot-button issue that Black-focused schools or same-sex marriage is, the matter continues to rear its head from time to time. For example, many people have asked whether the federal government should have spent $85 million to evacuate approximately 12,000 Canadian citizens from Lebanon during that country’s conflict with Israel in the summer of 2006. A number of these citizens had not lived in Canada for years, but by virtue of their Canadian passport they were provided with free transportation out of the war-torn nation. To add insult to injury in the minds of many, a considerable proportion of the evacuees eventually returned to Lebanon .

Suggestions poured in as to how to prevent similar situations in future. One radio talk show host said that Canadian citizens living outside the country should be required to pay a $500 fee upon renewing their passport every five years. If they failed to do so, they would lose the privileges that possession of the passport entitled them, such as rescue from disaster zones at no charge. Some Conservative members of government talked about abolishing dual citizenship (this proposal was vigorously opposed by Liberal Member of Parliament Mario Silva, who has among other things spoken out against the rule that no Catholic can marry a member of the British royal family).

Dual citizenship is an issue of interest to me personally. My mother is an American citizen and Canadian landed immigrant. When my parents came to Canada in the late 1960s (they met in California but moved to Ontario because my father found a job here) they were not sure whether they would stay in this country or go back to the United States . They figured that in the event of the latter it would be good to have at least one American citizen in the family. As at the time neither Canada nor the States permitted dual citizenship, my mom remained an American (my siblings and I are trying to convince her to sit down and fill out the paperwork to become Canadian, but we joke she’s too lazy to do it).

By dint of my family background, if I wanted I could be a citizen of the United States . Doing so would allow me to migrate there more easily and, even if I remained where I am, vote in that country’s elections. However, neither possibility appeals to me. Not only are my chances of ever leaving Canada extremely remote at present, but I see little point in electing a government of a nation in which I don’t reside and whose political decisions will have no effect on my life. Furthermore, I question the fairness of giving my vote equal weight to that of an individual who actually lives in the US and contributes to it through his or her taxes, labour, volunteer efforts, and so on.

I do not necessarily advocate eliminating dual citizenship. Still, I believe we must address some issues surrounding it. For instance, should people who have ceased to reside and pay taxes in Canada for years be automatically granted free rescue services in times of crisis, as happened in Lebanon two summers ago? Such questions will probably never be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction (and I myself don’t claim to have all the answers), but they nevertheless deserve to be asked.

Sphere: Related Content




Further Research


RSSQuick Shots




Categories


Archives