BLOG THIS | blog.thismagazine.ca: June 2004 Archives

In discussing the election with my friends in Quebec, one thing that struck me was the number of left-leaning people I know who supported the Bloc Quebecois and who were happy enough at the thought of the BQ holding the balance of power in Parliament. The attitude seemed to be, “sure, they’re separatists, but they’re lefty separatists.”

People, people. Listen. The BQ may be mostly made up of lefties. But they’re separatists. And that should be the end of the discussion. Unfortunately it isn’t, so let’s go through the argument again.

The two big progressive sticks that Paul Martin was able to beat the Conservatives with were i) the woman’s right to control her body and to choose to have an abortion, and ii) the right of homosexuals to marry. Both of these are creatures of the Charter, which is why social conservatives love Parliamentary “free votes”, are wary of the Charter, and despise the judges who read gay rights into its equality section. That is also why many social conservatives are keen to use the Charter’s notwithstanding clause to override fundamental rights they don’t like.

What does this have to do with Quebec separatism?

A constitution does two important things. First, it sets out the basic law of the land, the principles according to which it shall be governed, and spells out the institutions that will enable the rule of law to function. Second, it quite literally “constitutes” the political community to which these laws and institutions apply. Separatism is an assault on both functions of the constitution. It rejects the very basis of the rule of law, and denies the validity of the duly constituted political community.

So, the possibility of Quebec (or Alberta, or BC, or Newfoundland) seceding is not just a question of whether this geographical expression called Canada will retain its political integrity, with everything else remaining the same. The threat of separation throws everything into play, by rejecting the idea of a single political community governed according to basic principles of justice. According to separatist logic, any identifiable group has the right to defect from the social contract if it does not like the terms or circumstances. It may be a question of language or ethnicity, but it might also be a question of religion, or even raw economic self-interest. So if Quebec has a "right" to secede on linguistic grounds, Alberta has a "right" to secede on economic grounds. If the political community is not settled, "they" can legitimately refuse to share "their" money with "us".

So note carefully that the notwithstanding clause has been used but once by Saskatchewan and Alberta, and fifteen times by Quebec. This does not include the years 1982-1985 when Quebec prefaced every single piece of legislation with the notwithstanding clause, to protest the patriation of the constitution and make clear the Parti Quebecois’ contention that the constitution of Canada was a fraud.

This is where Quebec separatists and social conservatives find common ground. They both believe that the most profound political issues we face should be settled not by the rule of law underscored by basic principles of right, but by appeals to the ethnic or religious values of “the people.” They simply disagree on what the relevant group of “people” ought to be. Crucially, they both accept that it is legitimate to shrink the relevant community until you get the result you want. That is why most Alberta separatists are social conservatives.

Separatism is parochial mob rule of the worst kind. In supporting the Bloc Quebecois, leftists expose themselves as unmatched political cynics, betraying not only their country, but the “progressive” ideals they pretend to support.

More entries on:

June 29, 2004

Only 256,465 to go

Posted by joyceb at 11:07 AM ET | Comments (0)

Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter's book "The Rebel Sell" will be released September 23, 2004 by HarperCollins Canada. Based on the critically acclaimed article of the same name from our November 2002 issue, it promises to be a great read and we This Magazine folks are going to make it a best-seller too, right?

I was looking at amazon.ca, and you can pre-order the book now. Currently it's ranked 256,466th. That's a long way to go, but come on, it's not even available yet!

My favourite part of the listing is that the authors are credited as "Heath & Potter". Kindof like "Masters & Johnson" or something. Cool.

Email me at publisher@thismagazine.ca for details about a very special event to celebrate the launch of the book, and a fundraiser for This Magazine.

More entries on:

June 27, 2004

Five (long) reasons not to vote Liberal

Posted by andrew at 09:50 PM ET | Comments (5)

If you want to know how Paul Martin went from the saviour of Canadian democracy to the John Turner of his generation in six short months, all you have to do is read the archive of Paul Wells' blog at www.macleans.ca/paulwells. Wells is easily the best political columnist in Canada right now, and his daily attacks on Martin have been devastating.

I'll admit -- I have been a huge fan of Martin's for years. I never thought he was as business-friendly as the left tried to portray him, and I have always liked his strong, understated nationalism. But he's run a horrible campaign, and he thoroughly deserves the ass-kicking his party is going to get tomorrow. Not because of the so-called "Adscam" -- I actually don't think it is that big of a deal. Furthermore, Quebec's indignation over the notion that the soft nationalists could be "bought" is pretty rich, since the province has spent the past 30 years proving that it *could* be bought.

But here are 5 reasons why the Liberals deserve to lose tomorow:

1. Paul Martin is soft on separatism
What kind of of fool gives Stephane Dion the hook, and replaces him with Jean Lapierre? What kind of fool courts the soft nationalist vote in Quebec, when the federalist position has won the day?

2. Paul Martin is hard on the West
When Martin came to power in December, he stated that dealing with Western alienation was a top priority. Instead, he has taken a page out of Jean Chretien's book, running a campaign devoted to the proposition that, fundamentally, "Albertans are untrustworthy." Nice work Paul.

3. He's got lousy people behind him.
If we've learned anything from this campaign, it is that the people behind Martin (David Herle, Terrie O'Leary, Tim Murphy) are incompetent, with horrible political instincts.

There's plenty to say here, but two points in particular. First, who told Paul Martin that the key to victory was to portray himself as the saviour of health care? It is true that, if you ask Canadians what the most important issue is, they always say health care. But if you then ask them which party they favour as most likely to make the health care system work, there is no partisan advantage to be had. That is because health care is delivered by the provinces, in which Canadians see NDP, Liberal, and Conservative governments all struggling with the same problems and trying the same set of solutions. In short, Canadians recognize that the problems with health care are stuctural and demographic, not political.

Second of all, why in hell did the Liberals allow the Conservatives to capture and keep the high ground on "integrity"? In March 2003, Stephen Harper -- as leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition -- went to the US to apologise to a foreign power for the government's failure to join in the war on Iraq. How outrageous was this? Imagine for a second that Chretien had committed Canadian troops. Would Gilles Duceppe have made a trip to France to apologise to the French government? Never. In many ways, the Alliance was (and is) more consistently disloyal than the Bloc Quebecois. But it is hard to make these sorts of points when your Quebec lieutenant helped found the Bloc Quebcois.

Speaking of integrity -- whatever happened to Peter Mackay? All the Liberals had to do was run an ad featuring the footage of Mackay shaking hands with David Orchard and promising not to merge with the Alliance, followed by a single word in bold print: "Integrity?"

4. Martin is a hypocrite.

Five things Canadians liked about Jean Chretien's legacy: Positive, if somewhat reluctant, movement on marijuana, gun control, gay marriage, and Kyoto (global warming), plus he kept us out of the war in Iraq. Martin was against the marijuana legislation, against gay marriage, in favour of the war on Iraq, and a complete waffler on Kyoto and the gun registry.

Martin's defence minister is David Pratt, someone who loudly plumped for Canada to join the war in Iraq. If Martin had been PM in March 2003, Canadian troops would be in the shit in Mesopotamia. That is a fact.

5. He called an election in June.

Canada has two great months, June and September. Between the May 24 holiday and Canada Day, there is no better place to be on Earth than Canada. So Martin drops the writ on the Victoria Day weekend, with an election three days before Canada Day. Thanks Paul. Some fun July 1 this is going to be. Who's going to feel like celebrating?

More entries on:

June 25, 2004

Celebrate Capitalist Slavery Day!

Posted by andrew at 05:50 PM ET | Comments (1)

Monday, June 28 is the most important day of the year for Canadians. Of course, you say, that's the date of what Paul Martin calls The Most Important Election in Canadian History.
Big deal. Barely half of us will vote, and half of that half will be bitter no matter what the result, and then a significant chunk of that half will decide that they are so alienated from the rest of the country that it is finally time for (Quebec/Alberta/BC) to separate.
Canada as usual, in other words.

No, the real significance of Monday is that it is Capitalist Slavery Day. Never heard of it? That's odd. June 28th is the day that the average Canadian stops contributing his or her share to the provision of public goods, and is forced, for the rest of the year, to purchase only those goods on offer in the private market economy. Want to buy more health care, welfare, or clean air? Tough! Should have thought about that before you voted for that last tax cut.
You see, June 28th is what the Fraser Institute has branded "Tax Freedom Day." That is supposedly the day that Canadians have finally stopped paying off their tax "burden," and are thenceforth "working for themselves." Every year, the FI produces a press release giving their back-of-the-bogroll calculations of when they imagine the average taxpayer's total earnings for the year equal the average individual tax contribution. Presto! Tax Freedom Day.

I can't decide which is more obnoxious, the very idea of Tax Freedom Day, or the fact that the media breathlessly reports on it every year, publishing pretty much verbatim the Fraser Institute's press release. Conrad Black is right about one thing: journalists are not necessary for the production of a newspaper.

The problem is, your money has to go somewhere. If you aren't giving it to the government, you're giving it to a capitalist. After June 28, every cent you earn is somebody else's profit. I suppose you could always stick it in a sock or put it in a drawer, but then it doesn't do anyone any good. What would be the point in working? Come to think of it, that's not a bad idea. On June 28th, vote, pay your taxes, then quit your job.

More entries on:

June 23, 2004

Sorry officer, I forgot my jaunty Fedora

Posted by joyceb at 08:58 AM ET | Comments (0)

Our editor Patricia D'Souza and assistant Annette Bourdeau headed off to Monday's all-candidates debate in the riding of Toronto-Danforth (their riding, as it happens) and a really interesting race between incumbent Dennis Mills (Lib) and NDP Party Leader Jack Layton. It will be no surprise to those of you who read the Globe and Mail that the crowd numbered more than 250 inside, but there were another 150 outside, who were refused access.

Determined to get in, they approached the media entrance. We’re covering the NDP's campaign strategy for our September issue so it was a legit attempt to jump the line. They were greeted by a surly Toronto Police Officer who demanded to see credentials. When Patricia pulled out her business card (which says, of course, EDITOR!) the officer barked that she must be a liar, because REAL journalists carry tape recorders and cameras!

I suppose a notepad won’t suffice in this age of information. Patricia should have remembered to bring her old-timey hat with the "PRESS" card in the brim.

Annette managed to take notes outside in the rain (it was like a monsoon here in Toronto last night). Look for her story in the coming months.

The Globe account of the debate is here.

More entries on:

June 18, 2004

What is This Magazine?

Posted by phillipadsmith at 03:06 PM ET | Comments (0)

Thirty-eight years and still going strong, This Magazine is one of Canada's longest-publishing alternative journals. This focuses on Canadian politics, literature and culture but, in keeping with its radical roots, never pulls punches.

Welcome to the This Magazine blog.
Visit here often. We'll be expanding on the ideas expressed in the magazine, and trolling for ideas about what our readers want to hear more about.

--Joyce Byrne, Publisher

More entries on:

Previous month: March 2000
Next month: July 2004

THIS MAGAZINE. BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL

Please note that all writers hold the copyright for their pieces and it is illegal for any portion of them to be copied or distributed without their expressed permission. So please don't steal.

THIS MAGAZINE: BECAUSE EVERTHING IS POLITICAL

June 30, 2004

why is the left soft on separatism?

June 29, 2004

Only 256,465 to go

June 27, 2004

Five (long) reasons not to vote Liberal

June 25, 2004

Celebrate Capitalist Slavery Day!

June 23, 2004

Sorry officer, I forgot my jaunty Fedora

June 18, 2004

What is This Magazine?