turningrite

Actually, I think Canada should declare itself a militarily neutral state, like Mexico, and set up a civil defense force. We could then invite other countries, including Russia and China, to open bases on our territory in conjunction with non-aggression pacts with any country that wants access to our territory. Historically, and logically, the U.S. is our only natural ally and our only natural enemy. If Trump and the U.S. prefer to view us as an enemy, I'm sure we can find friends of convenience elsewhere. I wonder how all this would go over in Washington? Heads would, no doubt, start popping off shoulders. The NAFTA experience has been a failure for many Canadians as well. Prior to Trump's election, polling indicated that a solid majority of Canadians felt it had hurt more than helped the country. Support for it today is essentially thin and is mainly sustained in response to Trump's bluster and bullying. It's interesting to note that Canada's relative prosperity, as defined by per capita GDP comparisons, has declined steadily throughout most of the NAFTA era and not just in relation to developing economies but also in relation to other advanced Western economies. From an objective point of view, it's mainly been a flop. We could revert to the pre-FTA/NAFTA model and focus on sectoral trade pacts and I suspect most of us would be as well or even better off. And free liberal democracies would survive in Europe without NATO. Europe, after all, is where the Enlightenment took hold. Democracy is as ensconced in countries like France and the UK as in the U.S., and perhaps more so these days in many places. The real problem exists on Europe's periphery, where NATO has expanded into several former Soviet states. Even as NATO members, countries like Poland and Hungary are becoming less open and democratic.

It's very possible that NATO has run its course. Many now wonder if Trump is doing Putin's bidding in undermining NATO. Whatever the case, I think the Europeans should simply set up their own security system and tell the Americans to leave. It's probably long overdue. You have to remember that the initial purpose of NATO was to serve as an American-backed arrangement intended to thwart Soviet aggression. In other words, it was an instrument of American policy. Since 1989 its role has been unclear and with U.S. power and influence steadily declining in the world in relative terms it's probable Europe can get by on its own. Two EU member states are, after all, nuclear powers in their own right. As for the NAFTA pact, Trump is now sending signals that it will likely be renewed - when the timing suits him. The likely scenario is that American corporations are unwilling to forfeit the advantages gained by integrated continental production systems and in particular the advantage of low-cost Mexican labour. Canada pressed for the initial FTA, which preceded the NAFTA, and at that time had some leverage in terms of its ability to contribute to American energy security. Now, that leverage has largely dissipated and we have little bargaining power left. Although the adjustment in ditching NAFTA will be substantial for Canada, and particularly for Central Canada, it won't be economically fatal, as the Toronto Star writer Thomas Walkom has noted. In the long run, it might actually be good for the Canadian economy. The real trade issue, to which Trump only occasionally alludes, is the WTO system and particularly the developing economy status and advantages China retains. But China has a lot of bargaining chips, so Trump takes out his trade frustrations on other partners. It's good domestic politics, but ultimately undermines American interests abroad.

I think the most salient aspect of my parents' experience is that they were stoic about it. They rationalized that the vandalism was likely caused by immature teens who targeted them as outsiders but they didn't run to politicians or the media or otherwise make a big deal of it. My mother, who was well-educated, wondered back then - almost three decades ago - what the emergence of upscale and essentially permanent single-ethnicity enclaves portended for Canadian society. I guess in today's terms we'd have to ask whether we've encouraged multiculturalism or, rather, entrenched tribalism? In any case, other than being upset about having to pay the insurance deductible, they moved on. They neither expected nor sought earnest pontification from politicians about how their experience wasn't reflective of a "diverse" Canada. Sadly, they figured out, it probably was. And is?

Freedom of expression is also guaranteed under the Charter, however, there are instances where this right can be suppressed. American First Amendment free speech rights are no doubt stronger than are our Charter rights to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. As for religion, the American constitution, which was drafted mainly by Enlightenment thinkers, actually guarantees freedom from religion by forbidding the establishment of a state religion more than it does freedom of religion. It's a historical irony that U.S. has become perhaps the most religious of Western societies. As for the Preamble to the Charter, which reads "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law..." I cannot think of a single SCC Charter ruling that cites the supremacy of God as justification for a decision. If you know of one, please reference it. I suspect the wording like other traditional aspects, including the role of the monarchy, is intended as symbolic rather than substantive. The rule of law, on the other hand, remains the operative principle governing our institutions.

Our system gives the law precedence over conscience. Sorry to loop you in on this, but it's a fact. We live in a system based on the rule of law rather than the rule of conscience. We can disagree with the law but for the most part we're obligated to comply with it. As for politicians, whether in Canada or elsewhere in the West - but particularly in Canada - there's been an increasing emphasis on party discipline, whereby individual politicians, whether elected or prospective candidates, must comply with directives set by their parties and party leaders. It's increasingly become the norm. Even in the U.S., which doesn't have a parliamentary system that compels party discipline, voting statistics indicate increasing adherence to such discipline. https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddavenport/2017/12/13/a-growing-cancer-on-congress-the-curse-of-party-line-voting/#649c6b3c6139

I found the last sentence in your second link the most fascinating aspect of your post. If no single country matters all that much to the U.S. economy, why is Trump making such a big deal about America's trading relationships? My guess is that a lot of it is smoke and mirrors to distract from his more pressing political problems, including but not limited to the Mueller investigation and controversial immigration policies like removing children from their parents. Not long ago Trump was pressing for a quick deal on the NAFTA negotiations but now it appears he's willing to put the issue on the back burner, well at least until after the midterms. The changes in emphasis and timing can't be coincidental. Trump doesn't have the business community onside with his trade war, as illustrated by the announcement that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce intends to campaign against his tariffs (see link, below). One shouldn't get carried away with the notion that trade concerns are really driving Trump's current antics, particularly against allies, when it's far more likely they're a political sideshow intended to assist his own and Republican Party interests in the upcoming midterms. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/02/us-chamber-of-commerce-trump-689658?tab=most-read

In the Western intellectual tradition, we're taught that it's often necessary to separate our religious views from our behaviors and actions. And our politicians often do so as well. Social policy in Canada, including on abortion and gay rights, has progressed largely as a function of legal decisions which politicians have had little choice but to affirm. They have to pass laws consistent with rights courts have determined to be constitutionally valid. Reportedly, many cabinet ministers and MPs balked at changing laws to implement gay rights in Canada following the SCC's affirmation of the existence of these rights, but these politicians had to accede to the philosophy of separation of church and state and adhere to the logic and direction of the courts. Not only do our leaders now tell their subordinates they can't vote or express their conscience, they openly reject the nominations of candidates who openly oppose party policy on grounds of conscience. So, to suppose that separation of church and state isn't an operative philosophy in Canadian politics is to fail to acknowledge reality.

It's long been my belief that the most relevant modern application of the phrase "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's," is its importance to the concept of separation of church and state. It provides clarity on the role of religion, in particular as a private right, in relation to the broader secular legitimacy and role of the state.

That's an interesting point that highlights the peculiar irony of the situation. Prior to retiring, my father spent his last working decade living in the GTA before moving to a smaller community and buying a house. While in Toronto, he and my mother rented houses, usually for a year or two, and then moved on. One of the last homes they rented was in a fairly prosperous ethnoburb comprised of mainly large new homes just beyond Toronto proper. Shortly after moving in, they had all their car windows broken while the car was parked overnight in their driveway. They reported the incident to police to facilitate the insurance claim. One of the investigating officers speculated that the vandalism was likely perpetrated by teenagers but another noted that my parents didn't fit the neighborhood's dominant ethnic composition and because there were no other such incidents recently reported in the area a message was likely being sent. My parents said that while living in the neighborhood they were outsiders and were generally made to feel that way. And after the broken windows incident, they were always careful to park their car in the garage.

You're not actually paying attention to the conversation here, right? A federal government study, the results of which were only obtained by the media via an access to information request, concluded that the most recent generation of immigrants isn't quickly, easily or adequately assimilating. http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-canada-struggling-to-absorb-immigrants-internal-report-says

I think a more accurate term than sectarian would be partisan. That being said, once it was clear the Libs would lose, the Star appeared to half-heartedly endorse the NDP as an acceptable alternative to Ford's party. Personally, I think Wynne handed Ford his majority with her bizarre preemptive concession speech. This apparently bumped her party up by four or five points, most of which was likely at the expense of the NDP. In any case, Ford won not mainly on policy (there was no real platform on offer) or on the strength of his campaign (he's a poor speaker and debater) but on the basis of generating an impression that he understood the struggles of ordinary working Ontarians, about which the other parties seemed oblivious. My fear, of course, is that big money and corporate interests will exert too much sway over a PC regime. This, actually, is what sunk Wynne where the Hydro One sale was concerned. We'll see if the Ford government's actions live up to the expectations of those who put it in power.

Toronto and Vancouver provide excellent examples of the trend noted in your post. The 'ethnoburbs' (as they're sometimes called) and extended ethnic areas that characterize vast swathes of suburban Toronto and Vancouver are examples of a new kind of Western urbanism that seems likely to thwart integration. Some analysts compare them to the 'receiving neighborhoods' of old, where continuous waves of immigrants from different places congregated in mainly poorer inner city neighborhoods until they became established and integrated into broader mainstream communities. But this doesn't appear to be the purpose of the ethnoburbs, which in many cases are now characterized by large and often expensive homes and are apparently intended as more or less permanent enclaves. It's interesting that in the Wikipedia entry on enthoburbs, the five cities cited as examples are all in mainly English-speaking countries and two of them are in Canada, with Vancouver ranking prominently at the top. One has to wonder what this says about Canadian "multiculturalism" and its emerging tribalist and anti-integrative tendencies? But we dare not raise concerns lest we be labeled as xenophobes, or worse.

I'm not sure about the validity of your theory. In times of widespread change and/or generalized strife, humans have a remarkable tendency to impose boundaries and erect barriers within which they believe they can exert some degree of stability and control. It's interesting to note that modern nationalism arose alongside the Industrial Revolution as mass communications and modern transportation became more commonplace. It appears that in many parts of the world humans are doubling down on identity-focused tribalism, a situation that poses clear challenges for Western democracies, whose citizens have over the past few generations been conditioned to believe these differences would vanish as interdependence and acceptance of "diversity" emerged under a globalized ethos. This appears to have been and remains more wishful thinking than reality.

I think Canadians are starting to realize how mediocre a PM Trudeau actually is. Most don't fault him a lot for his approach to Trump's trade tactics because it's unclear that any Canadian leader could react differently. But on a host of other issues Trudeau has been a disappointment. He kicked electoral reform under the bus. His immigration policies are being sustained mainly by virtue of not disclosing actual facts, including about the extent of the program, to Canadians. His refugee policy is a mess largely of his own making. Canada's economy, which is mainly sustained either by commodities booms and/or on America's coattails, looks like it could be headed for a stall, if not a crash. Implementation of his marijuana legislation was haphazard, as has been his government's once vaunted climate agenda. His pipelines strategy has been all over the map and impressed few. His approach on Indigenous policy has, so far, largely been a flop. I could go on, but would simply bore everybody here with the obvious. He really wasn't, and still isn't, ready.

There are many tribes, as the post to which you respond, notes. And BuzzKillington's statement that the emergence of racial differentiation as an evolutionary survival strategy is quite likely accurate. Scientifically speaking, humans constitute a species rather than a race. There is much debate about the actual basis and meaning of the concept of "race" in terms of its modern usage. Some view it as a biological or genetic construct while others see it as a social construct. The fact that racial distinctions are so pervasive suggests they don't constitute a "perversion" any more than does religion, which is clearly a pervasive and often divisive social or human construct. "Racism" is essentially in its modern application a moral rather than scientific issue. And morality is subjective, which is why the debate about racism is so heated.

My sister, who's now lived in the U.S. for three decades, has raised the same point when visiting Toronto. Following a visit to a large suburban outlet mall and later touring some other shopping areas in the city, she asked me why many of our immigrants want to live as though they're still in their homelands while the same groups in the U.S. generally strive to quickly become like Americans. Her first neighbors when she moved to the U.S., she noted, were immigrants from India who enthusiastically embraced the American ethos and lifestyle. I blabbered on about the Canadian version of multiculturalism, but she remained entirely unconvinced of its merits. She asked, "But what's the point in it if they actually want to live in Canada?" I didn't have a good answer for her.

The reference to Hillary Clinton is weak. Prior to the 1980s or perhaps the 1990s the ideological delineation between Republicans and Democrats was not the same as today. The Republican Party was the party of Lincoln and for most of its modern history, until recently, was relatively progressive by the standards of the day. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, was often resistant to civil rights, particularly in the Southern states, where the "Solid South" constituted a significant socially conservative voting bloc for it into the 1960s. When Hillary Clinton was younger, today's "red state" South was conservatively "blue" in its political affiliation. My mother, who was born and raised in the North, was a registered Republican voter prior to moving to Canada at the beginning of the 1950s. Until that time, and for a few decades thereafter, the generally moderate Republican Party was far different from the often reactionary and hyperpartisan institution that's recently emerged. It might be more accurate to say that the Republican Party moved away from people like Hillary Clinton rather than they left it. Oh, and Hillary married a Democrat, so she had further incentive to switch.

I suspect there's a stark divide between economic conservatism or libertarianism and social liberalism among this group. It's not at all surprising that the "gig employment" generation, which has been told that full time employment with benefits is a thing of the past, is onside with economic libertarianism. On the other hand, I suspect most have no interest in rolling back civil rights, gay rights, gender equality or abortion rights. For younger people, it's likely these issues are for the most part considered closed rather than open for reinterpretation. Trump's rigging of the Supreme Court in order to please the religious right so-cons could put him and his party at odds with many younger Americans. The Dems will have to figure out a way to channel this perspective while accommodating the increasing acceptance of economic conservatism among younger voters.

I think immigration mainly works well for the U.S., primarily because immigrants have to work and contribute to the economy in order to survive. Unlike Canada, where generous social programs, including publicly funded health care, are available almost immediately to immigrants, this is not the case south of the border. I recently read an article estimating net tax proceeds paid by recent immigrants into tax coffers in the U.S. exceed $60 billion (U.S.) annually. In Canada, on the other hand, it's estimated that recent immigrants constitute a net drain tax drain exceeding $30 billion (CDN) annually. That being said, I think all countries must have secure borders. It's a primary hallmark of effective sovereignty. In the U.S. I think a bigger issue than in Canada (although we're getting there) is the problem of uncontrolled migration and I believe concern about this problem is valid.

Thanks for proving my point, which in this instance is that you apparently know little about history. Throughout recorded human history, until the 20th century, the philosophy of "might is right" dominated relationships between peoples. Pushing aside, enslaving and assimilating existing populations is a hallmark of human existence in almost every region of the world. Those who've avoided external dominance and enslavement, as for instance did the Japanese following contact with the West prior to the 20th century, weren't in general more humane in their treatment of others under their control when they got the chance. Morality is not the exclusive domain of any race or nationality. Neither is villainy. Sorry to burst your bubble.

You can use it if you wish, but hopefully you recognize it's a euphemism when applied to the circumstances of most Canadians, and particularly those born here. I was born in Canada so by literal definition I'm clearly not a settler. To heed the tenets of an identity-based ideology may seem harmless but I tend to subscribe to the view that to do so amounts to mindless deference. You may prefer to defer. I don't.

White people in North America may in some cases describe their ancestors who moved here centuries ago as settlers, particularly if those ancestors farmed upon arriving. The most common designation for descendants who arrived over the past century and even for many who arrived well before that is "immigrant." My mother arrived in Canada in the early 1950s as a landed immigrant and never referred to herself as a settler. Beyond referring to ancestors who arrived long ago, the term is seldom if ever used by contemporary Canadians to describe themselves - except perhaps by left "progressives" who'd rather defer to Indigenous sensibilities and ideology. Rather, when applied to contemporary Canadians, it's an arbitrarily assigned and quasi-racial designation that often appears intended to denigrate the legitimacy of the Canadian majority and the society it has established. Further, "Indian" land wasn't technically "stolen" because there was no legal structure in place at the time to recognize or enforce ownership rights. Interestingly, many Indigenous activists today assert that they don't even recognize the concept of property rights. In the absence of a legally regulated property regime, the British asserted sovereignty over once Indigenous-occupied lands. It may not have been fair, but history has seldom been fair. Tribal groups throughout history have in every part of the world and among all races simply displaced other tribal groups. And people have been enslaved throughout history by people of many races. History isn't a simple binary contrast between bad Europeans and victimized others. Perhaps you might read up on these things.

I think you're getting carried away on the basis of some rather bizarre assumptions. As for budgets, I don't think they balance themselves as in fact conservatives, "wooly-headed" or otherwise, seldom do. How you ever came up with an analogy that associates the two ideas boggles the mind.

I want to comment separately on this matter because I entirely agree with you. It's absolutely bizarre that in Canada, in particular, some people can apparently self-determine "visible minority" status, which kind of defeats the purpose of the exercise, if you ask me. Under U.S. census classifications, immigrants from mainly Arabic Middle Eastern countries are considered to be "white" or Caucasian rather than vis-min. In Canada, however, people from the same region seem able to pick their identity and to obtain privileges on the basis of what in many cases seem to amount more to difference in religious affiliation than race. Based on generic racial categorizations, people of Middle Eastern descent are clearly of Caucasoid origin, as are those of European descent. I have known and worked with several Middle Eastern Christians over the years, mainly of Lebanese background. As far as I'm aware, they all considered themselves to be white or Caucasian and not explicitly to be members of a visible minority. But more recent migrants from the same part of the world often seem to be categorized as vis-min, which makes little sense. A Globe and Mail piece raised this issue a few years ago, but it appears to be politically incorrect to actually address the contradiction. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/visible-minority-a-misleading-concept-that-ought-to-be-retired/article12445364/

Yes, it's interesting how a topic intended to discuss "White Pride" has morphed into a discussion of gay rights. Perhaps people interpret the topic as broadly pertaining to identity issues, but maybe a separate topic on gay issues would be more appropriate.