Jack Layton, Canadian

It was announced that Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton succumbed to cancer this morning

It is not the intention of yours truly to eulogize this man. That task will be done by those better suited to the task, and far more worthy of the responsibility.

We can recount his achievement of taking Canada’s social democratic party and giving it two historical distinctions – a rout of the Bloc Quebecois on its home turf, and the mantle of becoming the Official Opposition in the House of Commons. What may be all the more remarkable is that these victories were – arguably – secured largely on his personal charisma and energy, despite being wracked with the illness that has now claimed his life.

The temptation of modern politics is often to be either cantankerous or Machiavellian, but Layton strongly - and stubbornly - held to the persona of the “happy warrior.” That he succeeded to the extent he did with this approach says just as much as his stoicism.

For some flawed reason, those of us who do not support a politician or their politics are not allowed to respect them for their basic humanity. In the end, all of the ill that I can say of Jack Layton is that he promoted misguided policies for reasons that were undoubtably noble and well-intentioned.

I never cast a vote toward Layton or his party, but his love of Canada was as genuine as mine and that of my ilk.

One can only hope that his family find strength and peace at this time, that his friends and colleagues are comforted by his legacy and achievements, and that we all learn that despite our partisan allegiances, we are all proud citizens of this great nation, struggling to do what is right and just to the best of our abilities.

Know thyself - if you dare

A few days ago, on the drive home – back from the city grind to rolling pastureland and trees – your truly was greeted by the dulcive tones of a CBC radio reporter declaring that the Federal government has reintroduced the title “Royal” with reference to Canada’s naval and air services. To those unaware, this obstensibly completes the reversal of a policy decision in 1968 – that of “unification” of the nation’s armed services.

Under the direction of then Defence Minister Paul Hellyer, the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Canadian Navy, and the Canadian Army were melded into a polyglot ‘Canadian Forces’ with the branches given such inspiring names as ‘Land Command’, ‘Air Command’, and ‘Maritime Command.’

All military personnel were issued new cap badges that were an amalgam of all three services emblems, and were outfitted in stylish dark green polyester jumpers.

Unlike most bad fashion choices of the late 1960’s and 1970’s, these lovely vestments continued until the years of Brian Mulroney, when Air Command and Maritime Command could once again dress like sailors and pilots.

Given the overwhelming support for the move within the military ranks, and the general support outside, it has always seemed like unfinished business – that one would roll back part of a clearly unpopular policy without even considering the possibility of finishing the task. While some can remark on the relative speed of the decision to take this step, it comes twenty years after a partial reversal of a forty year old decision.

While the proponents of the move, by any objective measure, outnumber its critics by a mammoth margin, there are those who still wish to take task with the decision to ‘restore the royal honour.’

Like any good sailor who senses that the winds are blowing in the opposite direction, they have changed tack and changed the terms of the debate. Their strategy now is to cast the whole debate in terms of the question of Canada’s status as a constitutional monarchy. Rather than restoring a proud tradition to our military, Canada is self-imposing some form of subservience to Britain – that we are, in essence, promoting ‘colonialism.’

Yours truly has read online posts from dyspeptic pundits and everyday citizens who exhort that “We are Canadian – Not British” and that “The Queen is a foreigner”, et cetera and ad infinitum.

This debate, to my mind, raises two fundamental issues. First, it calls into question the understanding that individual Canadians have of their own history, which appears to be woefully inadequate bordering on shameful. Just as important, albeit more esoteric, is the question of nationalism and national identity itself. That is, what makes us who we are, as opposed to any other people in the world.

What critics of this move seem to lack appreciation of is the role that the Crown has had in defining the existence and the purpose of this nation from the beginning. Despite the Hollywood glamour machine’s ability to disseminate and promote the idea that the American Revolution was universal in its appeal, and that British forces were as evil as Nazi stormtroopers, not everyone embraced their ‘liberty’.

The recent Canadian broadcast of the HBO miniseries “John Adams” is a good illustration. Based on the book by acclaimed historian David McCullough, the story begins with the title character (played very well by Paul Giamatti) taking on the defence of individuals involved in the Boston Massacre, where many near riotous citizens were shot by British troops – some being killed. Yet, the people that this future signer of the Declaration of Independence and President of the United States (and father of a future President) was defending were the British troops themselves. There is also the scene where the title character makes clear his disgust of the tarring and feathering of a local customs official by the mob assembled. Even during the scenes taking place at the introductory Continental Congress, where Adams has now become adamant about a break with Britain, there still remained delegates from New York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina who argued for negotiating a better relationship within the Empire. One might speculate whether Dominion status, had it existed, would have been the popular option.

Not only was society split, but so too were families. My mother’s family, the Peters of Hebron, Connecticut, were staunch Loyalists and paid the price of that loyalty. One Peters daughter was the wife of Samuel Jarvis, who was deputy to Upper Canada’s first Governor-General John Graves Simcoe. That family had also produced one General in Washington’s Army, as well as a future Governor of Connecticut, and a Supreme Court Justice in that state.

The central point, of course, is that English-speaking Canada exists solely due to the arrival of the United Empire Loyalists, and their sole reason for leaving the future United States was a loyalty to the very same Crown that some people believe we should shelve because it isn’t ‘Canadian’.

Another charge is that promotion of the Crown is an insult to Quebec. This, too, is predicated on a selective ignorance of history. While the fixation is on 1759 and the Plains of Abraham, people conveniently ignore what took place next. They ignore the Royal Proclamation and the Quebec Act where Quebecois were given protection by the British Crown to remain French and Catholic. They also ignore the fact that the fledgling United States was so hostile to this accommodation of les Quebecois, Thomas Jefferson took the time to use his pen to embed this displeasure in the Declaration of Independence. That is, the United States was willing to put in writing the idea that allowing Quebeckers the right to remain a ‘distinct society’ was a partial excuse for revolution and war. Support among French Canadians for the Crown in 1776 and 1812 might seem a mystery to their descendants, but it was abundantly clear in their minds.

But all of that is history –they argue. We cannot live in the past, they retort.

And yet, this attitude begs its own questions. First, exactly what is outdated and foreign about our system? First, when compared to the vagaries of American election campaigns, and the recent histrionics that were the debt-ceiling debate, do we honestly believe we would have fared better as a republic with a partisan head of state. Secondly, on the foreign point, we are not ruled by the Queen of England. She is the Queen of Canada. One could ask these learned critics as to whether we would automatically lose our head of state should Britain choose to be a republic? The answer, of course, is no – that her role here is distinct and separate. Just read the oath that she, and her successors, must take at their coronation for proof of this fact.

Nowhere in this lengthy post have I answered the real raison d’etre for this move – or at least the one that supercedes the addressing of a failed policy. I will not recount the various points I made in the essay on this blog entitled “A world without friends”, but if one wishes to understand the prescience of reminding Canadians of their justification for existing as a unique nation, I commend them to give it a cursory view.

The only coda I may add to that, and to the final question – the nature of nationalism – is that for the first time since the 1960’s, there is a tacit realization that nationalism is an organic thing. The era of prefabricated Canadian-ness, ushered in by Pierre Trudeau, was a failure. It held such contempt for people that it thought that long standing loyalties and affections could easily be replaced by invented customs and practices. It was the height of hubris that they assumed that Canadians would forsake the symbols and customs that brought them together and helped them endure war and privation in favour of some generic lowest common denominator sales pitch contrived by bureaucrats and advertising executives.

Those who have criticized the government’s restoration of the royal honour are severely vehement in their criticism not just because of their fundamental opposition – of which they have the right to express – but likely due to the shock from the realization that after four decades of spoonfeeding Canadians an artificial version of their country, we seem to prefer the real thing, and by a wide margin.

As I have said previously, the world is changing. In the next couple of decades, we shall exist in an international system that, on the surface, seems to favour those whose fundamental values and beliefs differ from our own. Our allies and friends, by contrast, will appear lethargic and weakened.

Just as in any time of change and upheaval – in the life of an individual, or a society - the only defence against the coming storm is to know oneself. This recent, seemingly symbolic, act is an acknowledgment of this truth, and a step along the road of rediscovering who we truly are.

Like the lake, the trees, and the landscape of this humble home, the eternal and true defy the machinations of mortal hands.

A trivial people are we

The serene shores of the lake seem a world away from the bustle of foggy London town, but – alas – the world now possesses the technological ability to see all and hear all from every corner of the globe. Even in the midst of nature’s calm presence, one knows that the thick pall that hangs over that majestic city is not fog, but the acrid smoke of tear gas and lit fires.

Yours truly has great affection for that city, and its people. I was last there in 2005, and have missed it ever since. It is a place that manages, with great alacrity, to combine a proud history with a promising future.

The scenes of devastation and depravity are hard to watch, and even harder to understand. For some reason, thousands of people have been driven to wanton destruction and physical violence over the shooting death of an individual who, by some accounts, was part of the criminal element and had himself fired some rounds in the direction of the police.

Rioting has always been an element of societies, and any student of history can find ample examples of same. Indeed, most revolutions begin with these more radicalized acts of civil disobedience.

As a student of politics and history – and as someone who has had some front-row exposure to anger at government policy – I fully appreciate that on matters of principle and security of one’s person, there can be instances where one’s sympathies are with the crowd. The recent actions of individuals in Syria and Libya stand out as such.

In history, and in some cases today, people violently riot in the name of civil liberty, of freedom from oppression and hunger, from persecution and death. Unfortunately, they also riot because they do not get what they feel they are owed. Today, people are as likely to burn buildings and overturn cars for a raise in their cheques or the repeal of a piece of legislation as they might have been to protect their constitutional rights.

Years ago, as a high-school student in British Columbia, I had seen public service workers engage in full-scale strikes to shut down the province. They were opposed to layoffs and caps on their salaries. On these points, I did not mind what they did (and not just because it gave me a week off school). They had a right to strike, to collective bargaining, and to argue for what they felt to be legitimate concerns over the fate of public services in BC.

I did, however, have one big problem with their campaign.

It was the early 1980’s, and in Poland, Lech Walesa was under house arrest, and the Communist regime was putting tanks in the street – all to shut down the first truly free and independent trade union in the Soviet bloc, Solidarity. Anyone who caught a glimpse of the news would have seen the distinct banner of the organization. It was, by most people’s judgment, a representation of the struggle for democracy in a police state.

The trade unions in British Columbia seemed to draw a moral equivalency between pay raises and job security with the freedom not to be thrown in a gulag or marched in front of a firing squad. They, too, called their campaign ‘Solidarity’, but they went much further. The banners they displayed in the streets of Vancouver were visually identical to those of the Polish trade movement, with the exception of the spelling of the name in English, as opposed to the Polish ‘Solidarnosc’.

I had no fixed opinion on the merits of the public service workers’ grievances, but I was deeply offended that they would compare their ‘plight’ to that of Walesa and his supporters. This was my first recognizable experience with the trivialization of society, and it has not been the last.

And really – how trivial have we become?

People are more likely to vote for a contestant on a reality show than the people who administer their government and protect their freedoms. We will attempt to re-enact the storming of the Bastille all for the cause of a couple of dollars a month, or the opening of a bike lane, or the re-zoning of a city lot.

London, and other British cities, have been scarred and assaulted by mobs, and for what? For food? For freedom? To oppose brutality and abuse? So far, it appears that thousands of young people have desecrated their communities to honour the memory of a man who allegedly engaged in gang crime, and in the name of scoring some kick-butt consumer electronics. If you are looking for a latter-day Samuel Adams or Patrick Henry, you will certainly not find them there.

Listening to the BBC World Service, I heard one young woman being interviewed who said that the rioters were showing that “they weren’t afraid of the police.” I find this to be a problematic comment. First, most people would not naturally be ‘afraid’ of the police. I see them every day – patrolling roads, frequenting local establishments, interacting with the public. Indeed, the only time I would conceivably be ‘afraid’ of them would be when I am driving a little too fast. Having said that, this ‘fear’ comes from not wanting to be caught doing something that I know is wrong.

Let us be clear – there are places in the world where a genuine fear of police can be warranted, where human rights abuses are commonplace. In those particular jurisdictions, one can rightly feel a cool chill and a panic at the sight of someone in uniform. Those places, however, are well known and enormously documented – by the media, by international organizations, and by human rights groups.

Unfortunately, due to either boredom or ulterior motivations, there are those in our midst who want to take the friendly constable who spends most of his or her day ‘walking the beat’, talking to local shopkeepers, or teaching safety seminars to grade school children as part of the cadre of a police state.

They act like a dystopic Walter Mitty, where their imaginations take the everyday and transform it into something dark and sinister. They purposely misappropriate the language of the dramatic in order to justify the pedantic.

Not only is it an insult to those who suffer genuine abuses, but it is an insult to the intelligence of people who see no moral equivalency between being tortured in a gulag and being told that your welfare cheque is being docked five quid.

I, like many, will often engage in the thought exercise of considering what I would do in a given set of circumstances. What would I do if I were a protester in Hama, Syria, with government troops on the move? What would I do if I had been a ‘freedom rider’, heading to Birmingham, Alabama in the early 1960’s? What would I have done if I were a young man in Soweto in the latter days of apartheid? What would I do if I have been a young Zimbabwean in Robert Mugabe’s inflation and violence wracked dystopia.

Humour has always been the best way of illustrating the absurdity of modern life. From the days of Aristophanes, to Voltaire, to Noel Coward, to Jon Stewart and the Daily Show, many astute commentators find that the only effective way to communicate the problems of society is to demonstrate how ridiculous we can be.

American comedian Larry David, in his show “Curb Your Enthusiasm”, demonstrated what I would consider to be a propos to what we have witnessed as of late. The scene is a dinner party where two men vehemently argue as to who can lay claim to being the real ‘survivor’ – one is an elderly Jewish gentleman who endured the unspeakable horrors of Auschwitz during World War II, while the other was Colby Donaldson, erstwhile contestant on “Survivor: Australia” and “Survivor: All Stars”.

The only conclusion that I can draw is that, in the absence of real threats to our liberty and the safety to our person, many in western liberal democracies have become a truly frivolous lot.

The causes for this malaise are far too numerous to count. Maybe we suffer from some form of narcissism. Maybe we are afflicted by the paradox of being interconnected with the ebbs and flows of Planet Earth, yet are completely cut off from the human beings in our immediate midst. Maybe we are bored. Maybe we are overwhelmed and are trying to push our modest understanding of the world. Maybe it’s a combination of all of these things.

I have learned enough in my life to know what knowledge I still lack. The lake gives no answers- no matter how hard you listen. It only asks more questions.

With some luck, however, we will stumble across the means to survive this regrettable turn that society has been intent on making.

A world without friends?

Many Canadians have reveled in a feeling of schadenfreude when it comes to the recent debt ceiling debate in the United States. As a descendant of United Empire Loyalists writing within months of the bicentennial of the War of 1812, I understand the sentiment, even if it is somewhat unsightly and can easily venture into being undignified.

Much printer’s ink has been spilled over the economic – and political - fate of the US, with a smaller amount set aside for divining the impact on the loonie and our exports south. One can only venture that the prevailing attitude is some combination of fear for one’s self and the rather morbid curiosity of rubbernecking past the scene of a horrible car crash.

At present, the Congress has appeared to find enough of a lowest common denominator as to appease enough interests, and punch a breathing hole through the box they have placed themselves in. While many in the heartland are breathing a sigh of relief, wiser minds understand that this is not clemency, but a delay. When one has maxed out their credit card and cannot afford the monthly minimum payments, increasing their credit limit merely postpones the pain.

The prospects for Canada may be tenuous and challenging at first blush, but they foreshadow a debate that no-one has begun to initiate – one that will be as familiar to our children and grand-children as it is foreign to us.

From that moment in 1534 when Jacques Cartier landed at Gaspé and planted the French Royal Standard, Canada has always been connected, associated, or partnered with an empire or power. French seigneury ended in 1759, only to be replaced by British imperial rule. 1867 would bring a form of independence, but one that was still clearly within the confines of Empire. The Second World War destroyed fascism, but it also dealt a mortal blow to the British Empire. Almost seamlessly, however, Canada became part of a broader American led economic, political and military coalition of interests.

Canadian foreign policy has always reflected this reality, with initiatives designed either to buttress those relationships, or to assert some selective independence for national political expediency.

The shift in the global economy, and the recent financial turmoil spread through Europe, North America, and parts of Asia, reflect a change in power structures. In many respects, this is natural, and can be healthy. It is the result of more people entering the free market economy, and being lifted from relative levels of poverty.

It is also a shift into the unknown.

A major decline in US power would mean that for the first time in its history as a modern nation-state, Canada could find itself without a senior partner or discernable network of interests in the world. Economic, political, and demographic considerations will lead to both Europeans and Americans becoming more introverted, more concerned with domestic stability than international statecraft.
While predictions of the future are always problematic, it is fair to assume that American foreign policy will be far less interventionist, and may possibly be constrained by the need to maintain stability. A weaker United States combined with a stronger China would necessarily, for example, change the power relationship in South East Asia. The status of Taiwan, the Spratly Islands, and China’s declared maritime ‘economic zone’ will garner more attention than it does today. Indeed, when one considers Beijing’s call to have observer status on the Arctic Council, and a ringside seat on matters relating to an area of the world where it has no territory, one can only surmise what the policy would be in areas closer to its borders.

It is important to appreciate that the rise of China relative to other nations is not a prima facie negative. Every nation has the right to work to improving the lives and conditions of its people. Also, it would be unfair to presume that China would be an aggressive and destabilizing force in the world. In addition, there is nothing inherent in the character of the Chinese people that would be anathema to the overall peace and security of the world.

Having said that, while governments to a one always purport to be a representation of the will of the people, they often follow paths that diverge. If, as former American politician Tip O’Neill once asserted, that “all politics is local,” then there is always an inherent bias of treating foreign policy as an extension of domestic prerogatives. If those prerogatives lend toward a heavy-handedness, and – arguably – a newfound haughtiness and conceit, then we can only presume that a nation of over 1 billion people, with a nuclear armed military that has more personnel than the population of North America, a thirst for more natural resources than it possesses, and a political system with a history of reprisals and retributions will have a particular style of dealing with others.

One can rightfully argue that power corrupts, and that the ‘unipolar moment’ for the United States has presented some regrettable excesses. Nevertheless, those excesses are mild compared to those of other nations who enjoyed an advantage over their peers. Replacing the primacy of Washington with that of Beijing only serves to trade one set of issues for another – and if those issues are connected to a nation that suppresses human rights and liberty at home, and is beginning to display a nascent amount in arrogance toward other states, we will not have improved our lot.

A weakened United States and a crippled Europe, combined with an ascending totalitarian regime is the future that we face. Canadians will enter this brave new world with the real possibility that no-one will have our backs.

A generation of Liberal politicians have knelt at the altar of multilateralism – chiefly through the United Nations. Regrettably, this has meant that policy by the lowest common denominator. When one considers that Iran can serve on a human rights committee, and North Korea can be entrusted to chair the group promoting disarmament, we can see that the protection that this type of policy offers is no protection at all.

While Canada should endeavor to be a good and trustworthy partner to all, we need to acknowledge that some nations work better together than others. With the possible decline of existing global relationships, we must be at the forefront of forming new alliances and new partnerships.

Canada should therefore commit itself to a retooling of its foreign policy.

First, we should place a clear bias toward those nations that embrace those values that we hold dear. That means working to develop deeper ties with countries that promote human rights and freedoms, free market economies, and respect for the rule of law.

Canada is an Anglophone nation, a Francophone nation, and a power in the Western Hemisphere. This means that our trade, human rights and development aid should be specifically targeted toward the nations of the Commonwealth, la Francophonie, and the Organization of American States. Not only do these relationships tend to be the most successful and mutually-beneficial we have, but building on this approach – a “Three Sphere” strategy – we also fashion a system where we would serve as the nexus point between all three networks. Commonwealth nations wishing to tap into markets in la Francophonie and the Americas would use Canada as the trade and investment conduit, and so on.

The Prime Minister’s actions in this regard are encouraging, but may be too timid, given the rapidly changing complexion of the global economy and geopolitical structures. Stephen Harper is correct to pursue strategies to strengthen our military capabilities, develop our energy infrastructure, diversify our trade, and promote our values. What is needed, however, is the synthesis of a more holistic policy – one that specifically identifies what kind of international role Canada sees for itself, as well as the kind of international architecture it is keen to help develop.

The world is changing. In two decades, we will enter a world with multiple centres of power and influence, where no particular political philosophy is dominant, and where competition for resources and markets for a growing population will mark relations between states. Building deep and enduring alliances with the like-minded and similarly oriented is the only way that Canada will ensure its relevancy in the global community. More importantly, it is the only insurance policy for Canadians to live in a society influenced by its own values and prerogatives.