I won’t vote. Will you?

By Benjamin Massey · May 9th, 2017 · No comments

Happy election day, fellow British Columbians! Today Canada’s left-most province heads to the polls to determine whether the Liberals or the New Democrats will spend four years being hated by half the politically-passionate population for their greed, cynicism, and incompetence. (The Greens, who have a good chance of winning seats and none of forming government, get to be hated for denying power to whichever of the big two doesn’t win. Nobody said virtue was easy.)

Unless you are unhealthily partisan and in need of a holiday, the question of which party you should support is not important since they are all terrible. I know everybody always says all parties are terrible but seriously, in British Columbia they’re all terrible. Even the ones which get nine votes are terrible. Nothing good has come out of a British Columbia election since Amor De Cosmos.

So of course, the only thing every British Columbian who thinks about politics can agree on is that you should definitely vote for one of these losers.

Some of these calls come from those political obsessives who’ve spent the past thousand years filling your Facebook with campaign advertising and is convinced that anybody who stuck it out with him this long is sure to vote the right way. “Please, friends, remember to get out and vote today, the sooner to drag our enemies into the street and beat them to death with sacks of their ill-gotten loot.” Many of these people are likable in civilian life and will spend tonight getting either very sad drunk or very happy drunk, so a generous mind will view these with the same polite indulgence you give any friend whining about work problems you have no investment in.

But a second group believes that voting is a sacred duty which must be evangelized by advertisements and Twitter posts. For the past month British Columbians have been treated, at taxpayer expense, to the handsomely-made-up face of former hockey star Trevor Linden telling people “I vote.” Good for him. Linden is currently “president, hockey operations” at the Vancouver Canucks, who just finished 29th in a 30-team league. I am disinclined to take him as a role model.

Voting is never bad. That doesn’t make it an strict obligation. If you skip jury duty or dodge your taxes, other citizens must take up the burden; not so for the non-voter. If you do not vote, you most certainly may complain. If you do not use your vote, there is no reason to think you might lose it. (Not to Godwin myself, but turnout for the November 1932 Reichstag election that led to Hitler taking power was over 80% despite the previous election having been in July.) Even an election with low turnout amounts to a poll of the 50-some percent of the population that has the most interest in the result; pollsters get reasonable accuracy with samples one one-thousandth that size. It is impossible to imagine how more uninterested people being forced to cast ballots could make anything better.

My riding is contested only by a Liberal, a New Democrat, and a Green. No hopeless minor party candidate or independent trying to get his deposit back. Even as individuals the candidates are lousy: two generic pious-left-wing-big-government professional politicians and a Toronto-educated hippie who worked at the Pembina Institute. The thought of casting a ballot for one of those causes violent shaking and intermittent but energetic vomiting of blood.

Proponents of turnout truthiness would tell me to spoil my ballot. Write “DEEZ NUTS” across the paper as a protest against the province’s filth-spewing political machines! If enough of us did it, it could theoretically make a difference, as a tolerable candidate would see the massive DEEZ NUTS turnout and say “I’m sure I could win these guys over, even though all I know is that they think the Liberals, NDP, and Greens suck and have nothing better to do on a Tuesday.”

I am not aware of a case where this has worked. In the most recent French election, a relatively-colossal 11.5% of voters either spoiled their ballot or left it blank. This has been widely noted and covered in the press. It seems that choosing between Creepy Cuck and High-Heel Hitler provoked a great deal of discontent. However, honestly, we knew that already. Many other candidates tried to break through to the French presidency, they just failed in the first round. What do those spoiled ballots prove, “we would rather have voted for the guy we voted for earlier?” Cool.

Voting “none of the above” does not automatically lead to better options; how could it even theoretically, when reactionary me and my full-Communist neighbour would both go down as “spoiled or invalid?” Several new Canadian parties have formed in my lifetime and become successes, but none rose out of spoiled-ballot indignation.

Spoiling my ballot would spend my own time, that of everybody behind me in line, and that of our kind election volunteers, to achieve nothing. The only thing preventing a spoiled ballot from being the acme of narcissism is that the vote is secret, so I’d need a ballot selfie to show what a transgressive badass I am. Pulling an Australia and compelling me to vote would make my life and the lives of other well-meaning citizens worse for no gain. Admittedly this would be so in-character for British Columbia politics I’m amazed they haven’t already done it.

As to the idea of endorsing a hateful candidate to stick it to candidates I like even less, this is such a negative approach that its toxicity hurts everything it touches. A vote should be to support some ideal, not to oppose somebody else’s out of resentment. It encourages terrible parties that can count on a large “keep the bastards out!” vote to stay terrible, which British Columbians know something about, erodes the chance for new parties to make our politics less bad, and reduces democracy to spite.

If you have a dog in this fight, or you don’t really but still have an opinion strong enough to be worth the time and trouble, vote away. However you may spare the sanctimony for us non-voters, who are not invariably lazy freeloaders on your holy labour of democracy. We may have our reasons not to endorse any part of our province’s poisonous political pu-pu platter, and “because I have something better to do” is a valid one. If our candidates are so awful that their visions are less compelling than staying at work, don’t blame the victims for it.

Snow way in heaven or hell

By Benjamin Massey · February 3rd, 2017 · No comments

It snows in Vancouver most years so how are we so terrible at it?

I’d call this town a “dumpster fire” but that carries an unfortunate implication of warmth. It took me something like two hours to make the thirty-minute trip to work this morning, but my co-workers didn’t mind since half of them couldn’t make it at all. The train was immobilized by the wrong type of snow, the buses were getting stuck, the queues were so long we went “oh to hell with that” and went for a walk through the flurries like we were proper Canadians instead of effete left-coasters. I’m hosting a couple visitors for the women’s soccer game, including the other 49.5 of 99 Friendship. She is from Montreal, and she was throwing shade at our transit system. How has it come to this?

Bitching is fun, but for catharsis I gotta really castrate some blameworthy fuckers.

You can’t hate someone for not stocking up more on “essential” equipment, because for 360 days of the year there’s nothing essential about it. As anybody in parts of the country with actual winters knows, no amount of money keeps a snowstorm from occasionally being a real pisser. In Vancouver I get not fitting snow tires when you’d need them twice, or trains freaking out for a bit, or the city not keeping a mechanized division of snowplows around and filling the Capilano reservoir with rock salt so, when the weather does the dirty, we get to work twenty minutes rather than two hours late. There’s a point, and in Vancouver it’s pretty early, where preparation is waste. This city burns enough cash without us encouraging them every time we get our umbrellas frosted.

Even some failings of intellect come with excuses. You don’t get much practice at driving in the snow so you won’t be very good at it, fine. Some people genuinely don’t seem to realize that they sell little brushes at 7-11 which you can use to sweep all that snow off your Porsche Cayenne’s windshield. It’s not something they’ve seen, it’s not a solution that’s occurred to them. But the carnage is usually limited to the initial orgy of destructiveness as the snow is falling; once a bit of plowing happens and guys in 30-year-old Miatas realize you won’t automatically do a powerslide if you take that left-hander above walking pace, we don’t wind up far above the usual Vancouver background noise of anarchy and uselessness. Heck, we had snow in December and the Canada Line kept ticking the whole time. In February we got unlucky but were back on our feet after an inconvenient but not indefinite horror show.

The lazy pricks who own homes in Vancouver can’t be arsed to shovel their sidewalks, and they are the worst people in the world. But this is not a Vancouver-only problem, though admittedly here those pricks are property owners and therefore by default multi-millionaires so hate has the delicious zest of envy. Anyway it’s not a chronic commute-lengthener for everyone, just a substantial commute-lengthener for the guys who slip on neutron star-dense ice and break their clavicles. Do what I do and stomp all over their lawns, it’s much safer that way. Besides, the ice wouldn’t be so bad if we were used to it, or we had serious winter temperatures that hung out at -15-odd instead of bouncing between barely freezing and barely thawing every day until the most effective way to get around town is a pair of skates.

So it’s not the City’s fault, particularly. And it’s not the people’s fault, much. It definitely isn’t my fault. Which leads us to the obvious culprit for why Vancouver turns a flurry into Captain Oates’s worst nightmare: God. Don’t worry, I’ll sort Him out. I may be some time.

The passing of the poppy

By Benjamin Massey · November 9th, 2016 · 2 comments

For all that Canadians need to stretch their dollar just to pay rent these days, many of us each year still put a toonie in a box for a small, cheap disc of plastic and fabric. We do it to support those who fought, and remember those who died, for our and all future generations. It is a week of solemnity, when the airport-novel antics of professional controversialists and fear-mongers are put in perspective, when we reflect on our ancestors who looked true totalitarianism in the face and, with struggle and sacrifice, made the despots blink first. It is a time to honour the best of our civilization.

This is as close to solemnity as our secular society gets so, with irritating inevitability, poppy pressure can degrade from social to antisocial. As a symbol the poppy is often declared to be above politics, which is a sure sign that it is anything but. Particularly in Britain, where the Cookie Monster (yes, he) recently appeared on the BBC wearing a poppy. Most rightly considered this ridiculous, some didn’t, there was a fight. The Football Association has an annual battle with FIFA over whether its players may wear a poppy emblem on their uniforms during the Remembrance period. On the Irish island the poppy is a sectarian totem on account of the British Army’s role in the Troubles, though this is subsiding.

Canada’s irrationality is inconsequential by comparison. You can appear on television here without a poppy on your lapel, though a politician or a Peter Mansbridge would be ill-advised to. Tempests stay in teapots. This year’s controversy was Air Canada discouraging flight attendants from wearing poppies on duty for, literally, a few hours on Monday morning before cooler corporate heads had a coffee. This was a news story but not one you’d think people could get het up about: Air Canada reversed course before the ban even became public. Naturally some people got het up anyway, but they were mostly along the lines of “what can you expect from the bastards who lost my luggage fifteen years ago?” Not even The Rebel is revving up their boycott machine.

It takes more than a snub to get Canadians, if you will forgive an on-the-nose metaphor, up in arms. A couple years ago Vancouver saw a brief trend in white “peace poppies” among people who thought, or said they thought, the established Remembrance Day symbology glorified war. People got angry, for a while, until natural obscurity made the debate irrelevant. Some still wear them, and in the course of a Remembrance week you might just manage to see one. Even my alma mater‘s student newspaper, The Martlet, a pretty bolshie rag, has nothing but bad things to say about the white poppy. The installation of theft-proof poppy boxes in some towns, or the theft of Legion colours in others, are different tales but gain more attention than most thefts of flags or small change.

The ebbing of poppy sentiment is by comparison hardly news at all. The Royal Canadian Legion is, if not secretive, at least opaque about their receipts from the poppy drive, but branches who do release numbers tend to report decreases despite technology enabling donations by cell phone and an online Poppy Store. The Legion itself has struggled for years attracting (let alone integrating) the generation of new veterans who have an acknowledged claim to Legionary fellowship yet often prefer not to draw on it. In Ottawa and the big cities Remembrance Day ceremonies still go strong, but suburban and small-town parades are not what they once were.

It would be fun to blame those damned young people who hate our veterans and our history, but wrong. If anything, as respect for mental illness grows and literature becomes more accessible, the veteran’s near-unique traumas attract more sympathy today. One of the crowning infamies of the late Stephen Harper government, a government that successfully distributed a lot of contempt for a lot of people over a lot of years, was that they were reducing veterans’ services and betraying almost the only public trust you’d damned well expect the Conservatives to bear. They knew they’d blown it, too, and made a thousand promises to try and make up lost ground. They failed, but the Trudeau Liberals, despite intense youth popularity, are now feeling the heat for not redressing the balance quickly enough. On a rhetorical level, the shade of Nazi evil is still an easy go-to for every shoddy polemicist eager to rouse the people against his enemy. Then there’s the personal factor, the fact that we just had a war, and most of us know somebody who was in it, and in too many cases somebody who did not return.

The decline in Remembrance Day honours is no simple decline in remembrance, so what is it? Next to the Queen’s face on the money, the poppy and the Remembrance Day ceremony are the strongest cultural links Canada retains to the Old Commonwealth. Perhaps even stronger, for after all, when we pull out a $20 bill and accept our change, we are not taking a moment to acknowledge Her Majesty. Plenty of countries put the head of state on the money, but Remembrance Day is distinctly our own, in a large but antiquated sense of who “us” is.

The Americans do not wear the poppy. They escaped the bloodbaths of Ypres which brought it to prominence, and their memories linger more on the Second World War than the First. British emigres in that country have been known to run for the border and import a Canadian one. Yet even countries for whom there is one Great War and one Western Front have not joined us. The Germans, of course, lost, and that changes everything. French and Belgians know a thing or two about plants watered in sacrificial blood, and the poppy is a symbol they understand. But it is not worn. In France they wear the bleuet, a cornflower; in Belgium nothing at all.

They wear the poppy in Australia and New Zealand, though their most enduring Great War battlefield was not Belgium but Gallipoli, a name whose power in Anzac memory a Canadian can hardly comprehend, Dieppe to the power of Vimy Ridge. And local customs colour every aspect of this Commonwealth tradition, in exactly the way you’d expect: the British poppy is different from ours, the Australian and New Zealand poppies distinct from both and (less so) from each other. Even in lands like India and Hong Kong where the old Empire is long gone, it is by no means a forgotten symbol, though sometimes supplemented by, as an Indian example, the marigold.

No, the poppy is not above politics, not even here, where in addition to what it is designed for it cannot help but symbolize an order that’s dead or dying across the country. This symbolism did not come deliberately, and if any monarchist or pro-Commonwealth group tried to co-opt the poppy its members would be first in line with the tar and the feathers, but intent is never all that matters.

How old-fashioned, even to the friendly eye, it must all seem. A Remembrance Day service is probably the only occasion where an ordinary Canadian hears a public prayer, or sings “God Save the Queen,” or sees his local Canadian Forces unit on parade. In a Legion colour party the Red Ensign comes just behind the Maple Leaf, and it flies over our war memorials from Victoria to Vimy, but where else? Remembrance Day is about the past, the hint is in the name, but it is a past that, notwithstanding our universally-acknowledged, permanent duty to the honoured dead, many Canadians would sooner leave buried.

This is not a call for reform; oh God no. There are still those of us for whom the old flags and the old songs have power, and many are veterans, who have a veto. We will go on as we always have. But the act of memory does not rely on us. Even when the last poppy is laid on a cenotaph, and the last Legionnaires march past, and the last hymn is sung, that memory will remain. Very probably, in decades to come our new society will have a new way to honour it.

Think again on Britain, where the poppy has become such a public point of controversy: the British rage against the dying of the light, as they always have, and in Canada we let that good night come with, sometimes, a note of regret for parts of the day we miss. In each case it reflects a fundamental truth about each nation. This is the country we have chosen, and to rail against non-poppy wearers or to drum people up for ceremonies from the past is to treat a symptom, and ineffectively at that.

Mulled whine

By Benjamin Massey · April 13th, 2016 · No comments

When I am inevitably fired someday, I only hope to reap the pity and the prizes poor Thomas Mulcair is enjoying.

Ifyou clicked on this post because you thought it was about some Edmonton Brickman from the ’80s: this past weekend saw the NDP hold its annual policy convention in Edmonton. Amid the usual socialist infighting Mulcair faced a vote on whether the party should hold a leadership race, in practice a vote of confidence on his leadership, and lost 48% to 52%. A 60-40 victory would have been thought untenably weak; this was almost a historically-harsh rejection, and if there’s been a parallel in Canadian history no intern has found it yet.

So Mulcair got hammered, like Patrick Brazeau moving up a weight class. Sucks for him. Yet from the indignant (not even piteous or angry) reaction, you’d almost think nobody had ever been fired before.

The National Post‘s Michael Den Tandt wrote that an “inept, curt and callous” stab in the back had left Mulcair “without a shred of dignity.” In the Montreal Gazette, James Mennie compared Mulcair to Admiral John Byng and Louis XVI, judicially murdered, and an editorial in the same paper lamented his “humiliation” as a “harsh fate.” CBC’s “The Insiders” panel debated whether Mulcair’s fall “set a new bar” for inhumanity, Peter Mansbridge comparing it to “a public hanging.” These are not NDP insiders to whom Mulcair’s ouster was callous or kind based on partisan considerations, but professionals.

But Mulcair was blindsided! He couldn’t have seen it coming! Well, apart from months of public soul-searching over the NDP’s catastrophic election, for which Mulcair took personal responsibility. His enemies were in the open, knives out. The press speculated that Mulcair might lose the leadership before the convention. Maclean’s writers John Geddes and Jason Markusoff, admittedly speaking in hindsight, rustled up eleven signs from the convention that Mulcair was doomed. He was forewarned, or had no excuse not to be; only a belief that our self-appointed ruling class is as clever as they claim could make us think otherwise. Mulcair would not be the first employee to, despite repeated cautions, march blithely through the circling vultures thinking himself safe.

Yes, the magnitude of Mulcair’s mangling was a surprise even to those who voted against him, but that’s a matter of degree irrelevant to charges of “cruelty.” The secret ballot has no emotion. Was it cruel for the Canadian public to put bullets between Social Credit’s eyes? Should the NDP have conspired so only one out of every three delegates voted for change and spared Tom’s feelings? If Mulcair is personally broken by losing a vote then what in God’s name is he doing in a democratic political party?

And his fate is too terrible to be imagined! After months of being publicly called unfit for office by pundits, he was publicly called unfit for office by a percentage. Cast out like Trotsky, Mulcair has been left with only his money, much of his power, and the laurels for “class” in defeat that come to every politician other than Jacques Parizeau. Now is forced to subsist on the honour of being interim leader for as long as two years, as well as the considerable salary and perks of a Member of Parliament. If other failed NDP leaders are any indication Mulcair must gird himself for a difficult retirement as a much-deferred-to elder statesman burdened by university presidencies, honourary doctorates, and escalating rank in the Order of Canada. Worst of all he must give up, probably permanently, his humble ambition to rule over the lives of 36 million people.

When a corporate executive is fired that generously he is usually excoriated for greed, not pitied. Somehow I doubt Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis would give jobless oil workers so golden a handshake.

Cranky blogger tradition dictates that the author now rail against out-of-touch Media Party elites. In fact, your average Canadian columnist knows more about the realities of getting fired than just about anybody. Maybe not for incompetence—think of your favourite cockroach here—but months of dread culminating in a horrible meeting and your belongings in a box will be familiar to anyone on a Canadian newspaper. Forget two years “interim” and another job to tide you over, some are lucky to get legally-mandated severance. They are cut down in public, too, with every job loss creating a Twitter avalanche and bemoaned in whichever papers haven’t laid off anyone for the past month. There are good, talented men and women in this country who could teach university courses on how to get the sack. Some of them would have killed, maybe literally, to go on the same terms as Thomas Mulcair.

But in politics we are used to applying standards that would be mad anywhere else. Sociopathic levels of secrecy and control are only evil when they help the Wrong Team gain or keep the country. A little light kleptomania is perfectly ordinary. When power and principle conflict, power wins. Honesty, of course, is hardly to be dreamed of; ditto loyalty, except to your particular gang, in whose name no defense is too great. And if you started firing politicians for being amoral incompetents who would be left to run the show?

Nobody holds all these opinions, but enough people hold enough of them that the expectations for a politician are far out of step with those for a mere human. They mesh with a piece of received wisdom different in nature but not at all contradictory: that politics is dirty business, a House of Cards-esque melodrama where betrayal is endemic and it’s all about the short term. In such a Zeitgeist martyrs are easily imagined, particularly in a case like Mulcair’s when he was condemned partially for his beliefs (specifically the suspicion that he didn’t have any beliefs). His career was snuffed not in a backroom coup but before the informed eyes and angry voices of his party’s core, at the command of the majority, having been given several months since the election to retrieve his position, and now given several months to show himself out.

This so-called backstabbing robbed Mulcair of… what, exactly? A softer landing, a chance to carry on as the leader nobody wanted, the dignity of losing by a smaller margin? May we all have his brand of bad luck.

How to make Canada great again

By Benjamin Massey · March 1st, 2016 · 1 comment

From afar these are sunny days for an American liberal. Decades spent portraying opposition to immigration or multi-culturalism as unthinkably awful have been successful. The reduction of even illegal immigration has become an intermittent and hugely controversial, a relative trickle of deportations ebbing while intake is limited only by the economy. This is besides the hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants per year, also arriving more quickly and politically unimpeachable. The quite enormous controversy in the United States over these people’s living arrangements is seldom seriously taken up by the highest political echelons where useful opposition could make a difference. Whether you vote Republican or Democrat, you will get somebody who implements the proper liberal opinions on immigration. Nativism is totally excluded from polite society.

So objecting voters must look to impolite society. Thus the rise of Donald Trump, who is loud, brash, unpleasant, boorish, not particularly conservative, and first won prominence by saying Mexico should buy the United States a wall. His aggression and cruelty became marketing materials against safe-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness opponents and their painfully politically correct culture. Trump’s success reflects that of American liberalism, proof that they have so strongly defined the political debate that it takes an outsider’s outsider to oppose their consensus. There isn’t even much downside, since between the huge number of Americans who would never vote for Trump’s trademark policies and politically-sympathetic voters who could never stomach Trump as a person, how could the White House ever need a Secretary of Comb-overs? For Trump to become president his opponents would have to do something really stupid, like run a Clinton or one of Lenin’s original useful idiots.

Oddly, in light of this Kursk-esque triumph, the victors seem unhappy. Of course Trump has conservative opposition, personal haters and tribal Republicans who want everyone to imitate Ronald Reagan based off an executive summary of the first paragraph of his Wikipedia entry1, but that’s different. That’s good old-fashioned intranecine blood-letting. No, what’s really interesting is reliable fonts of liberal opinion who are so horrified by the Donald Trump experience you’d think they weren’t the ones who created him.

The New York Times won’t pass up any chance to take a shot at Trump. John Oliver recently made a pious anti-Trump monologue to an audience that couldn’t include five Trump supporters. A popular gossip blog got Trump to retweet an uncited, out-of-context Mussolini quote, and opponents have enthusiastically pretended that matters. Nate Silver has been banging on against Trump for months yet says other people talk about Trump too much. No quote is too out-of-context for a derisive retweet, no ancient interview too minor for a jab, no association insufficient for guilt. The words “fascist” and “racist” are thrown around like confetti by the usual suspects, though some would call pizza fascist for burning the roof of their mouths.

It’s hard to understand. Issues of immigration and PC have been entombed so deep for the political class that it takes a reality TV star with multiple bankruptcies to advance them. Mission accomplished! So what’s the problem? I guess it’s that there’s still a big minority of the American electorate which, in spite of all of the exhortation of their betters, still has the nerve to hold opinions that should be inexpressible. That big minority has not submitted to seemingly-overwhelming rhetorical forces, and is so desperate after decades of electoral impotence that they’re even willing to line up behind a certified grade-A asshole for lack of any alternative.

Can this experience be replicated elsewhere? In Canada Kevin O’Leary is on the road trying to become some Canadian Trump. Nobody seems interested, except mockingly. O’Leary shares “brash capitalist” pedigree with Trump but nothing else; he’s more like an uglier, ruder Belinda Stronach. But O’Leary not being the man doesn’t mean the man cannot exist, for many of the same cultural artifacts that gave rise to American Trumpism are at work here.

Our Liberal government is enthusiastic about refugees and immigration. The recently-defeated Stephen Harper government was, in absolute terms, also enthusiastic but less so. Many Harper initiatives were targeted at specific immigrant groups. The attempt to ban people from wearing a face veil while taking the citizenship oath. The “barbaric cultural practices” hotline. Taking in fewer Syrian refugees than the Liberals or the NDP. Our national elites unified in opposition, calling these policies “dog-whistle politics”2 just this side of the concentration camps. Today the Conservatives are electoral roadkill. Job done.

Yet polling consistently shows these ideas had support. The niqab ban, struck down by the courts on entirely procedural grounds, has been consistently popular. Despite heart-rending photos and an undisputed humanitarian crisis, bringing in more Syrian refugees has been sharply divisive and the Liberals were eventually obliged to scale down their own plans. The barbaric practices hotline was well-liked, particularly in Quebec, and a post-election poll quoted by reliably-anti-Tory iPolitics gave the dead policy 58% approval. On balance, Canadians supported Harper’s opinions on immigration, that just didn’t overcome the myriad other reasons to ditch the Conservative candidate.

The immigration question in Canada is nothing like what it’s become in the United States. Most people didn’t get worked up and of course these issues aren’t untouchable here. Stephen Harper just touched them. It may not always be that way, though: even these modest moves provoked a media backlash. Michael den Tandt of the National Post referred to those popular initiatives as “an unmitigated disaster,” Andrew Coyne was full of implications, and Lord Black gave Harper a finger-wagging. These are no representatives of the “loony left;” that wing was far nastier, while Harper’s few allies came from choir-preachers Sun Media or The Rebel and possessed little influence beyond their actual circulation.

It’s not enough to disagree with these ideas, establish that they’re wrong, fire them full of holes until they sink without trace. There must be at least an implication that anyone suggesting them is a bad person. Intelligent arguments are made in favour of (for example) increased immigration, but when a party pushes an opposing policy intelligence takes a back seat to insinuation, accusations of ugliness and grumpiness at best and racism at worst. It’s a great position if you want to establish superior moral bona fides, and anybody who opens Twitter can see where the wind is blowing. Not one of the Conservative Party’s blue-chippers at the Manning Conference are picking up this torch, despite the polls.

We already have our own, made-in-Canada political taboos. Introducing an abortion law and re-instating the death penalty, which no candidate for Cabinet will ever look at sideways, retain multi-decade levels of public support dwarfing arguments over what sort of assisted suicide we’ll allow. Serious attention to these has been limited to the Christian Heritage Party and, very occasionally, a couple Conservative backbenchers permitted to run off-reservation secure in the knowledge that they can’t possibly make a difference. Conditions are ripening for an ignored voter base to launch a reaction that’s proportionately quite as powerful as Donald Trump’s.

Nor is our parliamentary system absolute protection. David Orchard, an anti-free trade Liberal, came close to the leadership of the federal Progressive Conservatives thanks to one goofy issue and a certain personal following. Provincially, Alison Redford took control of the Alberta PCs despite the opposition of more-or-less the entire caucus. Redford is now in disgrace, of course, but she was Premier, and had oil prices stayed high and sky palaces hidden perhaps still would be. And then there’s John Diefenbaker, Prime Minister for six years, maybe the last true conservative in the office, and a Western farm lawyer who was never, ever accepted as party leader by the Toronto-centric brass.

If the right sort of firebrand came along—and no, Kevin O’Leary ain’t him—could our assorted Ottawa milquetoasts fall to an angry man with invincible self-regard, the willingness to shout the practically forbidden, and 20,000 new members in his van? Not today, maybe not tomorrow, but in a few years’ time? Americans aren’t uniquely stupid, and when ignored Canadians aren’t uniquely immune to frustration. Much stranger things have happened than “Ezra 2020,” and it serves everyone’s interest for important, neglected issues to be taken up by politicians who are, by the low standards of their breed, reasonably straight-shooting and civilized.

Or just treat ideas you don’t like as political toxic waste, a personal shame to anyone who dares espouse them. That’ll probably be fine.

Ensigns in red always die first

By Benjamin Massey · February 15th, 2016 · 1 comment

Today marks the fifty-first anniversary of the current Canadian flag. For almost a century after Confederation Canada’s flag existed in a nebulous æther, defined by tradition and politics rather than statute. Depending on who you asked, and when you asked them, and how you were using it, the flag might be either the British Union Flag or the Canadian Red Ensign. Even the phrase “Canadian Red Ensign,” today unambiguously associated with the image at the top of this page, could mean any of several designs. A Canadian born at Confederation could live to see a half-dozen Red Ensigns flying from official or semi-official flagstaffs in his lifetime, plus the Union Flag, each more-or-less as valid as the other. This was, let’s be candid, insane.

Many Canadian prime ministers wanted to sort this out, notably William Lyon Mackenzie King, but like good Canadians they saw that, however mad the status quo was, change meant actual decision. So they kicked the can, and in 1963 it fell at the feet of Liberal Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson.

This was all very well. The Fathers should have thought this through at Charlottetown but better late than never. Alas Pearson, who won his spurs playing middle-man for Eisenhower against Britain, France, and Israel in the Suez, was the first but by no means the last Liberal PM who used public policy to overwrite Canadian heritage. From the beginning, Pearson made it clear he planned not to iron out ambiguity, but to give the country a completely new symbol devoid of the British influence that had created the country and still mattered to many millions of Canadians. Despite a to-the-knife battle from John Diefenbaker, the last conservative Prime Minister, in favour of the Red Ensign, Pearson and the Liberals prevailed, as they have on every such occasion since.

For die-hard traditionalists the flag affair will always be bitter, but “bitter” does not mean “illegitimate.” Pearson ran an election and formed a government on a platform that included new, distinct Canadian flag as a major plank. There was no referendum, but as we’ve discussed Canada is a Westminster democracy so there shouldn’t have been. While his rhetoric had a bit of “because it’s 1963” about it he sought out hostile audiences, looked them in the eye, and made his case. The final decision on the design came from a genuine all-party parliamentary committee with real power and influence from the opposition. There was the inevitable swarm of mediocre (or worse) choices but in the end the MPs made what was, if change was a necessity, the best possible choice1. Today’s Maple Leaf was picked almost accidentally by a botched Conservative political manœuvre, but there’s nothing un-Canadian about that. Any subsequent Conservative majority could have made the Red Ensign official if they wanted to expend the political capital Pearson did, and none had the conviction.

The flag itself? Once you know how many points the maple leaf has it’s easy to draw. It’s simple but distinctive. The immortal “world’s flags given letter grades” site awards Canada one of only thirteen A-level marks. The trouble is that leaf, since the maple tree is rarely seen in much of the country, but that was a Canadian symbol long before the flag fracas and our country is kind of big. If Canada had sprung from whole cloth the flag would have been very good indeed, and in the fifty-one years since it has aged well. Say what you will about the message it gave, but the flag itself is above reproach.

So no matter how long I harrumph at Pearson and the Liberal Party, today’s Canadian flag is attractive, appropriate, and was adopted fair and square. The current New Zealand flag debate shows things could be a lot worse.

Next month New Zealanders will cram ballots into mailboxes for their second vote on the government’s desire to replace their own flag, derived from the British Blue Ensign. In Canada, we reserve postal referendums for things like transit taxes the government doesn’t really want, but our sister Dominion has decided they are suitable for changing a nation’s face as well. The first referendum, conducted last December, chose between five options for a new flag, and the second in March will pair the winner off against the current one, like a heavyweight championship for vexillology.

New Zealand prime minister John Key, ostensibly a conservative, has been on the record supporting a new flag for years. However, previous efforts have been stillborn due to colossal public uninterest. Lacking the nerve to campaign on the issue and win a mandate, and hoping to gain legitimacy by direct democracy, his coalition government has worked to ensure the pro-novelty campaign has the best chance of victory while being able to wash their hands of the results.

The referendum was promised in Key’s election platform. A panel of elites was carefully chosen to represent the politicians’ trendiest identity groups, and graced a few citizen-submitted designs with their “inclusive,” “community-driven” imprimatur in a manner “consistent with the Crown’s Treaty Obligations.”2 The government propaganda has consistently highlighted the many great options available for change, with the occasional “oh you can vote for that British flag if you want” thrown in to feign fairness. For example, “word clouds” released by the government were filtered to hide the fact that the most common feedback by far opposed changing the flag, and one panelist worked for a government body that promotes the “fern” logo at home and abroad.

The official infographic comparing the two possible flags writes about the current one exclusively in the past tense, with its Britishness being the most important feature in of itself. The new flag, on the other hand, is in the present tense, alive and vibrant, associated with cultural tolerance and not being Australia. We are even told that “all New Zealanders having a say in this decision honours the rights and freedoms that have been fought for” is a point in favour of change. The electorate knows how the government wants them to vote, without a doubt.

Fortunately, the people of New Zealand are wise. All four (later five) designs on the new flag shortlist were pretty ghastly, overcomplicated try-too-hard rubbish better suited for an IT consultancy than an important Pacific country. A fraud-packed petition added the “red peak,” which looks like the icon of a Fascist party, to the ballot, but the voters managed to choose the least-bad option, it and its colour-swapped brother combining for over 80% of the vote. Not that such a strong preference means they actually like it. With weeks to go polling shows a heavy majority against change. The new-flag forces have been reduced to saying a 20-point deficit shows they have momentum. An Australian betting website will pay 5-to-1 on a victory for the new flag.

Commonwealth citizens are getting used to seemingly-safe leads in the polls evaporating by election day, but it seldom happens as overnight as all that. Nothing is certain in a democracy but this is just about as close as you’re going to get.

Is this an endorsement of direct democracy? In a sense, but remember that New Zealand no longer has a true Westminster system. They use mixed-member proportional voting in their unicameral House of Representatives, rendering the “mandate” possibly extinct. No party has won a majority since MMP was introduced for the 1996 election, and the rule has been ad-hoc coalitions of temporary allies that make a party platform nearly meaningless. Last election Key’s National Party actually came within a seat of a majority3, but he did so without the guts to put a flag change in his platform. What New Zealand’s got is a bastardized non-system that’s preoccupied the media beyond weariness, cost over $20 million, and regardless of the result is guaranteed to offend both winners and losers. The public has enjoyed crooked propaganda and the self-appointed elites who infest these quangos offering a menu of garbage and calling it modern. Even a rejection as decisive as the one New Zealanders seem set to give is hardly justice for enduring such a fundamentally crappy process. Imagine if a real House had a real mandate for change, picked out a simple flag the MPs could compromise on, passed the bill, and ran it up the pole! Or campaigned for such a mandate, failed to get it, and shelved the proposal! But that’s crazy talk.

No, right now the ol’ Pearson Pennant doesn’t look bad at all.

Money, money, money / Must be funny / In the rich man’s world.

By Benjamin Massey · January 20th, 2016 · 1 comment

Thanks to Laura Payton via Twitter I find myself on a website, womenonbanknotes.ca, doing exactly what it says on the label: finding nominees for Canadian women on our banknotes. This is an argument many years old, but with Justin Trudeau in office advocating gestures of tokenism because it’s $CURRENT_YEAR the time is ripe for a revival. (Yes, the Queen has been on the money for the life of everybody reading this, but merely being the much-loved Canadian head of state for decades and maybe the world’s most famous living woman doesn’t count1. That’s the rule, don’t ask me.)

It’s true, Canada has no women except the Queen on our money, which is exactly what you should expect when you think about it. In this country public life was a predominantly male preserve until well into living memory, and apart from Her Majesty our nearest contemporary on a Canadian note is William Lyon Mackenzie King (died 1950). If we expect the people on our currency to have survived the passing of their own era with a certain timelessness, a completely random drawing of notable Canadians from fifty years ago or earlier would create an almost entirely male lineup. In practice, since the Bank of Canada has only ever put deceased prime ministers or reigning monarchs on our money, no Canadian-born woman has been eligible. Kim Campbell, prime minister for a few months before being blown up by Brian Mulroney’s grenades, will get there eventually, but admitting Campbell to the pantheon is rather too overt an admission of “the only thing that matters is her genitals.”2 Our history, where the public sphere was so overwhelmingly masculine for so long, means that a male lineup on the currency should not be viewed as a sign that present-day Canadian women are second-class. Yesterday’s feminists worked hard to change that, and the process is still on-going, but it’s too much to expect even the greatest revolution to apply retroactively.

But of course that’s the way some people do view it, or at least pretend to view it while making it quite clear they manage to overcome the pernicious messages allegedly drilled into the heads of the dwindling few who still use cash regularly. Anyway, what’s the harm? There’s no reason why prime ministers should dominate the currency, even if you’re going to have a hard time picking one to get rid of. King and Borden helped win world wars and the latter extended the vote to women into the bargain. Macdonald founded the country, and as the first francophone prime minister Laurier is considered almost an honourary co-founder, not to mention the patron saint of the Liberal Party. I can pick a prime minister who I’d happily drop for a worthy, non-political woman3. Probably so can you. But I think most of us would pick different people for very different reasons. We could get rid of Elizabeth… you know, the woman. Or sit around waiting for King Charles III, though I sense a greater degree of impatience than that.

Such a problem could be resolved if we could unite around a worthy figure of Canadian history. Agnes Macphail, a pacifist kook who advocated compulsory sterilization of the mentally unfit, is often suggested because she was the first woman elected to Parliament and appeared in a Canadian Heritage Minute on penal reform. Right behind her come the Famous Five, who won the right for women to be considered full “persons” in the political and judicial sense. Two of them, Nellie McClung and Emily Murphy, went on to minor post-Persons Case political careers, although not the sort you’d want to brag about in hindsight. That’s not necessarily a problem. Macdonald took bribes, King was an amoral schemer who was probably literally insane, people are products of their time. But with such light public achievements the case for Macphail, or any of the Famous Five, rests disproportionately on being moral exemplars. Otherwise we’re back to picking people purely because of their gender, and at least Kim Campbell actually was head of the government.

So we go back to womenonbanknotes.ca, and see how far into the depths of Canadian history our people can plunge at need. Macphail and the Five are there, of course, God love ’em. So is Campbell. We have assorted aboriginal and black women whose popular knowledge and impact on history was nil but became convenient rallying points as identity politics two-fers. We have the joke entries, the accidental joke entries, current politicians, the randoms who no doubt led interesting and worthy lives but hardly qualify for what is, in practical terms, the highest honour a country can bestow unto one of its sons or daughters. Singers, actresses, ballerinas, “the first woman to” do something uninteresting. Les grandes dames of Canadian arts are well-represented: Margaret Laurence, Emily Carr, Alice Munro, my god even Atwood. Imagine that if you dare4.

Oh, and Lucy Maud Montgomery. If we must have a woman of Canadian history other than one of the Queens on the money, she would be my pick. Significant in her day while standing the test of time; remarkable, given how seldom juvenile fiction does. YTV thinks there are viewers to be wrung out of Anne of Green Gables even today. She even passes the formidable “has a single non-Canadian ever heard of her” test. Without a doubt Montgomery is the most recognition-worthy of any Canadian artist, living or dead, male or female. Yet I can’t totally sell myself on her importance, not more than William Lyon Mackenzie King’s, not even more than Pierre Trudeau’s. One of Montgomery’s online supporters asks “the UK will honour author Jane Austen on bank notes, shouldn’t we celebrate the author of the famous Anne of Green Gables series?” On a couple levels, that seems to answer itself.

It’s so easy to condescend, to say of a woman like (for example) Mona Louise Parsons, “oh, what an example she is!” with complete truth, but implicitly lowering our standards, judging the women by a lower bar than we do the men. We are not looking for good stories. We are looking for History with a capital H. It doesn’t have to be military or political history, but it has to register. If we play the game, if we divy up these honours according to whichever group of identity politicians thinks they need “recognition” in this specific form, it will cease to be an honour at all.

To be frank, if the nature of our society means that no qualifying Canadian woman exists yet, we should wait for her. Be in no doubt, she’ll come. She’s come elsewhere, in countries close to ours. Give it a few decades and Margaret Thatcher will be on the pound. History is in no rush, so don’t cheapen this honour for the woman who earns it.

Anti-reform maniacs against a referendum

By Benjamin Massey · January 12th, 2016 · 2 comments

Part of Justin Trudeau’s election platform was that “2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.” That’s a promise he’s still trying to keep, and now the game is afoot.

Oh, I don’t mean the argument over exactly which reforms will magically reverse Canadians’ cynicism and turn politicians into shining beacons of public spirit with bushy tails and infinite support for whichever party you like. We haven’t even got that far! The Liberals know change is essential, but what sort of change and the precise “problems” it’s meant to solve can be worked out later. No, we’re still arguing whether the Liberals have the moral right to implement reform through Parliament or whether they must submit to a referendum.

Most opponents of a referendum are reform’s most enthusiastic advocates. This leads to unpleasant implications. Supposed democratic zealots argue that we need a new electoral system to empower voters apparently too stupid to decide which electoral system they want. First-past-the-post allegedly creates false mandates when a plurality of the vote gives a majority of the power, but said power suddenly becomes legitimate when used for a reform you like. It’s, well, it’s Canadian partisan politics at its finest. Parts of the political class have decided they want change and they will get it, perhaps even convincing themselves there’s a silent majority supporting them, but by God you better not ask just in case you’re wrong.

This gives a lot of moral weight to a pro-referendum side aghast at the idea Trudeau could change the electoral system, possibly to the Liberal Party’s permanent advantage, more-or-less according to his whim. Mark Bonkowski in the Sun papers called it an “inherently dictatorial” “ripping apart [of] our democracy’s very foundation.” That sounds so like something Democracy Watch would have said when Stephen Harper used the bathroom without a Supreme Court reference that I got the giggles. Yet even the sane, like the National Post‘s Jen Gerson, can get worked up in favour of a referendum when the case against is made so feebly. Sensible reformists, like Andrew Coyne, accept a referendum under the right circumstances. The best arguments against a referendum have been that it is legal for Trudeau to eschew one (never in doubt) and that the ends justify the means. This is shabby stuff.

As a private in the anti-reform forces I feel like I am ferrying ammunition to the enemy camp. But in fact the argument most respectful of the parliamentary traditions we cherish is that a referendum is not necessary.

The fact is that Trudeau did win an election on a pro-reform agenda. That is what we used to call a mandate. It’s a weak one, since he advocated generic “change” rather than a specific electoral system, but the Liberals laid out terms that can be met. They promise an all-party committee which will weigh the alternatives and deliver its recommendations to Parliament, with legislation to follow. On the campaign trail there was great talk of conversation and consultation. Usually this is standard bafflegab meant to delay or deliver whatever results the party wanted, but if the Liberals take it seriously they’ll be entitled to pass whichever reform commands support. Despite murmurings to the contrary Canadians are not, broadly speaking, stupid. If Trudeau does something the electorate hates then he’ll get lit up like a wildfire in the next election. The opposition parties will be perfectly welcome to run on a platform of whatever reform they choose, including first-past-the-post.

From 1926 through 1955, Alberta had two electoral systems simultaneously. Single transferable vote was used in multi-member ridings for Edmonton and Calgary, while first-past-the-post and (later) instant-runoff voting was used in rural seats. The change from tradition was implemented by the United Farmers without a referendum, and was dispatched by Social Credit equally perfunctorily. At press time Alberta had not descended into autocracy and civil war, though we’ll see what happens if oil prices get much lower.

This is a feature of Westminster democracy. We elect parliamentarians to govern, and they get on with it. As Paul Wells pointed out, national referendums are rare in Canada. Of the three we had, one was a nineteenth-century question on prohibition that the government wound up ignoring, one was William Lyon Mackenzie King wiggling out of an election promise, and one was a demented second shot at a constitutional reform package which blew the Progressive Conservative party to smithereens. Justin’s dad didn’t bother with a referendum on the actual Constitution, and the formula for amending it requires very broad support from provincial legislatures but no referendum.

Our Mother Parliament in London did hold a referendum on alternative voting in 2011, but that was a result of a coalition agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats and hardly applies here. The only other UK-wide referendum so far was the 1975 ballot on remaining in the European Economic Community, in hindsight an advertisement of the referendum’s very worst features. The Harold Wilson Labour government and Margaret Thatcher’s opposition Conservatives both bombarded the country with pro-EEC official propaganda the “no” side couldn’t match. Labour at that time was by no means unanimously pro-EEC and the referendum was essentially a government seeking a show of public approval for something it was going to do anyway, had in fact already begun doing, to cow dissent with a show of electoral force. This is a model to be avoided, not emulated.

Parliamentary supremacy is a core principle of Westminster democracy, and one that has served us well. The further we reduce the abstraction between polis and policy, the more entangled and unproductive our politics become. Take the much-derided and sometimes contradictory ballot motions of the United States or, more locally, the entirely useless greater Vancouver transit referendum. This isn’t snobbery or even anti-populism, merely acknowledgment of a successful system. We who defend first-past-the-post on the grounds that it is tried, tested, and true should not be so quick to demand displays of direct democracy for a change that, while important, would be neither fundamental nor irreversible. If Justin Trudeau oversteps his mandate and betrays his responsibilities, turf him next election in the time-honoured fashion. An extra political campaign might be good for pundits, and it might please die-hard anti-reformists, but it is by no means a political or moral necessity.

There is, I suppose, one serious problem keeping this argument from wider circulation. If you accept that the House of Commons has the right to implement reform without a referendum, provided Trudeau lives up to his mandate of consultation and compromise, you pretty much have to accept that the Senate has the right to block said reform if they feel he hasn’t. A Westminster parliament has its own checks and balances, and some are more fashionable among the smart set than others.

Bringing conservatism to the BC Conservatives

By Benjamin Massey · January 5th, 2016 · No comments

So, farewell then, Dan Brooks, leader of the British Columbia Conservative Party. Brooks announced his resignation as party leader, having taken over in April 2014. No, no, you’re thinking of John Cummins, the former MP for Delta—Richmond East, who managed to get some actual press coverage and double his party’s popular vote in the 2013 election. It’s okay. I don’t think I’d heard of Brooks either and I might fairly be called his party’s natural constituency. That photo up there is so bad because I couldn’t do better. For a sharp young politician who got a decent vote share in 2013 and won the leadership convention by a mile, Brooks is the invisible man.

I feel bad slinging too much mud at Brooks, who took on a very tough job without getting paid for it. However, he found not a fraction of Cummins’s media reach, and since the election the BC Conservative Party may as well not have existed. It can’t all be the leader’s fault, but the price of all that glory is being where the buck stops. “There’s not an election campaign on!”, true, “the media’s not interested in the nattering of a right-wing party with no seats!”, also true and even understandable. A November interview with Brooks did get into the Black Press papers, and started like this:

TF: There was a rumour that you’re in Victoria to join the B.C. Liberal Party.

DB: I don’t know where that started. It’s false. I’ve never talked to a Liberal about anything of that nature, ever.

So that went well.

But what have the Conservatives done for themselves? The official Twitter account has an obscure name, fewer followers than your humble correspondent, has never been more than semi-active, and consists mostly of retweets, media advisories, and Churchillian rhetoric like “no reason4 #BCFerries 2 reimplement fuel surcharge after Christmas season; shud B gone 4good.” The Facebook page is good for less than a post per month. The “Recent News” on the official party website contains a release on Brooks’s resignation, three short posts from December and June, and a Vaughn Palmer column from October copied out of the Vancouver Sun.

I am neither a strategist nor an insider, just some guy. To me, the party’s messaging is not only infrequent but fabulously uninspiring. The preamble of the BC Conservative constitution is a paean to fiscal responsibility. Galvanize the disenchanted Liberal voters of British Columbia with your “[firm commitment] to the concept of accountability to the taxpayers of the Province”! All this talk about “old, recycled ideas” from the Liberals and the NDP and how we need “change” and “a new voice” is so much hooey when your concerns resolve around the cost of a ferry trip and the allocation of hunting licenses. During the election, Cummins enjoyed a generally high profile given his party’s position and got headlines by proposing that convenience stores be allowed to sell beer and wine. Thanks to this plain, common-sense style, the BC Conservatives finished without a seat and several points lower in the popular vote than polling predicted.

Why would you vote for today’s BC Conservatives? Because you’re sick of the Liberals and hate the NDP? That’s a reason to stay home, as 42.9% of British Columbian electors did in 2013. If civic pride drags you to the polls anyway, and you overcome the urge to vote anybody-but-the-party-you-hate, then you might as well go Libertarian, or, hell, Excalibur Party or Marijuana, or whichever other “common sense” gang of no-hopers is available in your riding. The Libertarians wouldn’t only let you buy a bottle of beer at the convenience store, but let you turn it into a bong and get fucked on the porch while shooting a .22 at slow children1! Now that’s real change for British Columbians!

Realistically, not only do the Conservatives have no chance of forming government in the next election regardless of who the leader is but they’d fall over each other in joy if they won a seat. This means that you have to think big, bigger than “fiscal responsibility” and “a new voice” and hunting licenses. You have to give people something to vote for, rather than pointing at what they should vote against. That is common sense.

The BC Conservatives’ current irrelevance does provide one strength. They, for now, should be immune to the power-chasing, loosely-principled opportunists who have contaminated the federal Conservatives and numerous provincial parties. People who are basically Liberals but joined the blue team for tribal or careerist reasons, or as they are more commonly known in Canada “Red Tories,” are already safe within the BC Liberal Party’s bosum. Indeed, so strong is the Red Tory influence on the BC Liberals that wags joke they’ve made the BC Conservatives irrelevant. The past few decades show there’s a grain of truth to that joke, but only so long as the BC Conservatives call plays from the Red Tory book.

What if the BC Conservatives retook their natural role and, rather than splitting economic hairs with the Liberals, defended active, social conservatism? Brooks’s rural focus would have been a great first step had it been stronger. There are still British Columbians who want the tentacles of our government, extended by premiers of every party, cut back, not necessarily for financial reasons but out of principle. Multi-billion-dollar questions like public transit reform and huge new toll bridges sprayed across the Lower Mainland, and local conservative opportunities like neighbourhoods transforming into something long-time residents don’t recognize and don’t like. Fight for Canadians’ intrinsic freedoms from their government, inherited from a constitutional tradition going back to Magna Carta, rather than today’s citizen-against-citizen human rights racket. When the inevitable cantankerous candidate says homosexuality is an illness in front of a tape recorder, and he will, remind the outraged reporters that allowing people to speak on important subjects is an essential liberty in of itself, regardless of whether there’s any chance of them getting their way. There are issues, from how to treat the mentally ill to whether people should be allowed to enjoy their own vices2, that are moribund in provincial politics but seriously impact how people live their lives, and where the old conservative options should be spoken for, changing the conversation even if your party is miles from government.

In short, turn your conservatism into a moral position, a firm idea of how the world works and how government should, rather than dwelling on niche differences and whimpering “don’t you want change?” This will definitely outrage people who would never have considered voting for you anyway, but it might also attract voters who, even if only broadly, like what you’re saying, or like that there’s somebody out there who can say it. There is precious little to believe in if you’re a right-wing British Columbia voter these days, why not offer something? It’s no sure path to power, but trying to be the Liberals without the baggage won’t work either.

I publicly disavow my allegiance to the law of gravity

By Benjamin Massey · December 1st, 2015 · No comments

I’m afraid I can’t discuss Dror Bat-Natan, the new Canadian who has been in the news for taking a false oath, politely. We have here a man who trumpeted the fact that his citizenship oath was a lie, whose first act as a Canadian was to inform us that he was just kidding about the “true allegiance” thing. It’s okay, though; he lied because he wanted something he wouldn’t get if he told the truth. This is an act of moral depravity.

So of course this has the support of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. In a 2014 decision, the Court ruled that having to swear allegiance in the citizenship oath did not violate the Charter rights of Bat-Natan or his co-appellants, but left an old loophole wide open. The oath, the court tells us, is “a symbolic commitment to be governed as a democratic constitutional monarchy unless and until democratically changed.” Question: what is “a symbolic commitment?” It doesn’t especially matter, since the court upheld “the opportunity to publicly disavow what [potential citizens] consider to be the message conveyed by the oath.” This isn’t an invention of the Court of Appeal, merely an example of how unseriously Canadian legislation and jurisprudence has taken such matters. I suspect if I perjured myself a Canadian court, then once it was too late disavowed what I considered to be the message conveyed by my words, they wouldn’t shake my hand after.

The court’s argument, however, was not quite “the oath is meaningless,” worrying though “symbolic commitment” is. In context it looks like the Court was saying an applicant could take the oath as written then make it clear afterwards his loyalty is to the Canadian government as embodied in the Crown rather than the human being Elizabeth Windsor1. Bat-Natan doesn’t appear to have accepted the court’s (sensible) argument that the oath to the Queen is an oath to our governmental institutions. Instead he said it was “comparable to hazing” and that “I don’t think it is a part of Canada to impose political speech on others.” His actual disavowal was “I wish to affirm my allegiance, my true allegiance to Canada and the people of Canada, but also to disavow the royalty part and only the royalty part of the citizenship oath.” Sadly unremarkably this inchoate, semi-literate mess was not only accepted but applauded by citizenship judge Albert Wong. CBC did not specify whether Bat-Natan also affirmed he’d like to have his cake and eat it.

I am a cranky old monarchist, so Bat-Natan opposes an institution I strongly support2. But it doesn’t matter a damn. The Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America is a strongly republican vow which demands that you “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic” by “bear[ing] arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law.” If a hypothetical American eccentric, call him Dreary Ben-Massey, objected to that oath then the appropriate response would be the same: keep your honour and your word, don’t take it, and don’t become a citizen.

Nothing about this is reactionary. We would decline to become a citizen of, for example, Saudi Arabia or North Korea, on moral grounds even if the oppressive laws of those countries wouldn’t affect us personally. If the concept of hereditary monarchy is an offense to your sense of justice what are you doing joining one? How does a lie make it better? It’s no good to say that as a citizen you could work to destroy the monarchy, because you could do that while being true to your oath.

Most Canadians do not care much either way for the monarchy. Others, including immigrants, are stridently republican. Who could object? There’s an old British saying, “the Queen wants no unwilling subjects,” and the Commonwealth’s republican movements prove it. It’s easier to turn a Commonwealth monarchy into a republic than the reverse. If Canadian republicans got an amendment passed abolishing the monarchy Her Majesty would give Royal Assent without demur. You may vote, or campaign, for republicanism without violating your faith or your true allegiance to the Crown, for the oath is to a constitutional monarch and she reigns only at the pleasure of her people. Finally, if you find even this unacceptable, the Crown grants you total freedom to move to a republic. Dozens of them are scattered around the world, and some are even places you might want to live. Bat-Natan is a citizen of the republican State of Israel and his co-appellant Michael McAteer is from the Republic of Ireland3. It honestly is that easy!

It is not for Canada to accommodate itself to people incapable of meeting us on even that exceptionally generous middle ground. There is a reason why, in a day when oaths were sacred, prospective Canadians were asked to swear this one. A Canadian citizen is Us, without hyphen or qualification, and that comes with rights and obligations that must both be absolutely respected. Nobody said this would be all sunshine: there’s no purpose in swearing to do something you always want to do. But the willingness to suck it up and, to a certain extent, toe the line is what makes a community work.

The problem with this philosophy is that it holds immigrant Canadians to a different standard than native-born Canadians, who do not have to take an oath as a condition for citizenship. In an ideal world we would treat both groups equally. A Canadian-born person who found constitutional monarchy too out-of-touch and privileged to give any respect would be able to move to the United States and serve President Trump. Unfortunately this is not an ideal world, and punishing someone who became a Canadian without a conscious choice would be an act of tyranny. We endure this restriction in other fields, when we test potential citizens for knowledge, character, and employability. Paul Bernardo did not lose his citizenship, but if Anders Breivik wanted to move here he’d be rightly turned down. There is no way to enforce the same standards on both groups that does not violate liberty. So be it; we must live with an awkward mish-mash. Exigencies of reality don’t invalidate the whole question.

There is no human right to be a Canadian citizen even if you think our values are crap. Constitutional monarchy is not a value but honesty, obedience to lawful authority, and compromise are. If you can’t even swear your citizenship oath honestly, why does Canada want you?