The Shotgun Blog
« "What questions do they raise?" | Main | NORMAN'S SPECTATOR »
Monday, January 03, 2005
Jaeger on Judges
Kevin Jaeger condemns "judicial activism," but won't say what he'd do about it.
You'll find my most recent piece on the issue at NORMAN'S SPECTATOR.
I've also written extensively in support of the notwithstanding clause, most recently at http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/globe93.htm
However, in light of recent exchanges with Kevin on this site, I'd add three observations today:
1. No political party that thinks Canada is a "half-assed country" will ever form government in this country;
2. Nor will any political party that approves of Cheryl Gallant-type statements on abortion, or that thinks politics is about saving souls, ever be in a position to appoint Supreme Court Justices; and
3. Canada abandoned parliamentary supremacy in 1982, and the Charter of Rights is here to stay, notwithstanding columns such as Mark Steyn's most recent attack on "judocracy" in Canada and the US (where the Bill of Rights is into its third century). For any political party to advocate directly--or indirectly, as did Randy White in the last campaign--abandoning constitutional supremacy would be both unpopular and reactionary.
Posted by Norman Spector on January 3, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83457979169e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jaeger on Judges:
» Nibbled To Death By Ducks from small dead animals
It's been quite a "Spectorcle" at the Shotgun group blog - the past month's incidents best summarized by Bob Tarantino at Let It Bleed. On December 18, Spector posted this piece, entitled "Political Escapism--Further Thoughts", which opened with this: ... [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-01-19 9:36:17 PM
» Nibbled To Death By Ducks from small dead animals
It's been quite a "Spectorcle" at the Shotgun group blog - the past month's incidents best summarized by Bob Tarantino at Let It Bleed. On December 18, Spector posted this piece, entitled "Political Escapism--Further Thoughts", which opened with this: ... [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-01-22 2:09:16 PM
Comments
Norman,
As someone who resides well to the right of the political spectrum, I appreciate your points about creating a conservative party that can win elections. What I can't figure out is how to have a country that all people are proud of, when we have one province that is disproportionately powerful. I have heard Bloc members refer to Quebec not as cautious on military issues, but rather "pacifist". This, it seems to me, is it the root of our weak position internationally. On social and economic issues as well, Quebecers are way to the left of most Canadians. I realize politics involves compromise, but what compromising does Quebec have to do when all parties cater to it?
Posted by: Jeff Eirich | 2005-01-03 8:49:54 AM
Okay Norm, agreed ...
even though a party representing the opinions you outlined may not get elected in Canada, there is however the reality of widespread disengagement, alienation and frankly, disgust (note: you are posting in the Western Standard) -as people who have been "silenced" (we aren't all secular liberals with a martyr complex) watch the machinations of "Club Canada" from the sidelines.
Even though I might not dot all of Kevin's "i's" and cross all his "t's" - he does have a point. Hopefully the Western Standard welcomes observations such as Kevin's - rather than attempt to drive them a couple of kilometers north of the sidelines.
While people espousing the above views may not get a party elected - they are sufficiently numerous to create divisions and fault lines that will forever handicap efforts to unify the country in any real sense. Instead of asking the nay sayers to get real - how about asking those pushing the grand experiment to try extending their sensitivity and concerns to encompass those with deep roots in Canada who don't happen to agree with the current direction?
Posted by: Aidan Maconachy | 2005-01-03 8:58:17 AM
I'll take this further - if there isn't a conscious attempt to find ways to expand the "big tent" concept rightward with generosity and a genuine attempt to respect and defend so-called "socon" views, there will come a day when the left will wake up and find they don't have a "half-assed country" - they will have half the country they once had. Alberta will be gone.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-03 10:12:51 AM
Jeff,
You've identified a very difficult problem that needs a lot of thought and hard work.
One thing I'm sure of, however: no one ever won an election by whining.
We should also recognize that considerable progress has been achieved in the past year in re-uniting conservatives, and not give up.
Aidan/Kate, the reason we have no abortion law in this country, as one example, is because the so-cons were not prepared to compromise and teamed up with the pro-abortionites to defeat the legislation.
Kate, As to separation, you're living in a fantasy world.
This country will survive both of us, of that I'm certain.
If you've such contempt for Canada and Canadians, why don't you just pick up and leave for the US before you become both old and bitter?
That way, too, you could indulge your interest in US foreign policy with some real world consequences, as opposed to living it vicariously from the safety of Canada.
I warn you, however, that the US, too, is a "judocracy," and I doubt they'll soon abolish their Bill of Rights, notwithstanding Mark Steyn's complaints.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-03 11:05:44 AM
"I warn you, however, that the US, too, is a "judocracy," and I doubt they'll soon abolish their Bill of Rights, notwithstanding Mark Steyn's complaints." --
I'd also be cautious about expressing any such sentiment against the Bill of Rights if one is attempting to immigrate to America. Those pesky INS officials probably wouldn't take to kindly to upstart would-be-immigrants to their country telling them that the most sacred document in the country is somehow profoundly flawed and needs fixin'.
Posted by: MWW | 2005-01-03 11:17:04 AM
Under the highest law in the land, the Constitution, aboriginal Canadians have rights that non-aboriginal Canadians do not have."
Your words Norman.
I think people are finally beginning to see how much damage judicial interpretation of the Charter has done.
As Kate says piss off Albertans some more, get the separation momentum going and see what happens.
Elect Stephen Harper. I personally believe he is the only one with the wherewithal to reopen the constitution.
So far you are the only one who thinks Mark Steyn was criticizing the US bill of rights. He was criticizing interpretations of it, and I suggest attacked the Jeff Simpson quote because the quote was phony. It should have read, We are now governed by a constitution as interpreted by activist judges.
How do you stop judicial activism?? Start invoking the notwithstanding clause. Let judges know the government is the boss. They will catch on.
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-01-03 11:35:30 AM
So what's your solution Norman? Learn to like it or ship out? Resistance is futile?
Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 2005-01-03 11:37:13 AM
MIkeP
Jeff Simpson consistently attacks activist judges in his columns.
He has written in support of the notwithstanding clause, which is part of our constitution.
He supports constitutional supremacy. Mark Steyn doesn't.
Mike Dabioch,
I've written that the appointment of judges and the notwithstanding clause are key parts of the puzzle, and that both depend on forming government. How exactly are you resisting?
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-03 11:55:25 AM
"Kate, As to separation, you're living in a fantasy world."
Her'es what I know, Norman - when talking to Albertans I would best describe as apolitical, and to others who 20 years ago were staunch defenders of Canada, the atmosphere here has changed dramatically. A friend (in her 70's) in Calgary volunteered not so long ago that the only thing that kept her from voting to separate from Canada was a ballot.
For what it's worth, I'm more libertarian than socon - "pro-choice", for that matter. I belong to no political parties. But I'm dismayed at the contempt that writers like you and others treat socons with - so much so that I would walk away from any Conservative party that chose to ostracize them. As so many others have said, I'm not interested in Liberal lite, and I'm not interested in politicians who subvert the truth to political correctspeak.
And yes, truth be known, I've done a some of preliminary work looking into options for moving to the US, though it has little to do with Canadian politics and everything to do with the consequences of them - high taxes and the squeezing of rural economies.
75 - 80% of my clientelle is now from the US, and a further 15% or so from elsewhere in Canada. 20 years the situation was the exact reverse - 80% of my customer base was local. That has all but disappeared. The commercial work I used to rely on from local small business and farm/rural customers no longer exists.
In an increasingly beaurocratized and hostile trade environment, (I have to personally deliver some orders across the border for shipment, and am continuously hit by improper customs fees on work coming in) plus rapidly escalating property taxes, I may soon be forced to move out of Saskatchewan just to survive.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-03 12:14:37 PM
"As Kate says piss off Albertans some more, get the separation momentum going and see what happens."
Of course what would happen if it really came down to _that_ is that you would see a stunning reversal on the part of the Federal Government with respect to specific land claims in Alberta by Aboriginals. In fact, in a move that would reverse 100 years of Government policy, the Federal Government would claim that the a majority of Alberta's land mass and it's natural resources can't possibly become sepparate from Canada because - it would be asserted that most of it is Indian Title Lands, and as such, it would be up to the Aboriginal Peoples within Alberta whether to allow their lands to become "not part of Canada" any more.
And since the Alberta-Sepparation movement and it's advocates has such a spectacularly good relationship with Indians (sarcasm) I doubt very much that Alberta Indians would want to hitch their wagon to that particular star.
Of course if the Alberta Sepparation movement had any sense whatsover, they would anticipate this move on the part of the Federal Government and post-haste work to establish common ground and goals with Alberta's Aboriginals.
Posted by: MWW | 2005-01-03 12:16:43 PM
I should have added, Norm - I hope that satisfies your desire that I deal with "real life consequences".
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-03 12:21:41 PM
"I have to personally deliver some orders across the border for shipment," --
Free advice: Find an Indian to take shipments across the boarder. The Jay Treaty (which many so-cons were mocking a month ago) prohibits the US Customs officials from charging any tariff on goods in the possession of an Indian going to the US. The US still recognizes the Jay Treaty, while the Canadian government does not so it doesn't work with imports.
Posted by: MWW | 2005-01-03 12:21:48 PM
Obviously, Kate and Kevin are in closer touch with the American people than whoever this Norman guy is.
US conservatives have a problem with judges who legislate from the bench. We want judges who are committed to basing their rulings on our Constitution. We love our Bill of Rights, and it's not going anywhere. However, we are looking for a way to put a halt to liberals who cannot get their agenda passed in legislation using court rulings to enact that agenda.
Right now, we've got the power, so maybe we'll be able to swing something.
Note to Kevin and Kate: you have more influence down here than Norman does. If Kate moves down, we'll throw a party.
If Alberta wishes to join us, they will be welcomed with open arms and joyous hearts. The sooner, then better.
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2005-01-03 1:36:59 PM
I agree completely with Greg.
In fact, anyone who agrees with Kathy Shaidle that Canada is a half-assed country should go live in the US.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-03 2:00:05 PM
Norman - this post returns us to a discussion of a few days ago about Cheryl Gallant’s alleged “stupidity” in voicing her views on abortion. My point was that conservatives show a lack of backbone when they allow themselves to get wrapped-around-the-axle by Liberals and the media every time another conservative expresses a ‘controversial’ opinion. You replied at the time that no leader should have to ‘tolerate’ such stupidity.
In this post you again criticize Gallant and White for having voiced their opinions and imply that their views are the party’s. This is what I mean by getting “wrapped-around-the-axle”. White and Gallant were but two candidates out of 308 and there was a wild uproar among conservatives. This is ridiculous. Though their views are not the party’s they should be able to promote them without fear of being ostracized.
If it’s going to get anywhere the Conservative party will have to get serious about their “big tent” claim, show some courage, stop the hand-wringing when some Conservatives become ‘controversial’ and learn to defend (against the media, left-Libs and other Conservatives) the rights of its supporters to hold diverse views (as well as easily get elected in their own ridings).
I know you think that looking south with admiration on Republican success is little more than political escapism but perhaps we can learn how they manage to accommodate such a wide range of views (even ‘stupid’ ones) within their party.
Posted by: JR | 2005-01-03 2:07:33 PM
JR
The US model is quite instructive here.
In the US, social conservatives wisely adopted an incremental approach to abortion, and have been chipping away quite successfully.
In Canada, they unwisely went for the whole tamale and helped defeat the replacement legislation in the late 1980s.
Until and unless there is a change of heart on this uncompromising strategy, there is no upside and only downside for Canadian conservatives even to discuss the issue.
If and when there is a change of heart/strategy, the first order of business for social conservatives should be to ensure that Cheryl Gallant gets with the program. Her remarks certainly don't suggest she's yet there.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-03 2:18:15 PM
Norman,
I agree on the abortion strategy/tactics. However, my point was not about Gallant’s position on abortion but about her right to hold, defend and promote it - and about the need for Conservatives to defend that right and not collapse into hand-wringing self-doubt every time she speaks.
Granted it would help if she “got with the program” but her position on abortion isn’t party policy and likely won’t be. My point is that she’s but one voice - why should Conservatives get so excited when she uses it? There’s nothing stopping the Conservative Party from adopting the Republican strategy on abortion or any other wise strategy - whether or not the Whites, Gallants, Reids, Orchards, Joe Clarks and so on express themselves.
Posted by: JR | 2005-01-03 3:24:04 PM
JR,
Would you really expect anyone, much less the Conservative Leader or an elected MP, to defend the view that abortion is equivalent to beheading US soldiers in Iraq?
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-03 3:34:36 PM
Norman,
No, but I would expect Conservatives to defend her right to hold such "stupid" views - which I believe the Leader did - while emphasizing that Party policy is ...(?)... - and avoiding excessive, the-sky-is-falling-in, hand-wringing over it.
Posted by: JR | 2005-01-03 3:47:05 PM
JR,
I would expect the leader to defend her right to hold the view that life begins at conception.
I would not expect the leader to defend her right to hold the view that abortion is equivalent to beheading US soldiers in Iraq.
I would expect the leader to be out of town that day. However, if he were tracked down by the press, I would expect the leader to say, "If that's what she said, is that ever stupid."
But before any of this happened, I would expect people who care about the issue to read the riot act to her.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-03 4:20:51 PM
"1. No political party that thinks Canada is a "half-assed country" will ever form government in this country;"
The Liberals think Canada is a half-assed country; in fact, they know it is. The fact that they get away with gross mismanagement time and time again is proof positive that they are correct.
The Liberals are today the plurality party in the House of Commons. They have commanded majorities in Parliament for what proportion of the past seven decades? Now add in Liberal minority governments. Do you see a pattern? Scandal, incompetence, fraud, misappropriation, re-election.
Posted by: Charles MacDonald | 2005-01-03 5:24:37 PM
Norman, fair enough. You support using the notwithstanding clause; the problem is, of course, that it would have to be used extensively to stop insane court decisions. The Charter is at the root of these decisions, as we know. If your advice is not to critique the Charter to avoid being slapped with the extremist label, don't you think that anyone wanting to use the notwithstanding clause will be branded in the same fashion? There is no easy way to challenge judicial activism in this country but the issues must be raised and brought into public discourse in an intelligent way. The more people talk about certain issues the more these issues seep into the minds of Canadians and become mainstream. We can't be afraid of talking about the Charter, public health care and official bilingualism - we just need to make sure that we do so with tact and eloquence.
Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 2005-01-03 9:51:32 PM
Michael Dabioch
Conservatives should rejoice in the Charter, which is a much better document than the American Bill of Rights.
It is better, because it has a notwithstanding clause written right into the Charter and to be used on an exceptional basis when the judges screw up, as they can.
The reason we have a notwithstanding clause is because our constitution is the product of a clash of titans in 1981.
Trudeau had to give way to Conservatives like Lougheed and Lyon, to Bennett and, yes, to Blakeney. And Canadians received a document of which we can and should be proud.
Charles,
Liberals don't think this is a half-assed country. They think this is a great country and that they are the country and that they own the country and that they are the only ones capable of governing the country.
To change that situation, there is no practical alternative now, or will there ever be, to winning power.
That's the ball you and others should be keeping your eyes on.
All the rest is fantasy or various varietes of escapism or intellectual masturbation. The Liberals love all three.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-03 11:34:30 PM
Norm - A final observation on this thread. I come into Western Standard because I'm looking for some alternative opinion. So when you begin to play judge and jury with Kevin because he offered contrary opinions to your pretty mainstream view of Canada ... likewise when you told Kate to leave the country ... you are basically saying that if people don't concur with your views they aren't Canadian, or don't deserve to be.
Canada's a young country by any standard, and like most new nations there is a prickly and protectionist attitude on the part of some when it comes to sacred cows. It's exactly this anal attitude, that stifles the dynamism we need to be really vibrant and creative. It doesn't help to demonize those with contrary opinions.
There are plenty of Americans with pretty alternative notions about what America is about -but part of the genius of the States is it's ability to be inclusive, even in a condition of division - especially when conditions demand it. We need more of that largeness in Canada ... starting with these rooms.
Posted by: Aidan Maconachy | 2005-01-04 12:07:12 AM
Aidan
Of course, everyone is entitled to his/her views, and is free to disseminate them.
However, my right of free speech includes exposing and criticizing anti-Candadianism and contempt for Canadians where they exist.
The question is not whether I agree or disagree with a person's views.
The contempt for Canada I read on this site is, in my view, one of the malignancies eating away at Canadian conservatism.
Anyone interested in changing Canada for the better should work to extirpate this malignancy because Canadians will never elect a government that has contempt for them and for their country.
American conservatives are nationalists; they would never stand for the sneering, self-hatred that is prominent in many posts on this site.
They would never stand for anyone referring to their country as half-assed.
They would never stand for the separatist views that pass unnoticed on this site and appear to be acceptable.
They would not deny anyone the right to express these views; but they would criticize these views mercilessly--something that rarely happens on this site.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-04 1:31:51 AM
"Canadians will never elect a government that has contempt for them and for their country"
I'm confused, Norm. As a conservative Westerner, I've been called a "holocaust denier", accused of burning crosses "even as (the accuser) speaks", criticized for supporting leaders with "hidden agendas" to privatize health care (most notably in the middle of the last federal election), live in a city that wasn't even visited by Chretien during the Nov/00 election (perhaps because, as he explained to a maritimes audience, he thought we were "different"), indirectly denigrated for my Christian beliefs by exclusion of any reference to them at various federal functions (Swiss Air memorial service, various 9/11 events).
Since I regard the above to represent "contempt" toward me by persons who HAVE been elected to government for most of the last 40 years, the only conclusion is that I and the multitude of my family and friends who hold similar views are obviously not real "Canadians" in your view.
I think your "golden rule" needs an adjunct - "Canadians will never elect a government that has contempt for them and for their country, unless the contempt is limited to conservative Westerners, in which case electoral success is almost certain".
Lest you accuse me of giving in to the dark side and forming part of the "malignancy" that will preclude any possibility of a conservative federal government, I was an enthusiastic supporter of the "unite the right" movement and happily abandoned or modified my more "socon" views in anticipation that my fellow citizens, faced with the most corrupt, scandal-ridden government in western society for many decades, would finally see the light. Well, we all know how that turned out, and now you're telling us we're still unelectable because some of us are somewhat chagrined that, having watered down our conservatism until it was almost unrecognizable, our fellow citizens still preferred the Lieberals.
You're right, Norman, those of us who despair of the direction this nation has taken since God annointed us with Pierre don't have a hope of forming a government and people like you who denigrate us because we still cling to the last vestiges of conservatism may well turn out to be the "useful idiots" that facilitate what many of we Albertans now regard as our last, best option.
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-01-04 9:40:59 AM
A couple of thoughts on Norman's last post:
1. Pat Buchanan is a conservative American patriot. He may think his country is on the wrong path, but never wavers in his belief that the U.S. is the greatest country on earth.
2. I keep hearing that Canada is a young country. To my knowledge it has around 400 years behind it. Perhaps due to my lack of knowldege of that history, I have to easily let the Liberals try to tell me what Canada is and was. I think that when I happen to read quotes of prime ministers of any party from 50 or more years ago, I am always surprised at their "conservative" point of view. Maybe we need to be aware of and highlight that side of our history.
Posted by: Jeff Eirich | 2005-01-04 9:42:27 AM
"They would never stand for the separatist views that pass unnoticed on this site and appear to be acceptable."
A nation has no right to exist. Individual human beings have the right to exist and have the right to seek their own contentment. We all have the choice to stay in Canada, leave Canada, or work toward dissolving the confederation and seek happiness in some other political arrangement.
If there is a drumbeat of separatist opinions on this blog, it is for the very good reason that confederation is broken. It has turned into a one-way street in which the wealth of the nation is drawn to Ottawa, then recycled back to the rightful owners of the wealth through schemes which are both corrosive and corrupt. That's not counting all the money that is skimmed off and deposited in the bank accounts of the ruling clique. Provincial and municipal governments are exact, miniature models of the arrogance and corruption of the national government.
The fracturing of the electorate into so many blocks of squabbling and distrustful dependents is the tool which has been used to bring us to this state. The common ground between east coast EI recipients, GM production line workers, western farmers and Inuit bureaucrats is that they want their federal pork, and they want it now.
Separatistism may look like a blunt instrument, but it is one of the only sure ways of breaking the shackles of dependency, and regaining some measure of control and accountability over the use of tax money.
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2005-01-04 10:06:46 AM
firewalls `r us,
How well did the seperatists do in the last Alberta election?
If Alberta became a country, how would Calgary feel about "Redmonton" being the capital?
Posted by: Jeff Eirich | 2005-01-04 10:28:04 AM
"Liberals...think this is a great country and that they are the country and that they own the country and that they are the only ones capable of governing the country."
Actions are the best indicia of belief. The Liberals' rapacity is not consistent with regarding Canada as a great country. If they honestly believed in Canada and respected the electorate, they would not trifle with us as they do. As it is, they proceed with looting the treasury and running the country as their private fiefdom (if not as a continuing criminal enterprise), merely blushing like blue dogs when the latest scandal breaks. They can always count on the GTA, Maritimes and other Liberal strongholds, after all.
I accept the rest of the quoted passage but suggest those beliefs are also inconsistent with faith in Canadian greatness or respect for the Canadian people. They bespeak the most profound contempt for Canadians and the bedrock values of this country, however eroded they may be.
Posted by: Charles MacDonald | 2005-01-04 10:36:33 AM
Jeff Eirich,
The separatists in the last Alberta election were handicapped by having a hodgepodge of parties, some of which differed from the Liberals and New Democrats only in preferring separation. Even some of us who want to separate had to hold our noses and vote PC.
As for "Redmonton," remember that Calgary survived the degradation of being ruled from Regina when it was capital of the NWT. The horror.
Posted by: Charles MacDonald | 2005-01-04 10:50:44 AM
Charles MacDonald,
I should confess to being an Edmontonian, and would venture to say that seperatism is going nowhere democratically in this province.
As for my point about "Redmonton", what I am getting at is how long before southern Alberta has little in common with northern Alberta and wishes to seperate?
Unlike Europe, we aren't bound together by ethncity, so I don't know where the logical end to seperation is.
Posted by: Jeff Eirich | 2005-01-04 11:01:22 AM
"How well did the seperatists do in the last Alberta election?"
Actually, better than they ever have and, considering the "movement" didn't really get rolling until after the June fed election, well beyond expectations.
"If Alberta became a country, how would Calgary feel about "Redmonton" being the capital?"
The more likely scenarios are either the 51st state or creating Albumbia (or whatever Dolphin calls it), in which case the capital would more likely be Invermere or Golden :). Calgary could care less about being a seat of government anyway - we're too busy generating wealth.
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-01-04 11:20:37 AM
> In fact, anyone who agrees with Kathy Shaidle that
> Canada is a half-assed country should go live in
> the US.
They're handing out green cards that freely now? Where do I sign up?
Posted by: Mark | 2005-01-04 11:20:40 AM
Charles, Mark, firewalls 'r us, and some of you others. Listen, if the separatist movement starts gaining some steam, bring us in on it. Believe me, I would not hesitate one second to start pressuring my Texas Senators to have conversations with your leadership. The next effort should take place on both sides of the border. Even if it didn't work, it might give Alberta additional leverage in Ottawa if they knew that many Americans could hardly wait for Alberta statehood.
You folks who post on the Shotgun are exactly the kind of citizens we want in the United States. You're intelligent, you participate in citizenship, you are loyal to the principles that support civilization.
If you don't happen to move in the direction of statehood, we hope you will consider immigration. A lot of Americans would come forward to assist people like you in the process.
We have our share of problems in the United States, but I would not be suggesting the above if I did not have total faith in the idea that Alberta would be good for the United States and the United States would be good for Alberta.
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2005-01-04 1:03:48 PM
Sounds to me like a marriage made in heaven.
Though if I were in your shoes, Gregg, I'd be concerned that folks who rat once on their country are likely to re-rat, as Churchill put it.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-04 1:33:05 PM
Actually Norm, the history of Alberta has more in common with the US than it does to the Fathers of Confederation. - Alberta statehood would be more "homecoming" than separation.
Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-04 1:47:09 PM
Here in Western Canada where I live, we don't see much similarity between many of you Near Easterners and New Yorkers.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-04 2:04:59 PM
"Individual human beings have the right to exist and have the right to seek their own contentment." --
Who would have thought that the idea of Aboriginal Nations in Canada (Particularly those who never signed Treaty and as such are in a Legal Limbo... not quite part of Confederation) seeking recognition of their independence from Canada would find such support here? The Mohawks will be so glad to hear it!
Posted by: MWW | 2005-01-04 2:43:33 PM
I doubt many Albertans would rat on Canada. Most love this country.
The few Near Easterners who picked up and left for the US would quickly return, I suspect.
Even if they got away with not having to learn Spanish, they'd be appalled by the number of babies being beheaded like US soldiers in Iraq.
Worse, there's no notwithstanding clause in the judocracy to the south.
Roe v Wade will be around for years. In the unlikely event it's overturned, they'll continue to behead babies in New York and California like soldiers in the next war or the one after that.
Just one word of advice for those who do decide to head south--I'd go light on trying to propagate A + B.
Notwithstanding Kate's thesis about the great similarlity between Near Easterners and Americans, I don't recall that the leaders of the country in the 1930s, who tended to come then as they do now from Harvard and Yale, had much time for that particular "big idea."
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-04 3:13:31 PM
"rat on Canada"
I presume you mean by "rat on," betray? Tell me, what ideals, what values, what principles does Canada stand for that deserve my loyalty? What is the exact nature of the betrayal that you see being perpetrated by someone who chooses to move to the United States? Or is blind patriotism that's being demanded here?
The United States embodies political principles that are miles closer to mine than those of Canada. If it were possible for me to easily move to the States, what or whom, exactly, would I betraying by doing so?
Posted by: Mark | 2005-01-04 3:53:55 PM
Mark
It's natural to love the place in which one grew up and I think it's really sad when someone loves another country more than one's own.
I could have stayed in the US after I finished my PhD, and I've never regretted coming home.
However, you really should try to emigrate if you are certain you feel that way about Canada versus the United States.
It's sort of like a gay man coming out of the closet and finally being comfortable in his own skin.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-04 4:12:01 PM
Mark
Michael Moore is American. Is it his principles that you identify with? Susan Sontag? Ted Kenndey?
Posted by: Jeff Eirich | 2005-01-04 4:20:12 PM
You're confusing me Norm. Is a Canadian wanting to move to the US (a) tantamount to treasonous, (b) sad, or (c) an admirable act of integrity? You've said all three things and defended none of them.
Posted by: Mark | 2005-01-04 4:26:07 PM
Jeff: So your point is that the political philosophy behind the United States is most consistently represented by Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon? Or that the US has no fundamental political principles behind it? Interesting. For me, it's pretty obvious that the consititution of a country might be a good place to start when looking to discover if it has any consistent political basis and if so, what it consists of.
Posted by: Mark | 2005-01-04 4:34:16 PM
I think that hating Canada is a close relative of treason, and that it's also very sad.
I don't see hating Canada as an act of integrity, which is why I suspect that anyone who rats on this great country is pre-disposed to re-rat.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-04 4:34:23 PM
Mark,
The United States also elected Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton as president. While in power they nominated judges to interpret the constitution, no doubt in ways that conservatives weren't pleased with. The same applies to Canada. We need to end the view of the Liberals that they own this country by removing them from power. Then we will be able to appoint judges that will interpret the constitution in ways favourable to the conservative viewpoint.
As an aside, I think Australia shows that it is possible to have good conservative government under the parliamentary sytem.
Posted by: Jeff Eirich | 2005-01-04 4:47:50 PM
Dr. Spector, I find the use of "rat" undiplomatic, unhelpful and needlessly provocative. You know that any mention of that particular species produces blind, rodenticidal fury in any true Albertan.
How does one betray a country that has repeatedly betrayed itself? Fidelity to the Red Ensign Canada may well entail disloyalty to the present Canada -- a bogus pastiche of Liberal "values", political correctness and general imbecility if there ever was one.
Posted by: Charles MacDonald | 2005-01-04 4:55:58 PM
"I think that hating Canada is a close relative of treason, and that it's also very sad."
Norm, Norm, Norm, you've got to drop the platitudes and start specifying. I think that the Lieberals are corrupt despots, that the CBC is a colossal waste of money, that Canadian judges are rights fetishists tripping over each other to unveil the latest "iteration", that what has happened to our proud Canadian military is a travesty and a tragedy, etc. etc. Does this mean I "hate Canada"? Does the fact that, given how successful the Lieberals have been in remaking Canada into Trudeaupia, I despair of seeing any significant change in my lifetime and ponder alternatives make me guilty of treason?
Define "Canada" for us, Norm, and we can have an intelligent discussion on exactly what it is we are accused of "hating".
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-01-04 5:01:15 PM
"I think that hating Canada is a close relative of treason, and that it's also very sad."
I don't hate Canada, just the people who happen to be running it right now.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-04 6:00:01 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.