Canada – Page 95 – a sibilant intake of breath

2006 conclusion

The fact that it is now the last day of December is vaguely amazing to me. The time that has passed since returning from Turkey on the 16th has been the extended equivalent of deciding to have a nap after lunch and waking up at 8:00pm.

I suppose the winter break last year was similar, though two differences stand out as significant. Whereas last year, I spent a good amount of time getting to know Louise, this break has been characterized by almost universal solitude in Oxford. More importantly, whereas last year’s break involved little necessity of getting anything academic done, I have felt constant pressure this time, and hence constant disappointment. Kate pointed out, quite rightly, that an essential element of being a success in graduate school is being able to do your own planning and marshall your own energies; in the absence of a social climate, this is not a thing at which I succeed well.

While the post-Turkey period has been largely lacking in lustre, the year has generally been an unusually good one. I travelled to Malta in March, Scotland in July, Ireland in August, Vancouver and Barrier Lake in September, and Turkey in December. I met some new and interesting friends, gained some local and international correspondents, and did a lot of good photography and academic work. Publication of the eternal fish paper was secured, if not accomplished, and I did my first serious teaching. I had my first photograph published, albeit without my permission being asked.

2007 will be the most unscripted year of my entire life to date. If you had asked me to bet, at the age of twelve, what I would be doing at the age of 23, I would have suggested four years as an undergrad, followed by graduate school somewhere. Where the road leads from here is profoundly unclear – a reality that almost anyone would find somewhat daunting. It will be interesting to see what my summing up on 31 December 2007 will involve.

The X-Files in retrospect

Unproductive pre-Christmas days are reminding me of evenings long forgotten. Specifically, those taken up in watching The X-Files and being terrified about all the pseudo-scientific content therein. These days, I am more appreciative about the opportunities the series provided to the emerging film and television industry in Vancouver, as several of my friends could describe on the basis of their personal experience.

I remember evenings after the point where my paternal grandfather replaced our television with one three times the size, in order to watch the World Cup – an event that had less than zero significance for me at the time and has not much more now – when I would watch new episodes of the X-Files and be unusually unable to sleep before the school days subsequent.

It is interesting how The X-Files was concerned to the point of paranoia about the dangers of government secrecy, whereas television today has largely embraced the mindset of the ‘War on Terror.’ 24 is an example that is shamefully compelling.

Gay marriage back under debate

Most annoyingly, it seems that Canada’s Conservative Party is trotting out gay marriage, which is presently legal in Canada, for new Parliamentary debate.

As I have written before, Parliament does not have the right to stop gay people from getting married. The right to not suffer discrimination supersedes the authority of Parliament to legislate, by virtue of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is not a right that can be restricted in keeping with “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” While the Notwithstanding Clause could be used to nullify that legality, doing so would be profoundly illiberal.

The whole thing is likely to be a vote-loser for the Tories, since even Canadians who have problems with gay marriage now generally consider the matter settled. Hopefully, the Tories will take some well-deserved flak for this political theatre and all parties will realize that they should leave the matter as it stands in the future.

My previous entries on this are here: 1 February 2006 and 3 June 2006.

And don’t lift up my head ’till the the twelve bells at noon

I am glad to see that Spirit of the West has been gaining in worldwide popularity. Almost every hour, for the last few days, I have seen people finding my site by searching for lyrics from their classing song “Home for a Rest.”

People tend to remember the chorus:

You’ll have to excuse me, I’m not at my best
I’ve been gone for a week
I’ve been drunk since I left
And these so-called vacations
Will soon be my death
I’m so sick from the drink
I need home for a rest
Take me home….

The song is great fun, and a Canadian pub favourite. I was lucky enough to see Spirit of the West live on my nineteenth birthday, at the infamous Pit Pub, at the University of British Columbia.

Liberal conference concluded

So, Ignatieff is out. I knew nothing about the other candidates, so I cannot really say anything worthwhile. He may have made debate more interesting, but turning the Federal Liberal Party into a group that can win the next election is obviously foremost in the minds of supporters. Given the egregious environmental policies of the Harper government, I wish more power to them.

Taylor Owen knows more. So do Tim and Tristan. Doubtless, many more politically minded Canadian blogging friends of mine will weigh in soon. Who would have expected that to be such a substantial group?

I am off to bed, but please link additional relevant items in comments.

Live-blogging Keohane

Anyone interested in reading about Robert Keohane’s presentation to the Global Economic Governance Seminar can do so on my wiki. There is still nearly an hour in the session, so if someone posts a clever question as a comment, I will try to ask it. I doubt anyone will do so in time, but it would be a neat demonstration of the emerging capabilities of internet technology in education.

Since this is a publicly held lecture, I don’t see any reason whatsoever for which the notes should not be available. Those who don’t know who Robert Keohane is may want to have a look at the Wikipedia entry on him.

[Update: 7:30pm] Robert Keohane’s second presentation, given at Nuffield on anti-Americanism, was well argued but not too far off the conventional wisdom. I am here taking “the conventional wisdom” to be that in a survey on Anti-Americanism that I am almost sure ran in The Economist during the last couple of years.

Basically: it does exist, more so in the Middle East than anywhere else. The Iraq war has exacerbated it almost everywhere, but the biggest turn for the worse has been in Europe. The policy impact of Anti-Americanism is not very clear. Finally, lots of what would be taken as a legitimate political stance if expressed by an American at home is taken as Anti-Americanism elsewhere.

Keohane distinguished four sorts of Anti-Americanism, three of which have been expressed on this blog. The first was the kind grounded in the belief that the United States is not living up to its own values: what he called Liberal Anti-Americanism. Guantanamo, and everything that word conjures up, gives you the idea. The second is social Anti-Americanism: for instance, objections to the death penalty of the absence of state funded health care. The third is Anti-Americanism based on fear of encroachment into the domestic jurisdiction of your state, what he called the state sovereignty variety. The last was radical Anti-Americanism, which I would suggest is distinguished more by the language used to express it, the degree to which the positions taken are extreme, and the kind of actions justified using it than by the kind of analysis that underscores the rational components thereof.

Party in London with other Canadians

I won’t be able to attend tonight’s party at the High Commissioner’s official residence in London, but other Canadian grad students with the time and inclination should. High Commissioner is a title invented by Canadians to stress how our relationship with Queen and Empire could not be captured through a mere exchange of ambassadors. Partly as a result of the former prominence of that relationship, the High Commissioner has a very nice house and throws fine (if short) parties:

Event details:

Friday, December 1 from 18:30 to 20:30
James R. Wright, High Commissioner for Canada’s residence – 3 Grosvenor Square, London W1 (Bond Street Underground).
Google Map

Last year, just showing up was enough to get in, but you may want to contact Ian Napier (ian.napier@international.gc.ca) to double check, if you are planning to come from far off.

Quebec and nationhood

First Ignatieff said it, and now Stephen Harper has: ‘Quebec is a nation.’

The claim is a tricky one, for a number of reasons. ‘Quebec’ is a federal component of Canada: a province granted particular jurisdictions and roles under Canadian law. Like some other parts of the country, it includes a minority population with unique linguistic, educational, and other concerns. While I am perfectly willing to accept that French Canadians may constitute a “large aggregate of communities and individuals united by factors such as common descent, language, culture, history, or occupation of the same territory, so as to form a distinct people,” to take the definition from the OED, it is clear that Quebec is not synonymous with French Canadians.

The French Canadian nation does not occupy Quebec to the exclusion of other groups. There are Anglophone Canadians, recent immigrants, members of the First Nations, and others. Some, like the Cree, have considerable historical precedence over the settlers of New France; other have arrived recently enough to be subject to the special language laws the province has enacted in recent decades. Just as French Canadians must be given appropriate treatment within the wider federation of Canada, so too do other minority groups within Quebec deserve to be treated with fairness and due consideration under the law. Empowering the government of Quebec with special rights to represent the French Canadian nation must not diminish its obligation to honour the rights of other groups within the province.

The French Canadian nation (if it makes sense to treat it monolithically), is also not confined within the borders of the province of Quebec. New Brunswick is officially bilingual, and there are French speakers and people of French descent throughout the entire country. As such, dealing with Quebec and dealing with the full ramifications of that minority issue are not one and the same.

It will be interesting to see what, if any, concrete policy developments will arise as the result of these declarations. I do not think that recognizing French Canada as a nation, in the sense quoted above, is a threat to the integrity of Canada any more than recognizing the rights of First Nations peoples has been. Being able to accommodate different groups with competing claims is, after all, the root purpose of federalism. Given demographic shifts in Quebec, it makes less and less sense to conflate the issue of French Canadian identity with that geographic zone. Hopefully, the declarations from Ignatieff and Harper have just been pragmatic recognitions of the above.

Paul Martin on economic governance

Former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin’s talk was candid, informative and engaging. At a Global Economic Governance Program seminar, he covered a very diverse collection of issues: from China’s hunger for natural resources to the regulation of multinational corporations. I have never seen the room so packed, and the questions were excellent. He managed to get some good laughs, as well. In response to my question about climate change, he said, in part:

“Climate change has long since been recognized as caused by human activity principally.

The net effect is going to be devastating.

Prince Edward Island will disappear; Toronto won’t. That’s a disaster on both sides

That would make a great headline back home, wouldn’t it?”

Generally, he was very open, but there were certainly a few notable questions ducked. He declined to endorse a candidate for the Liberal leadership race when asked, for instance. People should feel free to have a look at my transcript, in which I have tried to quote directly wherever I could type fast enough.

PS. As today’s photo demonstrates, there is a downside to having a camera that takes 2-3 seconds to charge and fire its flash.

Remembrance Day

After reading my friend Michael’s post on Remembrance Day, I find myself rethinking the event. I can think of three different potentially valid understandings of its purpose:

The day as a formalized period of mourning for the specific people who died in the wars commemorated.
A day meant to serve as recognition of the fundamental badness of war in general
A day meant to encourage contemplation of the specific conflicts being commemorated.

The first and second are clearly somewhat contradictory. You can get around that by either saying that war in general is bad, but these ones were noble and important or that waging war is honourable if done defensively, and all of these conflicts were defensive. Another way out is to say that the actions of those who died, specifically, were honourable, regardless of whether the broader endeavour in which they were engaged was.

The most easily justifiable position is to avoid the automatic taking of a moral stance – in response to the occasion – but rather use the chance to reflect on the specifics of the conflicts themselves: how they arose, how they progressed, what they resulted in, and what the importance of all of that is now. Such an approach has the virtue of independence of thought, but probably rather misses the point of a commemorative ceremony of the sort that Remembrance Day is meant to be.

Regardless of the conclusions you reach, the balance you end up contemplating is one between large-scale strategies and small-scale sacrifices. Whether it’s Canadians being blown up by roadside bombs while trying to aid negotiations between the central government and provincial warlords in Afghanistan today or Canadians dying to test the German defences in Dieppe in 1942, such examples force us to think hard about the aims of our foreign policy, and the purposes for which armed force should be employed in the world.