A Thought

Peter
#1. April 6th, 2008, at 6:51 PM.

If you hold to number six you are going to kiss off a lot more than Toronto and Vancouver.

EMG
#2. April 6th, 2008, at 7:30 PM.

Excellent idea.

Though I think League of Knuckle-draggers might be more to the point. Rather than “Aye”s and “Nay”s we could use “Ungh”s and “Narg”s.

WL Mackenzie Redux
#3. April 6th, 2008, at 8:43 PM.

I’m a classic liberal and I feel the liberal political organizations and parties left me when they abandoned classic liberal values of civil freedom, individual rights and governors accountable to the rule of law for the current agendas of identity group politics, balkanizing muticulturalism, control regimes to stifle dissent, truncation of civil liberty for political expedience and a general intolerance to non conformity.

That was in the late 70s and my vote and support has wandered about a few political organizations and movements which embraced classic liberal ideals but by and large, in the last 15 years it has been some form of so- called “conservative” movement which has had more in common with classic liberalism than any liberal-branded party.

I believe there is lots of common ground between real liberalism and democratic populist conservativism…problem is, most people who consider themselves “liberals” these days actually aren’t…they’re some form of combative collectivist statist.

Blazingcatfur
#4. April 6th, 2008, at 10:00 PM.

Can I make an honest buck off it? Kiddin, a good idea;)

David Avren
#5. April 7th, 2008, at 12:28 AM.

Jay:

Great idea and well worth a try. How else can the seemingly relentless grip of political correctness be loosened? The CPC is obviously not up to the task; though it may have staunched a little of the flow of pc nonsense coming from Ottawa, it amounts to little more than a band-aid on a haemorrhage.

Take mass immigration for instance: arguably it’s the most significant social issue in Canada today, and is obviously transforming the country. Canada has an extreme immigration policy however you choose to look at it (highest rate in the world, probably the highest refugee acceptance rate in the world, etc.). The CPC, which as government and Cabinet has absolute control over numbers, has avoided real debate, let alone action like the plague (as it’s done with the Steyn/Levant/HRC and many other issues).

Sign me up for your League/Political Action Committee.

P.S. I enjoy your well-written insightful commentaries.

Kevin
#6. April 7th, 2008, at 12:34 AM.

It’s an interesting idea. The part I like the most is that it’s an issues based approach. A cross country assessment of candidates based on issues would be a welcome change.

Metrics would be important. So would presentation if it smelled partisan at all it wouldn’t be trusted, or worse, high ‘liberal’ scores would be presented as proof of racism, homophobia etc. There would have to be a concerted effort be accurate without passing judgement. If it was the “Coalition for Informed Choice” it might work better.

You would never change a dippers mind. The people you might get would be the centrist Liberals and some greens ( although I think the ‘liberal’ part of the Green party left shortly after May arrived ).

christopher rivers
#8. April 7th, 2008, at 2:24 AM.

It would serve as a constant reminder there is support for a different stance on these issues. We don’t really need another party, just a pressure group. BTW, was that cat fur entity volunteering?

Peter
#9. April 7th, 2008, at 3:20 AM.

Those are all fair points, Jay, but they are very rational, almost scientific, points. I’m actually on your side about this waste of money for the benefit of a certain geographically and ideologically defined class, although we may have other differences on the subject. Frankly, after so many years, we’re getting to the point where everybody, French or English, should either become bilingual or suck up the consequences with no more whining. I mean, dammit, ask the Euros, it isn’t THAT hard to learn another language if you try early enough in life. But as long as anti-bilingualism is seen as a hyper-Anglo reaction against Quebec and even Quebec’s existence, it will be manna from Heaven for the Libs and the others on the East side of the Ottawa River.

I once, through family, had the pleasure of meeting a delightful but vey traditional (and conservative) elderly lady from rural Quebec, far from the world of Shakespeare. She hated the separatists but she had read some article in the newspapar about yet another challenge to bilingualism from somebody. It was very minor everyday stuff, but the old dear was petrified the Feds were going to prohibit her from speaking French. “I’m too old to learn English” she told a very confused me. Of course her children and grandchildren smiled and assured me they knew she was out to lunch. Sort of, their eyes said.

My own view is that much better bridges have to be built with Quebec conservatives on this one. Life is full of tough choices.

christopher rivers
#10. April 7th, 2008, at 5:13 AM.

I’d say it’s time you took a big step in the present, Peter. Our country is is home to dozens of languages and French is rapidly diminishing in influence. Quebec and its nationalist operatic tantrums are pure nostalgia.

doug newton
#11. April 7th, 2008, at 6:48 AM.

Hi Jay
I wonder how Canadians would vote on these issues if we were given a chance to do so directly, on an issue by issue basis.
I’m willing to defer to the will of the majority of Canadians on any issue as long as it truly is their will that I am deferring to. I certainly don’t believe that to be the case now.
I would vote
Narg for Kyoto
Ungh for protecting our environment from actual pollutants.
Narg for mass immigration
Ungh for fiscal responsibility if that meant prudent spending not to exceed budget
Narg for pro Israel if that means uncritical support
Ungh for Canadian Forces if that means that we should have one and that it is well equipped for its most probable use
Narg for increased funding for bilingualism
Ungh for anti regulation just because we probably have enough of them now.
Ungh for small government if you aren’t referring the stature of our MPs

dcardno
#12. April 7th, 2008, at 7:06 AM.

Frankly, after so many years, we’re getting to the point where everybody, French or English, should either become bilingual or suck up the consequences with no more whining

Hmm… and just what would the adverse consequences of not speaking French be?

Kevin
#13. April 7th, 2008, at 10:52 AM.

and just what would the adverse consequences of not speaking French be?

Subtitles?

Peter
#14. April 7th, 2008, at 3:32 PM.

Well, if you don’t want to speak French or compel your kids to learn it, fine, it’s a free country. But if dreams of de-blingualizing the federal government soften your sleep, you know that would drive Quebec and quite a bit more out of the CPC and probably split the country. If that is ok with you too, say so, don’t hide behind innocuous statements about just cutting funding.

WL Mackenzie Redux
#15. April 7th, 2008, at 8:15 PM.

anti-Kyoto - definately

mass immigration - (against if you mean unregulated non selective immigration)

fiscal responsibility - Yes, and transparency

pro-Israel - luke warm on that one

pro-Canadian Forces - definately

anti-additional funding for bilingualism - no fedral funding

anti-regulation - anti-over regulation and economic/free market regulation abolishon

pro-small government - trim it by 2/3s

So sayeth a classic Liberal

jwl
#16. April 7th, 2008, at 8:36 PM.

There was a good article about bilingualism in the Globe this weekend. The author, don’t remember his name, made the basic point that if we wanted to be bilingual we would be. Look at the numerous Europeans who speak multiple languages and compare to us here in Canada. They learn languages in school just like us but they remember and use what they learned but we discard it as fast as possible.

The article also pointed out that many people who support french immersion schools do so because they are basically schools of excellence and children get a quality education that is not available elsewhere in the public system. Many children who attend french immersion schools have parents who are elitist and don’t want their kids mixing with the ‘hoi polloi’.

DCardno
#17. April 8th, 2008, at 1:35 AM.

Look at the numerous Europeans who speak multiple languages and compare to us here in Canada.
Observation #1: Stick a pin in a map of Europe. Imagine that as your birthplace or place of residence - drive 200 miles in any direction, and you will encounter at least one other language spoken as the mother-tongue of that community - and if you manage not to, pick the opposite direction, and you will. Compare to Canada - I can drive better than 2,000 miles; ignoring St Boniface, I will not come across a French mother-tongue community. It is relatively easy to acquire and retain another language if you have (or can arrange) ongoing exposure to the language in use. If you don’t it is much more difficult - and in that we are at a disadvantage.

Observation #2: As a Canadian english-speaking businessman, I can address the largest and richest market on the planet speaking my native tongue. As a European non-English-speaking businessman, at the best (ie, I am a native German-speaker) I can address a market one quarter that size in my native tongue: who do you think has a greater incentive to learn another language?

Language acquisition is not free - it carries both a financial and an opportunity cost. Every hour spent practicing irregular verbs is an hour that can’t be spent on Kirchhoff’s laws, partial differential equations, or the history of women’s suffrage in relation to the textile industry. With both a greater opportunity and a much larger incentive, no wonder Europeans make a different decision about how to trade off their money and attention, and learn second (and third) languages more often than (anglo) North Americans.

…many people who support french immersion schools do so because they are basically schools of excellence…
Truer words were never spoken. At least out here, french immersion schools function as publicly-funded private schools for those willing to assert that their child is special. It is not only a way to ensure that your kid only mixes with other, equally “special” children, it almost guarantees that they will not mix with special needs kids or ESL kids. Add the fact that kids who struggle in French immersion are routinely punted to the English stream, and by grade five the difference in the mix of kids is dramatic.

Peter
#18. April 8th, 2008, at 2:51 AM.

“Every hour spent practicing irregular verbs is an hour that can’t be spent on Kirchhoff’s laws, partial differential equations, or the history of women’s suffrage in relation to the textile industry.”

Dcardno, you’d have a great future promoting French langauge education to the kids. They’d sign up in droves after that argument.

I don’t get this. You say that Europeans learn other languages because they have to. Then when somebody says to Canadians: “If you want a successful career with the Feds, you have to learn French. To which comes the answer: “But I shouldn’t have to.”

I can see why Westerners chaffe at signs or compulsory French in school or cumpulsory anything, but if Ottawa or the UN or the EU or an international bank or Lloyd’s says you need a second language, you need a second language. And why is your remoteness from it all any more deserving than the remoteness of the guy from Rimouski? He doesn’t run into Anglos for hundreds of miles in any direction either and he doesn’t learn much English in scool. Why is it tough titty for him but not us? If it makes more sense and is more profitable for you to learn Chinese, then learn Chinese and make a million. What is it about the Federal government that makes you think you have a proprietary interest in how it sets its job qualifications? And while it may be true that English is the international language of commerce, the Feds aren’t part of that circle.

We’re hardly the only country with more than one offical language. It doesn’t have much to do with left/right differences. Just ask Switzerland.

DCardno
#20. April 8th, 2008, at 4:04 AM.

…the guy from Rimouski? He doesn’t run into Anglos for hundreds of miles in any direction either

Hundreds, thousands… what’s an order of magnitude between friends?

As Jay pointed out, if “suck up the consequences with no more whining” just means “no cushy job with the feds” (and pace Kevin, subtitles) I can live with that. If “we hire the best” (out of a restricted candidate pool that may not include the “best and brightest”) means that the federal government becomes (even more) incompetent (and if they hire from Quebec, corrupt) - well, I can live with an ever-growing argument to limit federal taxing and spending power.

DCardno
#21. April 8th, 2008, at 4:07 AM.

Sorry, I missed this bit:
What is it about the Federal government that makes you think you have a proprietary interest in how it sets its job qualifications?

I’m a taxpayer, Peter - that gives me (and you) a legitimate interest in everything the government does.

Peter
#22. April 8th, 2008, at 6:57 AM.

Yes, that was sloppy of me. What I was trying to get at was why your situation vis-a-vis French should take precedence. Again I’m drawing a distinction between a measurable, objective imposition imposed on you and your objections-in-principle.

There is another element to this debate which also affects issues like aboriginal self-government, gay marriage etc. I think there is a qualitative political and even perhaps philosophical difference between opposing the introduction of something and calling for the undoing of that already done, especially if a minority gives it unanimous support and great symbolic weight to who they are and where they fit in. I can’t see much progress on the aboriginal front over forty years and there is a lot of dissent and calls for reform out there , but I am also aware that about 99.9999% of the aboriginal community would oppose enforced integration with some ugly results if it were tried. You’ll find plenty of Quebecers who think the West should be left alone on bilingualism, but not one for making English the sole official language for the Feds. Unless fissure and separation is the goal, there is a pretty good argument for pragmatism over theory, no? When your support level on the other side is not just a minority, but zero, it is worth proceeding, well, conservatively.

dcardno
#23. April 8th, 2008, at 9:03 AM.

What I was trying to get at was why your situation vis-a-vis French should take precedence.

Peter - I actually don’t care very much about bilingualism: like most government programs, I suspect it is a waste of time, and like most federal programs I suspect it is designed to take my money and use it to please (or at least, placate) Quebecers. I’m used to it - that’s just the way federalism works in this country, so I tolerate it as a relatively cheap feel-good program.

I was just responding to the ‘oh-aren’t-the-Euros-wonderful’ tone of your prior post. Sure, it isn’t hard to learn another language if you are motivated to do so - the fact that so few Canadians do, even in the face of the support of the chattering and political classes, would indicate that the level of intrinsic motivation is pretty low.

Peter
#26. April 8th, 2008, at 4:03 PM.

That’s a tough one, Jay. I’m dated now, but I spent quite a few years in the 70s and 80s advising national aboriginal groups and I came to be very struck by how, although their rhetoric was based on opposition to and hatred for the Department, they had an amazing knack for keeping it alive when everyone else was quite prepared to see it go (no department is more disdained in Ottawa and several successive Ministers from both parties were openly trying to put it out of work). They generally accomplished this by upping the rhetorical ante to ever more radical and politically unacceptable levels that allowed them to reject concrete proposals to diminish or even abolish the Department as “too little, too late” or by demanding gazillions of dollars to study and consult on the issue at length before anybody did anything. They were astoundingly good at resisting major change while talking as if they were on the cutting edge of a whole new world. Talk about a co-dependency relationship. The exceptions, of course, involved transferring money.

In some ways they could be the most reactionary of groups, sometimes so much so that they reminded me of the old joke about the paleo-con who was such a political dinosaur that, if he had been around at the Creation, he would have voted for chaos.

Holmwood
#27. April 9th, 2008, at 9:42 PM.

I agree with most, though I’m not against all regulation. I think most health and safety regulations are good. I think regulations on licensing drivers, pilots, etc are good. I think about 80-90% of financial institution regulations are good.

I’m afraid I’m not a libertarian.

“mass immigration”

What do you propose in its stead? I’m for a program that attracts hardworking educated and reasonably intelligent people to this country, without much regard to numbers, and no regard to color, national origin, etc.

On that, maybe I am a bit of a libertarian.

“anti-additional funding for bilingualism”
I’m against additional federal funding for this. I’m for additional provincial or municipal funding for this if it’s what a majority of citizens in the relevant jurisdiction want.

Again, I’m more of a democrat than a libertarian.

“pro-Canadian Forces”
We are blessed as a country to have people who serve with bravery and honor.

I am not convinced that the senior leadership of the Canadian Forces has been of the best quality over the last 20 years.

Does that make me anti-Canadian Forces?

I am not convinced that I want to write a blank cheque for the Forces, though I am definitely convinced they do need more funding.

I am staggered by the commitment and integrity of most of those who serve.

I know I’m coming late to this discussion; sorry. But I can’t help but feel some of what you list above is overly simplistic.

-Holmwood

Hannibal Lectern
#28. April 10th, 2008, at 8:09 AM.

“and just what would the adverse consequences of not speaking French be?”

Getting your medication for an STD in English.