A Thought
Watching people galvanize around the free speech issue brought up by the CHRC’s trampling of free speech in Canada I have been struck by the consensus which many bloggers have displayed. While we have no time for neo-Nazi action, we have a great deal of time for Canadian citizens right to speak. And we have no time at all for the slimeball tactics of the CHRC’s counsel, investigators or Tribunal.
The people responding to this – while they have been characterized as Concervatives – are, in fact, conservatives; more accurately classical liberals.
Now, I wonder if we might find agreement on other issues which the CPC is too scared to address.
anti-Kyoto
mass immigration
fiscal responsibility
pro-Israel
pro-Canadian Forces
anti-additional funding for bilingualism
anti-regulation
pro-small government
I suspect there are some metrics I’ve left out. The point being that we tend to be people willing to challenge the validity of the so called Canadian consensus.
And then I wondered how we might best influence the various political parties in the direction we would like to see the Canadian conversation actually go.
One thought I had would be to rate MPs – not parties – on their relative commitment to a set of goals. We would define the goals and then build a database of MP ratings.
It would take a bit of work to come up with the ratings and the metrics used to calculate the ratings. However, I suspect it would be entirely doable. Basically we would score – riding by riding – the candidates and members based on what they have actually said.
Call it “The League of Real Canadian Voters” and endorse candidates in every riding in Canada. Given the metrics I think are important a LRCV endorsement would likely be the kiss of death in TO and Vancouver. But, in the rest of the country it might be worth several hundred votes.
So, what do you think? Good idea, pernicious nonsense and the CPC will see us through? Do comment.
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.
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.
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.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Can I make an honest buck off it? Kiddin, a good idea;)
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.
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 ).
April 7th, 2008 at 1:15 am
“If you hold to number six you are going to kiss off a lot more than Toronto and Vancouver.”
I doubt it Peter. Where is the overwhelming support for the failed experiment of bilingualism? In Quebec? The francophone community actively demanded that the Quebec government bring in measures to override the effects of unofficial bilingualism. The anglophone has largely left anywhere but Montreal. There is no support at all for bilingualism in the West outside about four ridings in Vancouver and those ridings, as they become more Asian will see that support drop (Chinese kids do not take French Immersion (which may very well be the critical point for beleaguered white parents)). Ontario? Some support in Western Ontario where there are some Francophones, support in parts of the National Capital region. Maritimes? Well New Brunswick is dropping early French immersion.
Now, add to this the silly recommendation that another 250 million a year be spent promoting bilingualism and see how much support that has.
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
April 7th, 2008 at 10:52 am
and just what would the adverse consequences of not speaking French be?
Subtitles?
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.
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 ;-)
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’.
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.
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.
April 8th, 2008 at 3:11 am
Peter, you may have discovered the real secret…most people do not actually want a successful career with the feds.
But one is reminded of the South African situation when the Afrikaners found themselves becoming a double minority to first the Blacks and secondly the English speakers. To preserve their place they made their civil service bilingual: Afrikaans and English. So, essentially, the only utility Afrikaans had was as either a mother tongue or a credential for the South African civil service. The English stayed away in droves.
I doubt French will become quite so embattled in Canada; but if the best argument you can make for learning it is that without it you cannot rise in the federal civil service you have pretty much put paid to French as anything but an obscure piece of credentialism. Rather like Latin and Greek for colonial administrators in 19th century England.
(And given the wave of retirements which is hitting the federal and provincial civil services it is not at all clear that this Trudeaupian obscurantism will survive much past the retirement of the last boomer.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Peter, I was suggesting that no additional funding for the promotion of bilingualism be allocated; I have no time for the idea that Canada should have English as the sole official language.
That said, there are far more efficient ways of delivering bilingual services in areas where one or the other language is predominant than making bilingualism a criteria for any significant advancement in the federal civil service. However, I suspect this will be a self correcting problem simply because the need for middle and senior level federal civil servants will soon outstrip the number of remotely bilingual candidates. As, unfortunately, the civil service is unlikely to shrink, the alternative will be to designate an increasing number of positions as dual use – bilingual by preference but unilingual in a pinch.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Peter, you said, “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.”
I suspect that the bulk of the aboriginal community would oppose “enforced” integration but I am not so sure that that same “bulk” would not be delighted to see the back of the Department of Indian Affairs.
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.
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
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.