What do we want to be?

 

In his excellent book about the US Civil War, ‘Battle Cry of Freedom’, James M. McPherson writes the following about the aftermath of that war, “Before 1861, the two words ’United States’ were generally rendered as a plural noun, ‘the United States are a republic’. The war marked the transition of the United States to a singular noun.” The US Civil War was fought for states’ rights, in this case the right to own slaves.

Why is this relevant to Canada? Because Canada is also being challenged by a movement of provincial rights.  At a time where provinces (and territories) are demanding more money from the federal government, they also want more autonomy from federal actions. Alberta has toyed with a law to that effect.  Quebec has trampled on several constitutional rights by use of the ‘not withstanding’ clause.

You have to wonder what the provinces really want in this struggle. Do they want total control of their rights above federal law? Do they want to control their own destiny as the Confederate States of America (CSA) did in 1861? (By the way, the states’ rights were a key policy of the southern states but were one of the key weaknesses of the CSA). Do they want to bleed the federal treasury dry with their demands for ever more money?  Do they want to reduce the federal government nothing more than a money pit, and oh yeah, national defence?  Do they want to abrogate the Supreme Court of Canada from hearing and judging constitutional challenges? Their increasing use of the not withstanding clause would seem to indicate that, in some cases, this last is true. Do they want one Canada or ten or twelve individual entities? 

Nonetheless what do the people want? Surely the majority of us want one Canada. Surely the effort to win over Quebec during the last referendum showed us that we want to stay together as one country; one that includes Quebec and Alberta. Surely, we want one set of overall laws that govern all of us equally more than twelve sets of laws that divide us.

There are a number of factors that divide us. Limits on interprovincial trade are one. Perhaps we should be looking for something like the US interstate commerce laws to try and govern this issue. The provinces would, of course, loudly protest against such a move, but perhaps this is where a strong federal government can overrule. We complain about health care in this country, too often comparing ourselves to the United States (even although our lifespans are longer, and our infant mortality is lower than that country). Our model, however, should be government health systems in Europe. The difference? European health systems are national in scope, not provincial.

You may have discovered in this and previous writings that I am strongly opposed the section 33 (the not-withstanding clause) of the Canadian Constitution. And you would be right. I find it a real threat to our rights that has been used for some of the more ridiculous abuses in Canada (to limit the size of the Toronto City Council? Really!). However, the thought that one of our national political parties would threaten to use it is abhorrent. It is quite conceivable that such a government could limit or eliminate every right we think we have before the law. Even if it were only effective for the five years allowed under the Constitution, it could badly change the way our entire society works.

What, you may ask, do I want by these writings? I want the elimination of the ‘not withstanding clause’ and a federal government that is strong enough to ensure that equality and opportunity are available from coast to coast in this country.

Letters to the Editor

 

Do you read the letters to the editor? Have you ever written any? I have and have had a few published.

It can be an interesting and satisfying experience.  You can blow off steam at some outrageous happening.  You can take exception to some government action. You can express your support or opposition to someone else’s letter or editorial. Or you can try and interject some new or novel idea into the conversation.  All of which I have tried to do over the years.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

George Orwell

I have had letters published in the Ottawa Citizen, The Globe and Mail, the Peterborough Examiner, and the Halifax Chronicle Herald. The Peterborough Examiner is my current go-to site. My most successful endeavour was probably a letter titled, “The Orphan Monument” in the Halifax paper. It was aimed at getting some action on a monument in Point Pleasant Park in Halifax consisting of an anchor from HMCS Bonaventure that includes plaques of sailors and airmen who had lost their lives in service during peacetime.  The monument was deteriorating but nobody would take any responsibility for repairing it. My letter spurred a long editorial of support alongside my letter.  Within a matter of weeks, a number of entities had come together to make a plan and have the monument refurbished.  A very satisfying outcome.

Not all letters will have much response.  You are lucky if someone responds to your letter, even if they disagree with you. At least you know that someone has taken the time to read your letter.

“When everyone is against you, it means that you are absolutely wrong-- or absolutely right.”
  - Albert Guinon

My latest crusade is a very unpopular city government decision to despoil a lovely park with 16 pickleball courts and a parking lot while losing open space and baseball diamonds used by city teams and local kids, while costing the taxpayers millions of dollars. Unfortunately, I have not convinced the city council to rethink their decision.  You can’t win them all.

Maybe you should give letter writing to your favourite outlet a try.  At least it gets you thinking.

“The capacity of human beings to bore one another seems to be vastly greater than that of any other animal.”
  - H. L. Mencken

Freedom!

 

“The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth.”
  - Edith Sitwell

The Collins Gage Canadian Dictionary defines the word freedom as follows:

“1. The state or condition of being free;

2. free use;

3. lack of restraint, frankness;

4. ease of movement or action.”

We’ve heard a lot about freedom in the last couple of years. Most strongly was the so called “Freedom Convoy” in Ottawa in early 2022.  They cried for freedom, most notably from Covid restrictions. They wanted to live their lives without masks or vaccines. Of course, there was no laws against such things.  They were ‘free’ to do just what they wanted in this regard. It is just that there were consequences if they did so such as not being able to enter the United States. But their demands went beyond that for many participants.  They wanted unfettered freedom for just about everything.  Other movements have also demanded this.  Freedom from taxes. Freedom from police. Freedom to protest. Freedom to own and carry firearms. Freedom to ignore governments and laws. Freedom from any responsibility. Unlimited freedom. Even freedom from religion.

“All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.”
  - Benjamin Franklin

There is a word for this type of freedom . . . anarchy. An ugly word in many ways.

If we all lived apart from each other with no interaction, then absolute freedom may be possible.  But the moment we interact, there has to be limits.  We don’t live alone; we live in societies. We live in families. We live with neighbours with whom we interact. We live in communities large and small. We live in provinces and states, and in countries. 

Because we live with others, there must be limits, usually codified as laws.  We must not be able to kill others or otherwise do harm.  We must not be able to steal from others. We must have rules of how we govern ourselves, whether as a family or as a society. Many of the more recent laws have to do with safety; safety of the individual, and safety of the community.

In general, the rules and laws in most liberal democracies as easy to understand and abide by. In autocratic regimes, this tends not to be the case, hence the reason there are frequent protests, revolutions and civil wars in these countries.

During the convoy protest in Ottawa in 2022, I was hoping that those found guilty of fomenting the protest would be sentenced to spend a year in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia or even Russia.  Then they might understand the amount of freedom they have in this country.

Whither the Middle

 

I long for the middle. But it has gone, at least for now.  If someone starts a political party that dedicates itself to the middle ground, I’ll be the first to support it.  You see, no political party currently espouses the middle ground. They talk of the middle class but not of the middle ground. They now occupy one extreme or the other.  The Liberal Party now has moved more left than the NDP used to propouned.  The Conservatives, oh the Conservatives, now want to emulate Donald Trump, Ron Desantos, and other luminaries of the US Republicans.  The only thing they have not done is declare that they were the real winners of the last election, that it was stolen from them.

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
 - George Orwell

I think I can speak for the many Canadians, probably a majority of us, who yearn for a more centrist place in politics and life.  We support diversity, but do not want it stuffed down our throats. We are a little bit conservative (note the small ‘c’) with our family finances but want our governments to spend our taxes wisely.  When it comes to social issues, we generally want harmony and acceptance. We think that our primary requests for governments are good health care and education, just laws, and a competent and fair judiciary. We don’t want to lose our rights to a notwithstanding clause.  We want legislatures where discourse and debate are respectful and enlightened. We want a society where you can discuss divergent view in a meaningful way and come away satisfied with the results.  We want compromise not ‘take it or leave it’. We want acceptance and support for immigrants and minorities. Probably what we most want is honest communication. There are two parts to verbal communication: speaking and listening.  We don’t think the listening part is going very well.

“Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

- Eleanor Roosevelt

 “I wish people who have trouble communicating would just shut up.”

  - Tom Lehrer

But we’re not getting any of things, are we? Take a reasonable position and you are yelled down and even threatened.  Speak out and you’re labeled. Make a request and you’re ignored. This is not how a harmonious and civil society works.  And for many people, it is not working.  We are met with constant cynicism about just about everything.

“A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past, he is one who is prematurely disappointed in the future.”
   - Sidney J. Harris

So can we please move politics and life back closer to the middle.

“Man is a credulous animal and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.”
  - Bertrand Russell

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
  - Aristotle

I will now expect to hear things like, “It’s not like that anymore. Or “Who do you think you’re talking about, not me.”

I think I’m talking about real people. I think that it can be like that if we demand it and live it ourselves.

“To Dream the impossible dream”

 

I should not be allowed to watch movies. I get too upset to bad movies, but if I see one that has a meaningful message, it makes me think.  When I think, it often leads to a blog.  So, here we have a blog that derived from a movie I recently watched.  All because I was allowed to watch movies.

You may recognize the title from the song in the musical show and movie, ‘The Man from La Mancha’.  It was a pretty good show and had some fine music. 

But it was this particular song from the show that really got me thinking. To dream the impossible dream.  No, not the one where you shack with the handsome actor or beautiful starlet. And no again where you suddenly become very rich and powerful. I’m talking about meaningful dreams that can reshape the world we live in.  Dreams for better government beyond anything rival political parties are planning.  Dreams for a better future for ourselves and our children.  Dreams about so many things that could improve the lot of our country, our culture, or the world. Dreams about the end of conflict.

“The only way human beings can win a war is to prevent it.”

General George C. Marshall

Of course, dreaming in itself does not lead to anything being done. For that we need to look at other lines in the song, “To fight the unbeatable foe.”, and “To right the unrightable wrong.”

It takes action to achieve a dream. It needs us to step out of our comfort zone.  It takes the courage to defend your position. It takes the willingness for us to initiate the action and lead it if that is needed. It needs us to step up. It needs us to honestly identify the foe and the wrong and to be able to say why they are the foe and the wrong. It needs us, therefore, to think.  To think what is a better way and how to get there. It means looking beyond cheap rhetoric and easy slogans, and really see the future, both the immediate actions and their consequences. It’s not easy, but it is necessary if we are to see dreams fulfilled.

There are, of course, many reasons to avoid taking action.  Why me? I’m too old/young. What can little old me do? What will me friends and neighbours think? Will others support me.

“Risk! Risk anything! Care no more for the opinion of others, for those voices. Do the hardest thing on earth for you. Act for yourself. Face the truth.”

Katherine Mansfield

We can succeed.  We must assume that others will think like you.  That others will have similar dreams. That others are also committed to taking the risks and the actions. We must support those who can articulate the actions to be done and those that can take leadership roles. Even better, we must be prepared to undertake those leadership roles ourselves.

“The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who stand neutral in times of great moral conflict.”

Dr. Martin Luther King

In my opinion, there a few areas where we can focus our dreams and resulting actions:

And end to bias against others.

The fight against climate change. It is real and it is probably the biggest threat to the future of mankind.

In Canada, an end to the odious Not Withstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  It has and can deny us any and all of our chartered rights.

An end to armed conflict in any form.

Are you ready to dream your impossible dream? Are you ready to follow that dream and do something about it?

But remember one important caveat, do no harm to others. Otherwise, the dream only emboldens more harm.

Three Men

 

Three men in history stand out to me.  These three men had several things in common. All three men espoused the same message. All three men made significant changes to history. All three men met violent deaths. All three men are remembered today. All three men have testimonials about their exploits. The first man is remembered through the written word. The second man is best remembered through a dramatic movie about his life.  The third man is best remembered via a documentary movie about his exploits. One man had probably been a carpenter before becoming an itinerant preacher.  The second man was a lawyer.  The third man was a church minister.

Each man made a difference through the message of non-violence.

The first man was a Jew. He said things such as, “Turn the other cheek” and “Do unto others as would have them do unto you”. His story is told in the New Testament of the Bible. His message formed the foundation for a new religion which spread and is now the most populous religion on the planet.

The second man was a Hindu. His legacy is best told through the movie entitled with his name. His message of non-violence produced the most populous democracy in the world.

The third man was a Protestant Christian. He was one of the best orators of the 20^th century. The best way to see him is in a documentary movie that was rarely shown until recently. His crusade was for equal rights for his race in a country that had a lot of hatred of his people. His legacy is two important pieces of US law, the Civils Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act. Unfortunately, both of these acts are under attack just now.

I’m sure you’ve guest by now that the first man is Jesus of Nazareth. His attempt to reform Judaism led to the formation of the Christian religion.  He was crucified.

The second man is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, popularly known as Mahatma Gandhi.  His story was told in the movie ‘Gandhi’ from 1982.  He was shot and killed in 1947.

The third man is Dr. Martin Luther King jr. The documentary that best describes his achievements is called ‘King: A Filmed Record . . . Montgomery to Memphis’.  This incredible work from 1970 includes his entire “I Have a Dream” speech from the Washington March. It was shown for the first time in television recently on the movie channel, TCM. He was shot and killed in 1968.

These three men showed what could be done by non-violence. Each case effected significant, if not world-shaking, change. So, why have we forgotten these profound messages?

Christmas Movies

 

Every year I try to write a Christmas blog.  This is my contribution for 2023.

Do you watch Christmas Movies? Do you like them?  Are you sick of them yet?

My friend and I have been watching several recently, probably looking for something different in them.  Most of them are your average rom com but taking place at Christmas time.  You know the typical story: a young, and very attractive, man and woman with different backgrounds come together in (name the town or city) and overcoming their difference, fall in love and (supposedly) live happily ever after.  Someone suggested that they could all be generated by AI with only the names and locales being changed.  The other type is the many variations of A Christmas Carol wherein a person embittered about Christmas is transformed during the period of the movie to become a Christmas loving, loving person.  In this genre the original Christmas Carol tale is told, with very little variations, with a different leading many playing Ebenezer Scrooge.  My recent examples include Patrick Stewart and Albert Finney, with the Finney one being made as a musical. The third type is stories about the origins of Santa Claus, like the one we saw last night called ‘The Boy who made Christmas’.  My personal favourite Christmas movie, though, is The Polar Express which is at least unique (so far).  So, there you have it, the plot of every Christmas movie you will see this month.

While we were watching another Christmas movie last night, I realized what was missing.  Nowhere in any of these movies was their any reference to the real Christmas story.  You know, the one about the Jewish baby who was born in Bethlehem who went on to become the most influential man in the western world.  I’m sure all Christians and many others of other faiths are at least familiar with this happening.  Don’t confuse this event with the biblical movies of the 1950s where a Hollywood star of the day, with blue eyes and blond hair, would play Jesus or some other biblical character.  I don’t mean a movie necessarily about the actual journey to Bethlehem and the birth (although a movie about this, told honestly by middles eastern actors could be compelling), but a mention or acknowledgement of why we celebrate Christmas, rather than a pagan celebration of the shortest day of the year (in the northern hemisphere).  Some depiction of the religious significance of Christmas (and I don’t mean praying that you’ll get what you really want as a Christmas present), even if the rest of the movie is about romance, Santa Claus or redemption.

We are losing, if we have not already lost, the real significance of Christmas.  You know something is wrong when seemingly the only measure of the “success” of Christmas was how much merchandise was sold or how may Christmas sales were held.  Wouldn’t it be nice if Christmas success were measured by the number of people who attended a Christmas church service or the number of people who discovered the biblical Christmas story. 

Hallmark has done us no favours by propagating the banal offering that we now take for granted at Christmas.

“The capacity of human beings to bore one another seems to be vastly greater than that of any other animal.”
  - H. L. Mencken