if you can feel something in the air, if you can hear something off in the distance, if you come across something that you can't quite put a finger on, it's because history has been written, fundamentally changing the symbolic face of canada.quebecois is now a nation within canada. symbolically speaking, that is.
prime minister stephen harper introduced the surprise "symbolic" motion on november 22nd in a bid to up the ante on a bloc quebecois motion that sought to declare quebecers as a nation without reference to canada. the motion passed with majority support from all four parties in parliament.
the immediate fallout of this is the resignation of michael chong from the tory cabinet as minister of intergovernmental affairs. chong disagreed with the government's position, and so resigned so he could abstain from voting. when asked about his decision, he replied, "to me, recognizing quebecers as a nation, even inside a united canada, implies the recognition of ethnicity, and i cannot support that." chong himself is the child of immigrants of different nationalities, who found each other in canada and had a family.
the longterm fallout is less certain. some say this will cut some of the leverage the bloc quebecois has with refards to another referendum. others say the wording is not specific enough, that it is too vague. just whom does 'quebecois' refer to? and if the quebecois can be a nation, why not the the first nations people (who arguably have more of a right to indigenous nationality than anyone else)? what about other ethnicities?
the result of all this makes some things very clear to me. 1) the fact that he did not even discuss this with chong, whose portfolio is in direct line with such a motion, before he went public with it, just shows that harper is acting as a one man operation. instead of discussing this topic with the one minister who would be dealing directly with this, he chose to go outside the party and to a different politician who served as the minister of that portfolio in the previous liberal government. this also shows to me that harper, once again, isn't thinking things through. he did this as a kneejerk reaction to the bloc motion, and the consequences of this may be more than what he bargained for. at this point, no one knows who quebecois refers to, and judging from the confusion after the vote, my guess is that not even harper has a clear idea.
2) i was always uneasy with the idea of quebecois being given nation status. chong is right: it implies the recognition of an ethnicity. i would add futher to that statement by saying it implies recognition of an ethnicity above and beyond any other ethnicity. in effect, it says that one ethnicity is better than another, and even though harper still says it is only symbolic, they're still words and i find that once thoughts become word, they become entrenched ideas and these ideas, which are meant to only be symbols, have a nasty way of becoming beliefs, and beliefs tend to divide people, usually for the worse.
3) while i am against putting one ethnicity above another, i am also a realist, and the debate of nationality has been going on for a long time. while i don't think by any mile that this will be the end of the sovereignty debate, i do believe something had to be done, and a compromise had to be made. so if quebecois is to be a nation, at least let it be within a united canada. the last thing i want to see is my country being cut in two. we, or at least my generation has been living for a long time under the shadow of sovereignty, and we'd gotten used to the idea of quebec being different, as the first nations people are different. and because we've been told over and over again that quebecois are different, would it really hurt that much to just say they're a nation? i realize that compromise is what lets people move on, and if this is the first step, then let's see where it leads us. who knows what the consequences will be, because at this point, this motion has passed.
i honestly don't know how to feel about this at this point. it is just too fresh. all i know is that i want a united canada, for every citizen to be considered equal. this motion doesn't do that. but if the alternative means continued aggressive fighting about the topic of sovereignty, and a possible break up of canada... then it may be the way to go. perhaps this is the way it has to be: that in order to get true compromise, one side had to tip its hand first. i don't know. the lesser of two evils? we'll have to see i guess.
all i am certain of, at this point, is that i have much respect for michael chong. whether you agree with him is besides the point. he made a decision based on his principles and you have to respect him for that. at least someone in harper's cabinet has some backbone.
(source 1) (source 2)
National Issue
ReplyDeleteThere was just recently a event that took place, regarding the stepping down of an MP from his party. The name of the MP is Michael Chong, he refused to accept the nation motion, citing a principle of unity. He went as far as saying, that he opposed ethnic nationalism. Whatever that means?
So I write this letter giving my opinion, it was to the National Post. It never made it into the paper even though I saw little opposing views to Michael’s position. There was a mention of it being nothing more than a symbolic move, with that I concur. But I felt he was espousing a deeper position.
This is the e-mail I sent:
The recent happening in parliament raises some important issues. Specifically where Mr. Michael Chong steps down. It seems rather ironic that here is a man who has obvious ethnic roots and yet he is dogmatically opposed to ethnic nationalism. To me it all seems to be related to dialectics-a argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas, but yet he does not attempt a resolution, therefore he is really being argumentative. This is evident in that he is extreme in his position. He is actually wanting to uphold one culture over another: That I suppose is the Canadian culture. Given that Canada has a history of presiding over other ethnic groups, you would think the folly of such antics would be recognized immediately. However it is cited as being a principle, when in fact Canada is known for its multiculturalism. One does not have to be hard-line nationalist to uphold their ethnicity. In fact the issue here is one of respect and being democratic. The strongest Nations that have nations within, are nations that grant distinction and espouse unity. Two principles that go hand in hand and ultimately create a strong environment.
Canada is in a unique position, in that they have three founding people, First Nations, French and British. Ethnic nationalism is to in fact exalt one people over other people. So if Canada is about exalting on cultural way over others, without first giving due process of respect, than the very thing that is wanting to be avoided is in fact being put in place. Unity can not come until respect comes.
However on the other hand, in terms of respect; if I give respect, am I not working on the larger picture? Indeed a united Canada should be our goal, but that will never come until we exercise some respect. Therefore such a initiative of recognition should be applauded, not opposed. Harper is right in doing what he did.
My e-mail has been modified to be made more clear, but for the most part it is what I initially wrote. Historically, putting a culture and way of life over others has been for the most part something that occurred in many parts of the world. But it is something that is not readily accepted today, in fact it goes without saying such tactics are reminiscent of past dictation’s of control and exclusion. The old premise of nation building being a sort of justification is an old, archaic discourse that outlived its purpose. It is time for other nations to rise and bring strength to our country. It is not relinquishing or losing power but gaining extra hands to do the job. Many of the problems lie with minorities, and if the future is going to see a rise in their populations, they may just need to be included. Any plan that is different, will add and give rise to problems that can be for the most part avoided.
I think with regards to Chong, his point was that his parents came to Canada, parents of two distinctly different ethnicities, and became "Canadian."
ReplyDeleteI don't know if this just boils down to semantics, but I suppose it depends on what you'd call "Canadian." I think what he was espousing is that we are Canadian above all else, and if we start with one ethnicity given nationality, why not another, and another, and another? Why not every ethnicity be given a nationality within Canada?
I suppose the ugliest extreme of ethnic nationalism would be the exploitation of it. eg: Rwanda, with lines drawn down ethnic lines. Of course that is just the extreme, and maybe why so many people are opposed to it. Because in a sense, it is recognizing the differences between one type of Canadian vs others.
I realize the nature of the gesture, and I do appreciate it, but I think those that oppose, and me included in some ways, feel that in a time where differences cause friction, it shouldn't be the differences that we focus on, rather the similarities. and recognizing Quebecois as a nation is recognizing a difference; after all, everyone has been saying that the Quebecois are different; do we really need to enshrine it? Asians are different than hispanics who are different than italians, etc.
I understand that this gesture is about respect, for sure, and you're right that we need respect to be unified, but at the same time, in the wrong situation with the wrong kind of people, this difference can be exploited for the negative. And history has shown that humanity can be fickle at times.
That being said, ultimately perhaps this is something that needed to be done. I am a realist after all, and sometimes concessions have to be made. I just wish we'd thought about it a little longer.
At any rate, good letter! Thanks for posting.