It's been a very odd week for news coming out of Canada.
Whether it was the incredible declaration by Bank of Canada governor, Mark Carney, that the recession North of the 49th is melting away faster than our Arctic ice, or the depressing revelation that Canadian intelligence officers linked the suffering of a detained Sudanese man to the atrocities of Guantanamo Bay, or the declaration by a Waterdown, Ontario woman that the Canadian healthcare system failed her and forced her to take matters into her own hands, the news has been pretty depressing for fans of Canada-the-good. In fact, considering the current state of affairs, I wonder whether we can ever get back our old Canada.
That's not just hyperbole. I genuinely wonder whether there isn't premeditated disingenuous politics at work. You're probably thinking: "What are you talking about? Those two words -- premeditated and disingenuous -- are completely congruous." But they weren't always -- there were some moments when a handshake, a signature on a contract, and one's word meant something. Not anymore.
A few months back, Harper and Ignatieff brokered a deal that prevented the fall of the government and a subsequent election in exchange for the agreement to revise Employment Insurance guidelines so more Canadians would qualify. Laudable, in my estimation, given the state of the economy and rising unemployment.
But just this week, the rhetoric stemming from those negotiations (which, as part of the deal, has Liberals at the negotiating table) suggests that not only is the intention of a downward revision of 'EI' thresholds off track, but that in fact, they may be revised upwards, so that fewer Canadians qualify! I wonder if the Liberal-Conservative 'EI' deal was brokered by Peter MacKay? (and we all know his track record for making a square deal!)
There's an old adage: the future is never random. And, at the risk of sounding like a bit of a conspiracy wingnut, I don't think it's coincidental that the incredible news that our recession is over -- a bold declaration that made headlines across the country -- was an attempt to put the Cons in a position to claim their stimulus efforts saved the day and that they are the legitimate 'steady hand on the tiller.' This puts them in a safer position (whether perceived or real) to play political chicken with the Liberals on issues like EI (and others) where they can push a more ideological agenda. Recent polls suggest that Canadians want a majority government, but most probably don't want an election any time soon, especially given the neck-and-neck race between Harper and Iggy. Another election may simply mean the same minority paralysis headed by a different grey-haired white guy, and most definitely mean a waste of time and resources.
Declaring the recession over, talk of our healthcare system and other forms of Canadian 'safety nets' as well as the supposed stability and sensibility of our financial system draws a lot of attention from our neighbour to the South. I must admit, I cringe a little when I hear the US President praise the Canadian healthcare system. I writhe when the spotlight is put on our banking system and it's hailed as a sound model. Not because I think the Canadian way isn't good, or worthy of praise and recognition, but specifically because of the way in which everything peered at by America ends up being on the black or white divide of lobby groups, interest groups and ideologists. Seeing things in black and white is the basest of human instincts -- it's ubiquitous in its appeal because it's easiest to understand. Considering so many of us have become addicted to 20-second TV sound bites and up-to-the-minute Facebook status updates, nuance, subtlety and complexity do not generally go over well. (Except for readers of this blog, of course, who are bright and understand everything!)
No system is perfect, including Canada's. But putting it under a microscope should be a reason to improve the system, not destroy it. My fear is that when you take the attention from US politicians and media in the context of a general lack of understanding and rabid polemic, add it to a government with neo-conservative ideological bent, and then multiply that by the current (depressing) political landscape, we may be on the precipice of sliding further down the slippery slope to undermine the collective support mechanisms of Canadian society. Perhaps it won't be as obvious as completely destroying what exists, but instead undermining it in the name of "choice" or achieving "private sector efficiency," just as we saw with Mike Harris' "common sense revolution" which was nothing more than a euphemism for gutting the assets of the Ontario government paid for by hard-working taxpayers to benefit a handful of political cronies.
If there was ever a time to live up to the lyrics of our national anthem, now might be the time. Each and every one of us must "stand on guard for thee," O Canada.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Sunday, July 19, 2009
A question of sovereignty
With summer now here, the hot humid weather is acting as a natural tranquilizer on my cerebral processes. The lazy days of summer are meant to be spent in the garden, with a cool, tall lemonade, watching the tomato vines grow, reading the newspaper or a good book, and just taking each hour as it comes. Here in New York City, unless you're wealthy enough to afford a house in the Hamptons or a chalet in the Catskills or Berkshires, your garden is Central Park. I prefer the confines of my keyboard to the freak show on unashamed public display there -- I'll keep my freak show to myself.
This past week, thanks to the magic of satellite radio, I've been following with some concern a growing insurrection among the Mohawks in Akwesasne. The barricades and lawlessness, and the heightened rhetoric from Mohawk leaders, foretell of the attempt to establish a small sovereign land sandwiched between Canada and the United States.
On the one hand, I see the Akwesasne situation as somewhat parallel to the FLQ crisis in 1970. A small band of men and women, brought together in common cause, fighting for something they believe in. I suppose that with native Canadians, the situation is much more complicated. They have been the most oppressed, ignored, abused and forgotten people throughout this country's history. They have been made promises in bad faith again and again. We have left them at the mercy of missionaries and churches who abused them, and provided them limited recourse opportunities and the necessary tools to get back on their feet. The scars run very, very deep and, whether we like it or not, native Canadians are the only true inhabitants of this land who have not benefited from it in the last 400 years.
On the other hand, I see it the situation in very much the same way Trudeau saw the Front de Libération du Québec -- as a terrorist group that challenged the tenets of Canadian democracy and the will of a greater majority through violence.
We no longer live in 1709, and there are mechanisms by which voices can be heard and changes made in a non-violent way. Ignorance of those mechanisms is not an excuse to turn to armed insurrection, intimidation and extortion, flouting the law or making demands at gunpoint. This is intolerable and there is no room to set such a dangerous precedent. Admittedly, the problem is compounded by the fact that the Canadian government has, for such a long time, ignored the importance of providing greater access to democratic institutions for natives, opting instead to acknowledge the special status of "nations" of people within Canada without providing the necessary education of the responsibility that accompanies "nationhood." Any distinct recognition of nations must only take place under the purview of the Canadian constitution but not to the detriment, exclusion, or weakening of all other Canadians or their rights and freedoms.
We cannot undo history. We cannot go back to the way things were, or reverse the ravages or encumbrances of history. Europeans colonized and conquered this continent and were disingenuous in their words and actions with natives. There is no doubt about that.
What our generation must do, immediately, is put a stop to that history. We must communicate and negotiate in good faith. We must give natives the tools they need to at once protect their culture, protect their ways, protect their heritage and end the dysfunctional relationship that defines our interaction. If necessary, we should develop a language that allows both parties to articulate their ideas and concepts towards finding a common solution. While that language may well have been guns and violence at a point in history, that point has come and gone.
Indigenous North Americans have a very strong tradition of collective government, of communal decision-making, and of federations and alliances amongst tribes. The destiny of native people in Canada must be returned to them, as best as possible, and in full recognition of the wrongdoings of the past by all parties. Aboriginals were never passive participants in their destiny. Now, more than ever, they must act responsibly in the context of the day and age and should expect the same in return. We owe that to them, at the very least.
This past week, thanks to the magic of satellite radio, I've been following with some concern a growing insurrection among the Mohawks in Akwesasne. The barricades and lawlessness, and the heightened rhetoric from Mohawk leaders, foretell of the attempt to establish a small sovereign land sandwiched between Canada and the United States.
On the one hand, I see the Akwesasne situation as somewhat parallel to the FLQ crisis in 1970. A small band of men and women, brought together in common cause, fighting for something they believe in. I suppose that with native Canadians, the situation is much more complicated. They have been the most oppressed, ignored, abused and forgotten people throughout this country's history. They have been made promises in bad faith again and again. We have left them at the mercy of missionaries and churches who abused them, and provided them limited recourse opportunities and the necessary tools to get back on their feet. The scars run very, very deep and, whether we like it or not, native Canadians are the only true inhabitants of this land who have not benefited from it in the last 400 years.
On the other hand, I see it the situation in very much the same way Trudeau saw the Front de Libération du Québec -- as a terrorist group that challenged the tenets of Canadian democracy and the will of a greater majority through violence.
We no longer live in 1709, and there are mechanisms by which voices can be heard and changes made in a non-violent way. Ignorance of those mechanisms is not an excuse to turn to armed insurrection, intimidation and extortion, flouting the law or making demands at gunpoint. This is intolerable and there is no room to set such a dangerous precedent. Admittedly, the problem is compounded by the fact that the Canadian government has, for such a long time, ignored the importance of providing greater access to democratic institutions for natives, opting instead to acknowledge the special status of "nations" of people within Canada without providing the necessary education of the responsibility that accompanies "nationhood." Any distinct recognition of nations must only take place under the purview of the Canadian constitution but not to the detriment, exclusion, or weakening of all other Canadians or their rights and freedoms.
We cannot undo history. We cannot go back to the way things were, or reverse the ravages or encumbrances of history. Europeans colonized and conquered this continent and were disingenuous in their words and actions with natives. There is no doubt about that.
What our generation must do, immediately, is put a stop to that history. We must communicate and negotiate in good faith. We must give natives the tools they need to at once protect their culture, protect their ways, protect their heritage and end the dysfunctional relationship that defines our interaction. If necessary, we should develop a language that allows both parties to articulate their ideas and concepts towards finding a common solution. While that language may well have been guns and violence at a point in history, that point has come and gone.
Indigenous North Americans have a very strong tradition of collective government, of communal decision-making, and of federations and alliances amongst tribes. The destiny of native people in Canada must be returned to them, as best as possible, and in full recognition of the wrongdoings of the past by all parties. Aboriginals were never passive participants in their destiny. Now, more than ever, they must act responsibly in the context of the day and age and should expect the same in return. We owe that to them, at the very least.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
(Piled) High and stinky
It’s been three weeks since the garbage strike in Toronto started – a fact pointed out to me by my family on a quick visit this weekend to celebrate grandma’s 87th birthday.
From a safe distance in my suburban cocoon, it wasn’t much of a bother. But as I started looking at the pictures from newspaper clippings, and noting just how quickly the rubbish had piled up, I thought it appropriate to propose changing Toronto’s nickname from the 'Big Smoke' to the 'Big Stink'.
On a regular day, New York produces considerable garbage. The sheer concentration of different types of garbage – construction materials, food, packaging, plate scrapings, dog feces – combined with the high summer temperatures makes for an odourific medley to challenge the most seasoned of nostrils. Also, because of the premium of space and volume of trash, the City is somewhat more obvious with its garbage – there are no back alleys or hidden dumpsters. It’s out there on the streets and you can smell it.
As I remember the garbage scene in Toronto (though admittedly, I’m no expert), it’s quite orderly and tidy in a typically Canadian way, hidden in back alleys and firmly shut dumpsters until pick up time. That means it’s conveniently out of our consciousness – once our Tim Horton’s cup or plastic salad container ends up in a garbage can, it’s no longer our problem. Unfortunately, it is our problem, and there’s no denying it now that we’ve hung our garbage out for all the world to see.
That’s a good thing. The sooner we come to terms with the fact that our garbage has to go somewhere, the sooner we can deal with the important question of how we force manufacturers to reduce packaging, reduce waste, improve product design and demand reusability. The sooner we can also focus on the individual responsibility of choosing products that respect the environment. Consumerism is part of the world we live in, but if we cannot immediately change the consumer concept, we must at least use its levers to influence positive change.
A quick trip to the local Fortinos was telling. One man had brilliantly brought his ‘green’ reusable bags with him, but decided that the single lemon he was going to purchase required a clear produce bag. It’s two steps forward, one step back… but it’s not his fault. For such a long time, we have simply accepted waste as part of our lifestyle – it was a convenient behaviour. In fact, it has been default behaviour for us in North America; to ‘de-program’ ourselves and the culture we have built around it, takes constant, concerted effort.
Only recently did I notice that for every bag of garbage created in my tiny New York apartment, there are three bags of recycling. Is this necessary? The next course of action is determining how to change my behaviour: Cheerios only comes in a box and I can’t go down to the local vigneron to fill my reusable 5 litre jug with wine. What to do?
If we give some serious thought to the ways in which man survived for thousands of years without raspberries in a clear plastic pint container, or Ziploc sandwich bags, or even Saran wrap, this is not an insurmountable challenge. For inspiration, or perhaps a kickstart, surf over to Say No to Trash, a blog written by Torontonian Sarah McGaughey. She was recently interviewed on CBC Radio 1 about her attempts to live trash-free for 31 days. She succeeded, but only with some slight flexibility in her self-imposed rules.
Living 100 per cent trash free may be impossible given the structure of our society, but the smallest possible footprint is what we should all aspire to. Take it up as a personal challenge – start a compost as a first step to cutting back on the amount of garbage you create. Or post a comment with your own clever ideas!
From a safe distance in my suburban cocoon, it wasn’t much of a bother. But as I started looking at the pictures from newspaper clippings, and noting just how quickly the rubbish had piled up, I thought it appropriate to propose changing Toronto’s nickname from the 'Big Smoke' to the 'Big Stink'.
On a regular day, New York produces considerable garbage. The sheer concentration of different types of garbage – construction materials, food, packaging, plate scrapings, dog feces – combined with the high summer temperatures makes for an odourific medley to challenge the most seasoned of nostrils. Also, because of the premium of space and volume of trash, the City is somewhat more obvious with its garbage – there are no back alleys or hidden dumpsters. It’s out there on the streets and you can smell it.
As I remember the garbage scene in Toronto (though admittedly, I’m no expert), it’s quite orderly and tidy in a typically Canadian way, hidden in back alleys and firmly shut dumpsters until pick up time. That means it’s conveniently out of our consciousness – once our Tim Horton’s cup or plastic salad container ends up in a garbage can, it’s no longer our problem. Unfortunately, it is our problem, and there’s no denying it now that we’ve hung our garbage out for all the world to see.
That’s a good thing. The sooner we come to terms with the fact that our garbage has to go somewhere, the sooner we can deal with the important question of how we force manufacturers to reduce packaging, reduce waste, improve product design and demand reusability. The sooner we can also focus on the individual responsibility of choosing products that respect the environment. Consumerism is part of the world we live in, but if we cannot immediately change the consumer concept, we must at least use its levers to influence positive change.
A quick trip to the local Fortinos was telling. One man had brilliantly brought his ‘green’ reusable bags with him, but decided that the single lemon he was going to purchase required a clear produce bag. It’s two steps forward, one step back… but it’s not his fault. For such a long time, we have simply accepted waste as part of our lifestyle – it was a convenient behaviour. In fact, it has been default behaviour for us in North America; to ‘de-program’ ourselves and the culture we have built around it, takes constant, concerted effort.
Only recently did I notice that for every bag of garbage created in my tiny New York apartment, there are three bags of recycling. Is this necessary? The next course of action is determining how to change my behaviour: Cheerios only comes in a box and I can’t go down to the local vigneron to fill my reusable 5 litre jug with wine. What to do?
If we give some serious thought to the ways in which man survived for thousands of years without raspberries in a clear plastic pint container, or Ziploc sandwich bags, or even Saran wrap, this is not an insurmountable challenge. For inspiration, or perhaps a kickstart, surf over to Say No to Trash, a blog written by Torontonian Sarah McGaughey. She was recently interviewed on CBC Radio 1 about her attempts to live trash-free for 31 days. She succeeded, but only with some slight flexibility in her self-imposed rules.
Living 100 per cent trash free may be impossible given the structure of our society, but the smallest possible footprint is what we should all aspire to. Take it up as a personal challenge – start a compost as a first step to cutting back on the amount of garbage you create. Or post a comment with your own clever ideas!
Sunday, July 5, 2009
A paucity of frankness
Forgive me for indulging in a little extra pragmatism this week. Chalk it up to an impromptu ode to America playing on the stereo at Brother Jimmy's B-B-Q yesterday. It was the same old culprits: Neil Diamond's 'Coming to America' and Bruce Springsteen's 'Born in the USA' and I think I even heard a rendition of 'America' from West Side Story. Everything good in America!
Not quite. Everywhere I turn these days, there's a lot of talk about 'hope'. There's talk of economic 'green shoots' and even murmurs of 'recovery' in full swing. It would seem that hope and optimism have replaced religion as the new mass opiate of choice.
Returning home from a Budweiser and baby-back ribs at Brother Jimmy's (I couldn't think of anything more apropos for 4 July), I walked down First Avenue for 20 blocks. I was absolutely flabbergasted. On every block, on either side of the street, for what seemed like the entire walk home, stores that were there just four or six weeks ago had closed up. Restaurants, corner bodegas, clothing stores shuttered, with for rent or "DINER IS CLOSED" in the window. Even New York City, the home of unbridled capitalism, can't escape the invisible and ever-tightening hand of the market.
As I see the US government continue its spending to prop up banks, insurance companies and car companies -- 52 US banks have failed thus far in 2009 -- and, at the same time, call for massive reforms to health care, I can't help but wonder where the frank voices have gone. Can the US afford, at this juncture, to reform health insurance? Can the government, to use a metaphor, continue to use its credit card to spend beyond its means in the hopes of an economic turnaround? And to further the metaphor, isn't wild credit card debt one of the key reasons the global economy is on life support in the first place?
There is no doubting the need for swift, meaningful social and economic reform. There is also no question -- at least in my mind -- that the juncture for that change is now. But I can't help but see the window slowly closing, the clock ticking away and yet more of the same cast of characters responsible for the current state of affairs, busy building up the house of cards, using taxpayer money, manipulating the media and basically taking advantage of a majority of people too hurt -- or too dazed -- to notice.
I don't pretend to have a full grasp of exactly what Tyler Durden and his team at Zero Hedge are talking about, but the site's amazing access to confidential economic information, insider legal documents and frank criticism of the state of the economy never cease to amaze me. It is my antidote for the pervasive "green shoot" hype that seems to feed into the collective daze. One video he posted last week, from Bloomberg TV, contained a level of frankness I really appreciated. Here, Joe Saluzzi from Themis Trading, talks about the reality of the numbers and intentional manipulation of the markets:
Are we any better off in Canada? Doubtful. For starters, the integration of the Canadian and American economies thanks to NAFTA is undeniable. This is disastrous when combined with a spineless government that harbours an ideological bent -- be it Harper's Conservatives or Ignatieff's Liberals (who, I suspect, might handle the current situation in a similar manner). I would also add that, much like Saudi Arabia, Canada is seen in strictly realpolitik terms -- a source of stable, easily accessible resources to continue to power a bleeding empire heavily reliant on cheap oil. Until alternatives are found, the pollution of our rivers and destruction of land, and the poisoning of our native inhabitants, will undoubtedly continue. It's shortsighted and unsustainable, but I guess it's the best our myopic politicians can do in Ottawa.
Unfortunately, we are in an even more frail situation in Canada, with our smaller population and less diversified economy. We spent 15 long, hard years balancing the budget and paying down debt. That was quickly and irresponsibly reversed in the last six months. Now, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation estimates debt to grow by $3.9 billion in 2008-2009, and by $50.2 billion 2009-2010. The speed of the debt clock on the federation's homepage really hits the point home.
I ask again: Is this really the direction we Canadians want to head, having our federal government bail out bankers, encouraging unsustainable urban sprawl in all our major cities, increasing reliance on industrialized production of food and vegetables, and continuing to trick ourselves into believing that the future, as we have already lived it in the past, is just a few market corrections and stimulus packages away?
It's time to end the charade, wake up from our collective sleepwalk and acknowledge that it's OK to be realistic -- in fact, it's the responsible thing to do. We're not going back to the way things were and, if we do go back, it will be to the detriment of our environment, quality of life and future generations. We must demand of whoever sits in government to engage in sensible priority-setting; that has nothing to do with senate reform, or bailing out private broadcasters, or generating fractious and dirty politics on Parliament Hill. The time to come together and develop a holistic, inclusive national plan is now: re-localizing cities; funding new sustainable infrastructure; incubating technological innovation; creating greater opportunities for young Canadians; encouraging a spirit of entrepreneurship across the country; and the list goes on. Let the paucity of frankness end here, and continue with you. Go on, tell it like it is.
Not quite. Everywhere I turn these days, there's a lot of talk about 'hope'. There's talk of economic 'green shoots' and even murmurs of 'recovery' in full swing. It would seem that hope and optimism have replaced religion as the new mass opiate of choice.
Returning home from a Budweiser and baby-back ribs at Brother Jimmy's (I couldn't think of anything more apropos for 4 July), I walked down First Avenue for 20 blocks. I was absolutely flabbergasted. On every block, on either side of the street, for what seemed like the entire walk home, stores that were there just four or six weeks ago had closed up. Restaurants, corner bodegas, clothing stores shuttered, with for rent or "DINER IS CLOSED" in the window. Even New York City, the home of unbridled capitalism, can't escape the invisible and ever-tightening hand of the market.
As I see the US government continue its spending to prop up banks, insurance companies and car companies -- 52 US banks have failed thus far in 2009 -- and, at the same time, call for massive reforms to health care, I can't help but wonder where the frank voices have gone. Can the US afford, at this juncture, to reform health insurance? Can the government, to use a metaphor, continue to use its credit card to spend beyond its means in the hopes of an economic turnaround? And to further the metaphor, isn't wild credit card debt one of the key reasons the global economy is on life support in the first place?
There is no doubting the need for swift, meaningful social and economic reform. There is also no question -- at least in my mind -- that the juncture for that change is now. But I can't help but see the window slowly closing, the clock ticking away and yet more of the same cast of characters responsible for the current state of affairs, busy building up the house of cards, using taxpayer money, manipulating the media and basically taking advantage of a majority of people too hurt -- or too dazed -- to notice.
I don't pretend to have a full grasp of exactly what Tyler Durden and his team at Zero Hedge are talking about, but the site's amazing access to confidential economic information, insider legal documents and frank criticism of the state of the economy never cease to amaze me. It is my antidote for the pervasive "green shoot" hype that seems to feed into the collective daze. One video he posted last week, from Bloomberg TV, contained a level of frankness I really appreciated. Here, Joe Saluzzi from Themis Trading, talks about the reality of the numbers and intentional manipulation of the markets:
Are we any better off in Canada? Doubtful. For starters, the integration of the Canadian and American economies thanks to NAFTA is undeniable. This is disastrous when combined with a spineless government that harbours an ideological bent -- be it Harper's Conservatives or Ignatieff's Liberals (who, I suspect, might handle the current situation in a similar manner). I would also add that, much like Saudi Arabia, Canada is seen in strictly realpolitik terms -- a source of stable, easily accessible resources to continue to power a bleeding empire heavily reliant on cheap oil. Until alternatives are found, the pollution of our rivers and destruction of land, and the poisoning of our native inhabitants, will undoubtedly continue. It's shortsighted and unsustainable, but I guess it's the best our myopic politicians can do in Ottawa.
Unfortunately, we are in an even more frail situation in Canada, with our smaller population and less diversified economy. We spent 15 long, hard years balancing the budget and paying down debt. That was quickly and irresponsibly reversed in the last six months. Now, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation estimates debt to grow by $3.9 billion in 2008-2009, and by $50.2 billion 2009-2010. The speed of the debt clock on the federation's homepage really hits the point home.
I ask again: Is this really the direction we Canadians want to head, having our federal government bail out bankers, encouraging unsustainable urban sprawl in all our major cities, increasing reliance on industrialized production of food and vegetables, and continuing to trick ourselves into believing that the future, as we have already lived it in the past, is just a few market corrections and stimulus packages away?
It's time to end the charade, wake up from our collective sleepwalk and acknowledge that it's OK to be realistic -- in fact, it's the responsible thing to do. We're not going back to the way things were and, if we do go back, it will be to the detriment of our environment, quality of life and future generations. We must demand of whoever sits in government to engage in sensible priority-setting; that has nothing to do with senate reform, or bailing out private broadcasters, or generating fractious and dirty politics on Parliament Hill. The time to come together and develop a holistic, inclusive national plan is now: re-localizing cities; funding new sustainable infrastructure; incubating technological innovation; creating greater opportunities for young Canadians; encouraging a spirit of entrepreneurship across the country; and the list goes on. Let the paucity of frankness end here, and continue with you. Go on, tell it like it is.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Happy 142nd Birthday, Canada!
To my friends in cyberspace, Happy Canada Day - Bonne Fête du Canada!
Let's all take a moment to recognize just how lucky we are as Canadians... and enjoy some ruminations from Canadians fated to life in America, just like me.
------------------------------
LITTLE BRITAIN, BIG PLANS
Canadians think of Canada as being a multicultural nation. But having spent a whole week pounding the pavement in London, England -- from Kensington to Westminster, Little Venice to Piccadilly Circus -- I saw incredible diversity on display. It seemed that London has a lock on a new approach to multiculturalism.
I started by asking where all the Brits had gone? Whether at the airport, on the tube, or just walking the streets, London is no longer a city of bad teeth, warm beer and Routemasters. Traditional "Brits" have been replaced by "new Brits" from every corner of the globe, a large majority seeming to come from Africa and the Middle East and bringing with them their cuisine, culture and work ethic. When they arrive in the UK, some are provided with "Council Flats" -- essentially subsidized housing for those who qualify based on need. In an effort to resist "ghettoization" of the city into rich and poor areas, these flats are widely dispersed such that, even in rather "posh" buildings in "posh" neighbourhoods, the Council can assign a refugee family or a family in need. It's a proactive approach, I think, to creating a balanced society where diversity becomes a normal part of everyday life.
Of course, there are those who resist it. I happened to be visiting some people who were less-than-keen to see the full spectrum of veiled women (including those wearing naquib and full burkha), claiming instead that this was a sign of oppression and male domination. They were supportive of the recent ban on Islamic head covering declared by French President, Nicolas Sarkozy. Needless to say, I was scandalized -- just as the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation, so too should it stay out of the closets of the nation. Worse, this kind of universal declaration by a government creates a dangerous, slippery slope; do we stop sikhs from wearing turbans, or orthodox jews from their traditional black hats or Indian women from covering their heads with saris? Can we judge whether culture or male domination is the reason for head covering? It was a bit ludicrous. Don't misunderstand me, though. Sharia Law, for example, is not necessarily compatible in the context of a Western justice system, with its fundamentally different tenets. In that sense, establishing parallel justice systems in a country like Canada would not only create a dangerous precedent, I believe it would undermine critical principles of national identity, citizenship and building a balanced multicultural society. I know that we have had these debates in Canada before, which is probably why my mind kept coming back to try and understand how we can learn from other countries seemingly farther along on the path to multiculturalism.
One night, at dinner with different friends, I asked why there wasn't a closer relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom. George, who served with the Queen's Royal Hussars in Bosnia and had experience with Canadian troops while serving there, posited that the French (Quebec) question may be a factor that has kept our two nations from working more closely together. It was an interesting theory. My motivation for asking stemmed from the idea that it would be a natural first step for Canada to move beyond our addiction to America -- important, I think, if Canada is to remain independent and vibrant. But also because the United Kingdom is a natural ally; France much less so, not because of what happened on the Plains of Abraham, but because we have few common symbols between our nations. For the record, I see Quebec as an absolutely essential pillar of Canadian identity and culture.
But I was reminded that, for the same reasons the United Nations is a tricky place to work on account of multiple cultures and multiple languages, so too is building a multicultural society that, at once, respects sensitivities but also continues to build the necessary symbolism and commonality required for a national identity. Lessons learned from years working in an international organization suggest that, the secret to forward momentum in a multicultural organization is to work hard at listening, resist the natural urge to jump to conclusions, conduct frank and open discussions, but also have the spine to be decisive and make informed decisions. Bearing the last point in mind, we are more likely to learn from the United Kingdom experience than from anything going on in the United Nations... or the United States, for that matter!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
